AGENDA - Home | City of Fremantle application was previously considered by PSC on 19 February 2014 and Council on 26 February 2014 where it was recommended to defer the item to the

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

Elected Members A Planning Services Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on

Wednesday, 19 March 2014 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.

Philip St John DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 13 March 2014

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 5 March 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1403-48 PSC REPORT - MODIFICATIONS BASED ON COUNCIL MEETING - STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 78 (LOT 27), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (KS DA0473/13) 1

PSC1403-49 ARUNDEL STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - REAR GROUND FLOOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDING ADDITION - (AA DA0600/13) 13

PSC1403-50 DEFERRED ITEM – SOLOMON STREET, NO. 27 (LOT 59), FREMANTLE – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0376/13) 21

DEFERRED ITEMS (COUNCIL DECISION) 27

PSC1403-51 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS 27

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 43

PSC1403-52 THE TERRACE, NO. 1 (LOT 2095), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION (172 BEDS) AND ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PRISON BUILDING - (AA DA0582/13) 43

PSC1403-53 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 99/330 (LOT 99), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO SHOP (HAIRDRESSER), INTERNAL FIT OUT AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE (AD DA0032/14) 50

PSC1403-54 MATHIESON AVENUE, NO. 41 (LOT 25), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0066/14) 57

PSC1403-55 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8 (LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13) 64

PSC1403-56 HIGH STREET, NO. 3/269 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - PATIO ADDITION TO GROUPED DWELLING - (KS DA0048/14) 89

PSC1403-57 JEWELL PARADE, NO. 15 (LOT 31), NORTH FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE AND TWO (2) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0094/13) 93

PSC1403-58 TUCKFIELD STREET, NO. 67 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0606/13) 108

PSC1403-59 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 112

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 113

PSC1403-60 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF TERMS OF REFERENCE AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A 2 YEAR TERM 113

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 122

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1403-48 PSC REPORT - MODIFICATIONS BASED ON COUNCIL MEETING - STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 78 (LOT 27), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (KS DA0473/13) 4

PSC1403-49 ARUNDEL STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - REAR GROUND FLOOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDING ADDITION - (AA DA0600/13) 17

PSC1403-50 DEFERRED ITEM – SOLOMON STREET, NO. 27 (LOT 59), FREMANTLE – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0376/13) 24

PSC1403-51 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS 39

PSC1403-52 THE TERRACE, NO. 1 (LOT 2095), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION (172 BEDS) AND ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PRISON BUILDING - (AA DA0582/13) 45

PSC1403-53 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 99/330 (LOT 99), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO SHOP (HAIRDRESSER), INTERNAL FIT OUT AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE (AD DA0032/14) 56

PSC1403-54 MATHIESON AVENUE, NO. 41 (LOT 25), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0066/14) 65

PSC1403-55 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8 (LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND

CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13) 72

PSC1403-56 HIGH STREET, NO. 3/269 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - PATIO ADDITION TO GROUPED DWELLING - (KS DA0048/14) 166

PSC1403-57 JEWELL PARADE, NO. 15 (LOT 31), NORTH FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE AND TWO (2) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0094/13) 168

PSC1403-58 TUCKFIELD STREET, NO. 67 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0606/13) 175

PSC1403-59 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 182

PSC1403-60 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF TERMS OF REFERENCE AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A 2 YEAR TERM 184

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 19 March 2014

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 PSC1403-48 PSC REPORT - MODIFICATIONS BASED ON COUNCIL MEETING -

STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 78 (LOT 27), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (KS DA0473/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1402-26 (19 and 26 February 2014) Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Acoustic report Attachment 3: Bin storage plan Attachment 4: Applicants response to solicitor’s letter Date Received: 26 September 2013 Owner Name: Tesonzie P/L Submitted by: Ariana Black trading as Rosaceous Scheme: Development zone Heritage Listing: Level 2 Existing Landuse: Restaurant Use Class: Small Bar


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application was previously considered by PSC on 19 February 2014 and Council on 26 February 2014 where it was recommended to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee so City officers could respond to and investigate matters which were raised in legal advice submitted to the City on behalf of an adjoining resident on 21 February 2014. The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as objections were received during the advertising period which are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a partial change of use from ‘Restaurant’ to ‘Small Bar’ at No. 78 (Lot 27) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (subject site). The subject site is zoned Development Zone and is located within Development Area 15 which has no adopted structure plan or detailed area plan. On this basis, the proposed use is not cross referenced in the zoning table and requires Council discretion in its determination. Further, Council discretion is sought in relation to the relaxation of car parking requirements in accordance with LPS4. Subject to recommended conditions that seek to reduce the impact of the proposal upon adjoining residential properties, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle is zoned Development zone and is located within Development Area 15 of which no structure plan or detailed area plan has been adopted by Council. The subject site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area and comprises a total land area of 1382m2. The subject site is identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage List (Level 2) and is included within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. At its meeting on 20 July 2005 Council granted conditional approval for a mixed use commercial/residential development and refurbishment of hotel at No. 80 (Lot 700) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA733/04). On 28 November 2007 the City granted conditional approval for the change of use to Shop and alterations at No. 80 (Lot 700) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA347/07). On 13 November 2008 the WAPC approved the survey strata of No. 80 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, resulting in strata plan no. 51329 of which Lot 27 (No. 78) is comprised. On 9 December 2011 the City granted conditional approval for internal alterations and a change of use to medical centre, restaurant, consulting rooms and health studio to the existing commercial building at No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA0435/11).


Page 3

On 3 September 2012 the City granted conditional approval for the partial change of an existing Medical Centre and Shop to Restaurant at No. 78 (Lot 27) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA0328/12). The use was approved without any restriction on its hours of opening. At its meeting held on 26 February 2014 Council recommended to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee so City officers could respond to and investigate matters which were raised in legal advice submitted to the City on behalf of an adjoining resident on 21 February 2014. The City has since sought its own legal advice in response to the matters raised and has amended the report accordingly, namely addressing the use of the northern car parking area and its impact upon the amenity of adjoining residents during hours of opening after 7pm and the impact of the Small Bar use upon parking in the northern car parking area during day time opening hours for uses onsite. The solicitor’s submission received on 21 February 2014 on behalf of one of the strata owners raises the following issues (summarised):

1. The waste disposal bin area plan is not accurate; 2. The effect of the use of the northern carpark has not been adequately

addressed specifically relating to; a. The effect on nearby bedrooms of strata units in terms of noise and

lights late at night; b. The small bar will not just be patronised after the medical centre has

closed (e.g. daytime on Saturday) which will create parking demand issues;

3. Adjacent residents should have been canvassed and detailed noise, traffic and light studies should have been conducted;

4. The restricted hours of operation in the strata by-laws should not be ignored by Council;

5. The above matters need to be addressed in an amended report to council. The applicant’s response to the above is included in Attachment 4. The City’s solicitors have reviewed the submission and the report has been amended to address item 2 above. The other matters are not considered relevant or have already been covered in the report. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for a partial change of use from ‘Restaurant’ to ‘Small Bar’ at the subject site. The Small Bar use is sought to operate ‘cocktail party’ style functions and seminars at the subject site with its focus to remain upon food. Such events may include:

• String quartets, comedy evenings, small plays; • Wine and food evenings; and • Art exhibitions.

Proposed hours of operation are as follows:

• Monday to Thursday – 7am to 9pm; and


Page 4

• Friday and Saturday – 7am to midnight. The applicant has advised the City that a maximum of 70 patrons are anticipated onsite at any one time. For further details development plans and a description of the proposal are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. Additional information was requested by the City on 11 October 2013 on advice from the City’s Environmental Health department. The following information was provided to the City on 6 November 2013:

• Acoustic report and associated noise management plan (contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report); and

Further, on 6 March 2014 the applicant provided additional information identifying the location of the bin storage associated with the proposed use. It is not considered that any other technical reports or information is required in the assessment of the application in addition to the above, including the provision of a traffic management plan as suggested in the legal advice submitted to the City on behalf of the adjoining resident. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The discretion sought in relation to the proposed land use and car parking requirements are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Fremantle Ports The subject site is located within Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2 and on this basis was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment on 1 October 2013. Comment was received on 16 October 2013 advising that the proposal is required to comply with the built form requirements for Area 2. The application proposes no alterations to the existing building, simply a change of use. Main Roads The application was referred to Main Roads for comment on 3 October 2013 due to the subject site abutting Stirling Highway. Comment was received on 9 October 2013 advising the City that Main Roads has no objections to the proposal. Mains Roads advised the applicant that the property is impacted by an increased road reserve as shown on the Land Protection plan 1.7151 for the current Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment 1210/41, the Rationalisation of Stirling Highway.


Page 5

Environmental Health The City requested an acoustic report associated with the proposed use on advice from the City’s Environmental Health department. Subsequently, inconsistencies were found within the report provided by the applicant on 4 November 2013 and a revised copy was requested seeking corrections. On 15 January 2014 a revised Acoustic report (relevant portions contained as ‘Attachment 4 of this report) was provided to the City and was subsequently referred to the City’s Environmental Health department for comment. Environmental Health advised that they supported the proposed change of use subject to it operating in accordance with the Acoustic report provided. The main management conditions recommended in the acoustic report which are relevant to matters raised in submissions from adjoining properties are as follows:

• Limitations on usage of southern car parking bays; • Entry and exit for patrons to be through the main entrance door on Stirling Highway

only; • Rubbish to be deposited far from southern adjoining residents and to be conducted

within certain hours; • Doors and windows to be shut at all times; • Management is to ensure no loitering occurs outside the building at any time; • Deliveries to occur during daytime hours; • Music shall be at a suitable level for normal conversation to occur; • Music within the venue shall not exceed 75 dbA; • Bass frequency amplifiers should be avoided within the venue; • No amplified or percussive music to be performed in the venue; • Reverberation time for music is recommended to be kept below 0.7 seconds; • No music system to be located outdoors; • For outdoor dining, seats and tables shall have rubber feet and stacking of chairs

shall be done with care; and • Outdoor dining shall be limited to the covered area on the Stirling Highway side of

the premises between 07:00 and 19:00 hours from Monday to Saturday. Heritage No material alterations are proposed to the original built fabric of the building at No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle and on this basis no heritage assessment is required.


Page 6

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 October 2013, the City had received 12 submissions highlighting the issues raised in the following table: Submissions/Objections table from initial public advertising period for DA0473/13 (2 October to 18 October 2013) No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised) 1. Noise Location of bin storage and associated

noise

Congregation of patrons in laneway (south of building) at night

2. Anti-social behaviour Alcohol consumption Safety of residents Security Damage to property Mess and rubbish left in car park

3. Car parking - 4. Traffic Access issues

An overflow of parking may block White Street.

5. Land use incongruent with surrounding character of locality

Other pubs/bars in locality

6. Impact upon property values - 7. Loss of amenity to residents in locality Odours associated with bin storage 8. Against strata by-laws - In response to the submission of additional information, including a noise management plan and acoustic report, the application was readvertised to adjoining properties. At the conclusion of this second advertising period being 25 November 2013 the City received a further nine submissions raising similar concerns to issues raised in the initial advertising period and the following additional concern in relation to privacy:

• People looking from car park into residences. Concerns raised in relation to the suitability of the small bar use within the existing strata are considered issues relevant to being dealt with by the body corporate and relevant by-laws under the Strata Titles Act 1985. It is noted however that matters relating to noise are not specifically covered in the strata by-laws. Concerns in relation to strata by-laws are not considered relevant to this application’s determination against the Planning and Development Act 2005. Relevant planning concerns will be addressed in the planning comment section of this report.


Page 7

PLANNING COMMENT Land Use As the subject site is located within Development Area 15 which has no adopted structure plan or detailed area plan the proposed use is not classified in the LPS4 zoning table. On this basis Council’s discretion is sought in relation to the Small Bar use within the Development zone. Clause 6.2.4.2 of LPS4 states: 6.2.4.2 Notwithstanding clause 6.2.4.1, the Council may recommend subdivision or approve the development of land within a Development Area prior to a structure plan coming into effect in relation to that land, if the Council is satisfied that this will not prejudice the specific purposes and requirements of the Development Area. Nos. 78 (Lot 27) & 80 (Lot 1) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle currently comprise a mixed use development consisting of Multiple dwellings, a Restaurant, Shop, Health studio, Consulting rooms and Medical centre. The proposed partial change of use from Restaurant to Small Bar is considered to be consistent with and support the ongoing mixed use nature of Nos. 78 (Lot 27) & 80 (Lot 1) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. Development Area 15 adjoins land to the north zoned Local Centre, land on the opposite side of Stirling Highway is zoned Mixed Use and the Development Area abuts Stirling Highway which is a Primary Regional Road that is proposed to be widened. In accordance with clause 8.2 (t) of LPS4 a change of use for an approved Restaurant use to Small Bar is permitted without planning approval subject to the use operating within the same hours of operation within both the Local Centre and Mixed Use zones. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to prejudice the specific purposes and requirements of the Development Area and to generally be in accordance with the intent of LPS4. Matters to be considered by Council Based on issues raised in the submissions and the matters to be considered by Council outlined in clause 10.2 of the scheme, the following assessment is provided: The compatibility of a use or development within its setting The proposed use is considered to be consistent with the mixed use nature of the development (refer to land use section above). Concern was raised in relation to the location of the bin storage due to associated odour and noise. Glass and rubbish disposal will be required to be conducted in accordance with the Acoustic report which is recommended to be enforced through a condition of approval. Further, the location of the bin storage has been identified to be at the basement level car park underneath the existing multiple dwellings in the northern portion of the site as per the plan dated 6 March 2014 (contained as ‘Attachment 3’ in this report).


Page 8

This bin storage location is considered to be in accordance with the acoustic report’s requirement for bin storage to be located as far as possible from the southern adjoining properties. The location of this bin storage has been recommended to be enforced through a condition of approval. Any social issues that have an effect upon the amenity of the area The applicant has provided both a harm minimisation plan and acoustic report for the proposed use. Subject to the use operating within both these frameworks the proposed use is not considered likely to result in significant adverse social issues that may be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining residential properties or the locality. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the Acoustic report dated 15 January 2014. The harm minimisation plan is considered to be dealt with and implemented through the applicant’s requirement to obtain liquor licensing from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor. It is understood that the Small Bar use is sought so the venue can serve liquor to standing patrons at ‘cocktail party’ style functions. The applicant states that the focus of the venue will remain on food. The balance of both food and alcohol are considered to reduce the likelihood of alcohol related antisocial behaviour. The current approved Restaurant use has no limitation on its hours of opening and may trade in evenings. The impact associated with a change in land use from Restaurant to Small Bar is considered minimal provided that hours of operation are limited and the recommendations of the acoustic report are adhered to with the major change being that liquor can be served to patrons whilst standing up. Also Small Bar land uses limit the number of patrons to a maximum of 120 at any one time, whilst Restaurant as a land use has no restriction on the number of patrons allowed within the venue. The applicant has advised that the proposed use does not seek to have in excess of 70 patrons onsite at any one time. Council may consider a maximum of 120 patrons within the proposed Small Bar excessive due to its close proximity to Residential uses and may wish to enforce a condition of approval limiting a maximum of 70 patrons onsite at any one time. Further, to support the amenity of adjoining residential land uses conditions of approval have been recommended that limit hours of opening to those proposed and restrict the Small Bar use from the use of car parking bays in the car parking area located south of the Rose Hotel building. Preventing use of the car parking bays in the southern portion of the site may reduce the likelihood of antisocial issues in this area as this portion of the site is not considered to have ready surveillance from the street and directly abuts southern adjoining residential properties. The use of the northern car parking area by the proposed Small Bar use after 7pm is not considered to result in a significant impact upon the amenity of residents in the locality. The acoustic report provided predicts that whilst residents may experience an increase in vehicle movements after 7pm, the contribution of vehicle movements is unlikely to result in a significant impact upon residents given traffic noise associated with Stirling Highway, of which the northern car park abuts. Further, the current approved Restaurant has no limitation on its ability to operate during the evenings and nights in which it may utilise the northern car parking bays.


Page 9

Car parking The subject site comprises 24 onsite car parking bays with 23 car parking bays exclusively serving the commercial uses within the Rose Hotel on Lot 27. The other commercial uses on site include Consulting rooms, Shop and Medical centre. The applicant has advised that the car parking bays (12 bays) provided in the southern portion of the site will not be utilised for the proposed use due to potential amenity and noise impacts for adjoining residents as recommended in the acoustic report. This will be enforced through a condition of approval as discussed. This leaves 11 of 24 bays onsite capable of servicing the proposed use in addition to existing uses onsite. On 3 September 2013 the City granted conditional approval for the partial change of use for the existing Medical centre and Shop to Restaurant at No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA0328/12). A variation to the car parking requirements of LPS4 was supported for 11 car parking bays on the basis of a reciprocal parking arrangement being made with the owners of the Croatian Catholic Church at No. 92 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The current onsite car parking provision and shortfall is as follows: Use Requirement Proposed Variation ‘Restaurant’, 51.91m² of dining area proposed

1 Car Parking Bay per 5m² dining area

11 Bays Nil 11 Bays

1 Delivery Bays per service/storage area

2 Bays Nil 2 Bays

1 Bicycle Racks - 1:200m² gla

1 Rack 1 Rack Nil

LPS4 does not specify a parking requirement for a Small Bar land use but Council has previously determined this land use’s parking requirement against that required for a Tavern which will be used in the assessment of this application. The car parking requirement for Tavern is 1 car parking bay for every 2.5m2 of public bar area or 1 car parking bay for every 5m2 of lounge/garden area. As the proposal does not provide for a specific bar area within the premises the latter parking requirement for Tavern has been applied. On this basis, the car parking requirement for Small Bar is consistent with the car parking requirement for Restaurant. The existing Restaurant land use was approved based on a parking assessment for a dining area of 51.91m2 (tenancy 4). The current application proposes to increase the effective floor area of the Small Bar use to both tenancy 3 and 4 which comprises an effective Small Bar lounge area of 112.59m2. The current onsite car parking calculation is as follows: Use Requirement Proposed Variation ‘Small Bar’, 112.59m² of lounge area

1 Car Parking Bay per 5m² lounge area

23 Bays Nil 35 bays (23 bays associated with use and reduction in provision of 12 car parking bays in southern portion of site).

1 Delivery Bays per service/storage area

1 Bays Nil 1 bay

Bicycle Racks - N/A

N/A N/A N/A


Page 10

Thus the overall car parking requirement has increased based on the additional floor area sought for the site (23 bays) and the reduction in onsite car parking provision (12 bays in southern portion of the site will not be utilised by the proposed use). It is recommended that Council support the car parking shortfall in accordance with the relaxation of parking requirements of LPS4 for the following reasons:

• The subject site is in close proximity (less than 250m) from the North Fremantle rail station and is located on Stirling Highway which is a high frequency bus route. Further, the North Fremantle rail station provides a public car parking area comprising approximately 70 car parking bays;

• All but five of the car parking bays and the universally accessible bay located in the parking area to the north of the Rose Hotel building are exclusively provided for visitor parking associated with commercial uses within the Rose Hotel building. The majority of resident car parking is provided underneath the Multiple dwelling development which is protected by security access. On this basis, it is unlikely that the proposed use will have any significant impact upon resident parking amenity onsite;

• The use of the car parking bays in the northern car parking area by the proposed Small Bar use during daytime hours is not considered to further reduce onsite car parking amenity. The existing Restaurant use currently opens during day time hours in conjunction with other approved uses (Consulting rooms, Medical centre and Shop) onsite and its change of use to Small Bar is not anticipated to significantly increase daytime car parking demand. Further, 5 of the 12 car parking bays located in the southern car parking area are exclusively provided for the Medical centre use between the hours of 8am to 8pm and on this basis, the change of use is not considered to significantly impact upon the provision of car parking for the existing Medical centre onsite; and

• It is noted that a delivery bay is required to be provided for the proposed Small Bar use. This requirement poses no change to the existing delivery bay requirement associated with the approved Restaurant use which was waived in planning approval DA0328/12 on the basis of there being sufficient space for the access of a delivery vehicle to the south of the subject site.

CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the City’s LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant Council policies. The partial change of use requires Council discretion in its determination as the subject site is located within Development Area 15 which has no applicable structure plan. Further, Council discretion is sought in relation to a car parking shortfall associated with the proposed use. It is considered that the Small Bar use is consistent with the mixed use nature of the development onsite and local planning context. Further, subject to conditions, the proposed use is not considered to have any significant impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality in the nature of the use or car parking shortfall. Accordingly, the application is recommended for condition approval.


Page 11

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use from Restaurant to Small Bar at No. 78 (Lot 27) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, Business Management Plan and Acoustic report, dated 25 September 2013, 15 January 2014 and 6 March 2014 respectively. 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 use is to operate in accordance with the Acoustic report – Noise assessment for change of use for the Rose Medical and Aesthetic Centre dated 15 January 2014 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Any bins associated with the Small Bar use are to be stored in the location indicated in blue on plan dated 6 March 2014 and are not permitted to be stored anywhere else onsite to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. That any onsite car parking associated with the Small Bar use be limited to

the car parking bays to the north of the Rose Hotel building and the use shall not occupy any car parking bays located in the southern parking area as indicated in red on the approved basement plan dated 25 September 2013. Prior to the occupation of the development the southern parking area is to be sign marked accordingly and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development the 3 kitchen windows are to be

modified and maintained to achieve a higher level of acoustic insulation to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. In order to satisfy this condition prior to the issue of a Building Permit detailed plans of the specific method by which this is to be achieved is to be submitted in consultation with the City’s Heritage Coordinator. These windows are to remain closed as much as reasonably practical and shall be kept closed between the hours of 7pm to 8am.

6. That the Small Bar hours of operation be limited to 7am to 9pm from Sunday to Thursday and 7am to 12am on Fridays and Saturdays to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. No amplified music is permitted to be played in the kitchen between the hours

of 7pm to 8am.


Page 12

Advice Note:

i. The applicant is advised the subject site is impacted by an increased road reserve as shown on the Land Protection plan 1.7151 for the current Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment 1210/41, the Rationalisation of Stirling Highway. For further information the applicant is advised to contact Main Roads WA on 138 138.

ii. This decision does not remove the obligation of the applicant/owner to seek the necessary approvals under the strata titles act.


Page 13

PSC1403-49 ARUNDEL STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - REAR GROUND

FLOOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDING ADDITION - (AA DA0600/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1402-14 (5 February 2014) Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photos Date Received: 6 December 2013 Owner Name: SM Byrnes Submitted by: SM Byrnes Scheme: Residential (R35) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for Rear Ground Floor Additions to an existing Single Storey Single House and Outbuilding addition at the subject site. At its meeting of 5 February 2014 the PSC considered the application and resolved to defer the application in order the outbuilding’s wall height to be reduced and that once this change is made, the application could be dealt with under delegation. Since this time, officers have explored potential changes to the proposal with the applicant to address the above resolution. The applicant has advised that it is preferred that the application be considered as proposed. Accordingly the application is again present to the PSC for determination with no changes. As per the previous report on this matter, the application is recommended for approval. However should the PSC form an alternative view, a recommendation for refusal is also provided. BACKGROUND

The 617m2 subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R35 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) and is located within Sub Area 4.3.1 of the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The subject site is however, zoned ‘Central City’ pursuant to the MRS. On 6 December 2013 the City received the current development plans. A search of the City’s records revealed that there is no other relevant planning history pertaining to the subject site. At its meeting of 5 February 2014 the PSC considered the application and made the following resolution;

1. ‘Defer the item to enable the applicant to prepare revised plans to indicate a reduction in southern wall height and bulk and scale. 2. Note that the application may be determined under delegation following this revision.’

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for Rear Ground Floor Additions to the Existing Single Storey Single House and Outbuilding Addition at the subject site including;

• A rear addition to the existing single storey dwelling at the subject site including new kitchen, dining and living areas. The proposal also includes the modification of the existing dwelling to contain four bedrooms, bathroom and theatre areas;

• A rear external raised deck/alfresco area at the rear of the new additions directly accessible from the main living areas of the dwelling;

• A rear outbuilding located on the northern and western boundaries of the subject site with a floor area of approximately 62m2.


Page 15

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. No modifications to the proposal have been made since the 5 February PSC meeting. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Merit based decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

• Lot boundary setbacks (side & rear boundaries) (boundary walls); • Visual privacy; • Vehicle access; and, • Outbuilding size.

These merit based decisions are discussed further 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. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 21 January 2014, the City had received 1 submissions objecting to the proposal. The following issues were raised:

• The outbuilding is excessive with its internal ceiling height of 3.50m. A ceiling

height of 2.4m-2.57m above floor level would be more appropriate; • The outbuilding is an imposing and bulky structure that creates a distracting,

visual eyesore when viewed from our courtyard. • The outbuilding will exceed the height of the rear fence by approximately 1.6m

over a length of approximately 9.0m; • The proposed size of the outbuilding is excessive measuring greater than

60m2 and with a ridge height of 4.2m; • Concern is raised in relation to the potential use of reflective building

materials; • The length of the structure along the rear boundary is over half the width of

the rear boundary which is considered to be excessive and severely impacts on the use of adjoining outdoor living areas.

Consideration of relevant matters raised is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. The proposal has not been readvertised since the 5 February PSC meeting.


Page 16

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks Boundary Wall

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based

assessment Outbuilding (North

& East) Walls built up to or within

750mm 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.

9.0m long x 3.1m high, 300mm from

the northern boundary

See comments.

6.9 long x 3.8m high, 300mm from

the eastern boundary

The proposed boundary walls are 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 as measured by the R-Codes owing to its location of the northern boundary and eastern boundary. Shadow cast by the proposed outbuilding will fall over the subject site;

• The boundary wall proposed to the northern boundary does not directly adjoining an existing outdoor living area. The outdoor living area on the adjoining site at No. 21A Suffolk Street is located near the western boundary of that site;

• The boundary walls proposed to the eastern and northern boundary are not considered to represent excessive building bulk owing to the existing character of two storey development near to boundaries within the immediate area and the limited wall lengths proposed;

• The proposed boundary wall to the eastern boundary adjoins an existing two storey building currently under construction (see Attachment 2). The boundary wall will be of significantly lesser scale than contained in this building;

• There is an existing character of development built close to boundaries, largely consisting of two storey development including that on No. 19A and 21A Suffolk Street, Fremantle. Moreover, the density of the subject site, being R35, contemplates higher density development including development closer to side boundaries. This is particularly evident at No. 30 Arundel Street where walls up to 5.6m high are located 1m from both the rear and side boundaries of that site; and,

• The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.


Page 17

Side & rear boundary setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

West 1.5m 1.2m 0.3m The lesser setback 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 western adjoining property;

• The proposed setback is consistent with the side setback of the existing dwelling;

• 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.

Visual Privacy


Alfresco (North and west)

7.5m 5.5m 2.0m

Study, Family & Dining Rooms

(East)

4.5m 4.2m-4.4m 0.1m-0.3m

The proposed lesser cone-of-vision setback to the northern boundary is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes. This is on the basis that the cone-of-vision covers an outdoor living area on the adjoining property at No. 21A Suffolk Street, Fremantle. A condition of approval requiring screening of this elevation is therefore recommended. However, it is noted that the existing boundary fence may provide a sufficient visual barrier between the two sites and could be used, or extended, in lieu of a formal screening device. The proposed cone-of-vision setback to the eastern boundary is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The cone-of-vision affects a side access area to the adjoining site at No. 30 Arundel Street and does not affect any existing outdoor living area or major openings;

• The elevation is already significantly restricted by an existing boundary fence; • The exercise of discretion sought is otherwise considered to be minor in

nature.


Page 18

Vehicle access

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

Driveways designed for two way access to allow for vehicles to enter the street in a forward gear where; • The distance from a car space to the street is 15m or more.

34.1m See comments

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

• The stated 24.1m reversing distance is based on vehicles utilising the proposed outbuilding for parking. This may not occur as there is a significant area of hardstand available along the subject sites eastern boundary for tandem parking;

• The subject site is a Single House site meaning there are limited opportunities for dangerous interaction between vehicles on the site. This may not be the case for Grouped Dwelling sites where access may be shared;

• The low fencing existent at the front of the subject site allows for sufficient vehicle sightlines between vehicles and pedestrians;

• The driveway to the subject site is straight and contains no physical or visual obstructions. In that respect, the proposed access is considered to be safe in use; and,

• Arundel Street is considered to be a low traffic speed and volume environment and vehicles reversing to this street are not considered to present a significant traffic hazard.

In addition to the above, the applicant has also advised that the likely use of the outbuilding is for storage, as opposed to vehicle parking. Outbuildings

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment Collectively do not exceed 60m2 62m2 See comments

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

• The proposed outbuilding is located at the rear of the subject site and visibility of the building will not impact the existing streetscape;

• The proposed outbuilding will be visible from the adjoining residential property at No. 21A Suffolk Street as a result of proposed boundary walls. As discussed earlier in this report, the boundary walls are not considered objectionable in term of bulk and scale;

• There is an existing character of buildings directly adjoining the subject site of a similar height, scale and setback to adjoining properties. In this regard, the proposal is not consider having an impact on visual amenity; and,

• The exercise of discretion of 2m2 is otherwise considered to be minor in nature and indistinguishable from adjoining sites.


Page 19

CONCLUSION

The proposed development for rear ground floor additions and alterations to the existing dwelling on the site as well as an addition of an outbuilding is recommended for approval. During the community consultation period for the application an objection was received relating to the bulk and scale of a rear boundary wall. At its meeting of 5 February 2014 the PSC resolved to defer the application to allow for modification to be made that address the concerns raised in the submission and by the PSC. The applicant has not made changes to the proposal and seeks a determination of the plans as proposed. Should Council form an alternative opinion to officers, there are several options open to Council that include:

1. Approving the application subject to a condition requiring that the northern wall height of the proposed outbuilding be reduced from 3.1m to 2.4m. A wall height of 2.4m for an outbuilding meets the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes. Such a condition would read as follows:

“The wall height of northern wall of the outbuilding is to be reduced to a minimum of 2.4m.”

2. Approving the application subject to a condition requiring that the northern

boundary wall of the outbuilding be setback a minimum of 1.0m. Such a condition would read as follows

“The northern wall of the outbuilding is to be setback a minimum of 1.0m.”

3. Refusing the application. A refusal recommendation would read as follows:

‘That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Rear Ground Floor Additions to Existing Single Storey Single House and Outbuilding Addition at No. 26 (Lot 2) Arundel Street, Fremantle, for the following reason; 1. The proposed northern boundary wall will negatively impact the amenity of

adjoining properties in regards to access to building bulk.’ OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Rear Ground Floor Additions to Existing Single Storey Single House and Outbuilding Addition at No. 26 (Lot 2) Arundel Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 6 December 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 20

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern and eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

4. Prior to occupation, the western and northern elevation of the external alfresco area shall be either:

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

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

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

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

d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,

in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 21

PSC1403-50 DEFERRED ITEM – SOLOMON STREET, NO. 27 (LOT 59),

FREMANTLE – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0376/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Photos from site inspection Date Received: 5 August 2013;

5 November 2013 (overlooking diagram) Owner Name: Phillip Stephen Wilton & Ms Alison Dawn Burton Submitted by: Roger Munckton Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

Not within a prescribed Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The proposal was previously considered by PSC on 19 February 2014 and was deferred in order for the owner to attend the meeting. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for alterations to existing two storey Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) ‘design principles’ in relation to: • Visual privacy The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes or can otherwise be made to comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions through conditions of planning approval. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. 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 Fremantle Local Planning Area 2 (LPA 2) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Knutsford Street to the north, Bellevue Terrace to the west, Forthergill Street to the south and Solomon Street to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 582m2, has an east-west orientation and is currently improved by a two storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 4.00 metre downwards from its eastern (front) boundary to its western (rear) boundary. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application: • On 22 June 2011, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for a two storey

addition to an existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0099/11);

• On 13 December 2013, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for boundary and primary street fence addition to existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0595/13). It is noted that this fence was located along the southern boundary and the reference to ‘primary street fence addition’ relates to the fact that the proposal included fencing along the southern boundary but within the 5.00 metre primary street setback area.


Page 23

On 19 February 2014 PSC considered the application and resolved:

“to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow the applicant to be present.”

DETAIL

As detailed in the ‘Background’ section of this report above, on 22 June 2011, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for a two storey addition to an existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0099/11). Condition 2 of the Planning Approval for DA0099/11 stated:

“Prior to occupation, the mid level window(s) on the southern elevation shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.65 metres above the upper floor level or alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level and the mid level balcony shall be screened appropriately to prevent overlooking in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

This condition related to the mid level windows associated with the ‘living room’ and ‘balcony’ on the southern elevation of the proposal and had to be satisfied prior to occupation of the dwelling. During the construction period, the City received a complaint regarding the compliance of the condition, however upon investigation by the City, it was determined that no breach to the Planning Approval for DA0099/11 relating to Condition 2 had occurred at that time as the dwelling was not yet occupied. The City observed that whilst the mid level windows associated with the ‘living room’ and ‘balcony’ on the southern elevation of the proposal were indeed ‘obscured’ or ‘translucent’, they were not ‘fixed’ and were in fact operable awning type windows. The windows would need to be both ‘fixed’ and ‘obscured’/’translucent’ so as to comply with Condition 2 of the Planning Approval for DA0099/11. Nonetheless, the owner of the subject site was advised by the City that should they occupy the development with the mid level windows remaining as awnings, then they would be in breach of Condition 2 of their Planning Approval for DA0099/11. Accordingly, they were advised to lodge a new application for Planning Approval with the City for alterations to the existing two storey Single House, whereby they would seek consideration for an amended proposal. On 5 August 2013, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a alterations to the existing two storey Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0367/13). On 5 November 2013, the applicant submitted an overlooking diagram demonstrating how the operable awnings, when fully opened, restricts the direct line of sight within the cone of vision so to be contained wholly within the subject site. The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report.


Page 24

It is noted that during a site inspection undertaken on 18 October 2013, the City observed a number of other elements that have been constructed on-site without obtaining the necessary Planning Approval from the City, including: • Front ‘portico’; • Primary street fencing (eastern boundary and northern boundary within 5.00 metres

of the street); • Side (northern) boundary fencing; • Side (northern) boundary retaining above 500mm in height. The applicant has recently submitted a separate application for retrospective Planning Approval for the above matters (DA0027/14), and as such it will be recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed deleting these items from this approval so that they are dealt with separately. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R-Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 September 2013, the City received three submissions pertaining to the proposal, raising the following concerns relevant to planning: • Visual privacy

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Visual privacy

No. Required Proposed 1 6.00m setback for mid level ‘living’ (4 x awning windows) to

southern adjoining property 5.10m

2 6.00m* setback for mid level ‘enclosed balcony’ to northern adjoining property

2.10m

*Whilst denoted as ‘enclosed balcony’, it is not considered to satisfy the definition of ‘balcony’ as provided for in the R-Codes and as such, has been treated as a habitable room other than bedrooms and studies for the purposes of assessing visual privacy setback requirements. The proposal for the reduced setback for the mid level ‘living’ (4 x awning windows) to the southern adjoining properties is considered to satisfy the design principles for the following reasons:


Page 25

• There will be minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the southern adjoining properties achieved by the awnings having a limited degree of movement (when fully open);

• This limited degree of movement is considered to restrict the direct line of sight within the cone of vision so as to be contained wholly on-site.

Notwithstanding, it will be recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed to the effect of:

“The four (4) mid level awning windows associated with the ‘living’ room on the southern elevation shall be limited in movement so as to not project more than 200 millimetres from the external face of the southern wall of the dwelling when fully opened and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

The calculation of 200mm is based on the visual privacy/overlooking plan submitted by the applicant dated 5 November 2013 and is measured from the external face of the wall. It is considered that this condition is appropriate to impose as the applicant has used this measurement as the basis for the restriction of the direct line of sight within the cone of vision to be contained wholly on-site. The proposal for the reduced setback for the mid level ‘enclosed balcony’ to the northern adjoining property is not considered to satisfy the design principles for the following reasons: • Overlooking of the outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the northern

adjoining property, being No. 25 (Lot 60) Solomon Street Fremantle will occur; • Therefore, it is recommended that a condition of planning approval be imposed

requiring the western elevation of the mid level ‘enclosed balcony’ be appropriately screened so as to restrict overlooking of the northern adjoining property.

CONCLUSION

The proposed alterations to existing two storey Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the R-Codes. Further, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ pertaining to visual privacy of the R-Codes. Where the proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy, it is considered that it can otherwise satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards via imposition of a condition of approval. Accordingly, 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 alterations to existing two storey Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:


Page 26

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 5 August 2013 and 5 November 2013. 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. This approval does not relate to the following development as marked up in red on the approved plans, dated 5 August 2013: a) Front ‘portico’; b) Primary street fencing (eastern boundary and northern boundary within 5.00

metres of the street); c) Side (northern) boundary fencing; d) Side (northern) boundary retaining above 500 millimetres in height;

3. Prior to occupation, the ‘enclosed balcony’ as contained on the mid level on the

western elevation shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

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

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

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

d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


4. The four (4) mid level awning windows associated with the ‘living’ room on the

southern elevation shall be limited in movement so as to not project more than 200 millimetres from the external face of the southern wall of the dwelling when fully opened and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Note: (i) The applicant is advised that in relation to Condition 3 above, the measures

are to be designed so as to restrict overlooking of the northern adjoining property.


Page 27

DEFERRED ITEMS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1403-51 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET

AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS DataWorks Reference: 117/034 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 19 March 2014; Council 26 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: 24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107;

27 November 2013 PSC1311-183; 26 February 2014 PSC1402-32

Attachments: 1. Text track Changes Version: Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle


Page 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present and propose an amendment to the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11) to Council. Officers recommend that Council adopt the modified local planning policy for public comment. In April 2013, the City was requested by H.L.M Holdings, the owner of the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site – 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the applicant), to consider amending the City’s LPP3.11 to include additional height on the applicant’s site. The request was presented to Council in April and Council resolved to hold the request in abeyance until all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted to establish whether they were willing to participate in a coordinated approach to reviewing LPP3.11. A further report went to Council in July advising that there was only limited landowner support for an extensive review of LPP3.11. In November 2013 and February 2014 Council considered a report recommending proposed modifications to the policy. Both of these reports were deferred to enable further consultation specifically with the owners of 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle. Following further consultation, officers consider there is scope to modify LPP3.11 in a limited way that considers and safeguards view corridors and the amenity of the area in a manner consistent with the original purpose of the policy. Therefore officers propose limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height, at Council’s discretion, in the newly defined locations of zone H2 (to the rear of the former Matilda Bay Brewery/Ford factory heritage building) and zone D2 (the south west portion of 9-11 McCabe Street fronting McCabe Street), subject to meeting specific design criteria. The other modifications to the policy are general updates to the wording and an additional control over height on the eastern part of the former Matilda Bay brewery site adjacent to McCabe Street. BACKGROUND

In April 2013, the City was requested by Greg Rowe and Associates along with Mackay Urbandesign and Oldfield Knott Architects acting on behalf of H.L.M Holdings, the owner of the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site – 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the applicant), to consider amending the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11 or the policy). LPP3.11 was adopted by Council in April 2009 (Refer to 22 April 2009 Council minutes PSC0904-72) and was based on the McCabe Street height study. This area includes a number of significant potential redevelopment sites such as the former One Steel site at 140 Stirling Highway, 9-11 McCabe Street (Tasker’s site) and 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the former Matilda Bay Brewery site). The heights prescribed by the policy, for the area, are as depicted in figure 1 below.


Page 29

The applicant originally requested LPP3.11 be modified to include an increase in the building height permissible under the policy to up to 40m in height in zone H behind the former Matilda Bay Brewery building as per figure 2 below.

The request was presented to Council at its ordinary meeting 24 April 2013 (PSC1304-58) and Council resolved to hold the request in abeyance until all landowners in the LPP3.11 area could be contacted to establish whether they were willing to participate in a coordinated approach to reviewing LPP3.11. Following Council resolution all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted and a further report was presented to Council 24 July 2013 (PSC1307-107).


Page 30

This report conveyed that there was only limited support for a comprehensive review of the policy from landowners in the area and the item was deferred to allow further discussion with landowners. Following further consultation between the City and the landowners of 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street, proposed modifications to LPP3.11 were presented to Council on 27 November 2013 (PSC1311-183) and 26 February 2014 (PSC1402-32). Council resolved on 26 February 2014 Council to: Defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow opportunity for further discussion with land owners over possible further amendments to the draft policy. For further background please see previous ordinary meeting of Council reports (24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107; 27 November 2013 PSC1311-183; 26 February 2014 PSC1402-32). CONSULTATION

Officers initially held two landowner meetings following Council’s resolutions in 24 April and 24 July 2013. The first landowner meeting was held on the 11 June 2013 with the landowners/ representatives from the following properties:

• 9 - 11 (Lot 315, 326 and 18) McCabe Street (Taskers), North Fremantle • 130 (Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 & 253) Stirling Highway (Matilda Bay),

North Fremantle • 140 (lot 2) Stirling Highway (One Steel), North Fremantle • 21 (Lot 19) McCabe Street, North Fremantle

The second landowner meeting was held 30 July 2013 and included representatives/ landowners from:

• 9 - 11 (Lot 315, 326 and 18) McCabe Street (Taskers), North Fremantle • 130 (Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 & 253) Stirling Highway (Matilda Bay),

North Fremantle • 140 (lot 2) Stirling Highway (One Steel), North Fremantle

Officers have also individually met with the applicant and landowners and representatives of 9 - 11 McCabe Street and 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle several times. After Council deferred adoption of the proposed modified LPP3.11 on the 27 November 2013 the Mayor, Chair of Planning Services Committee and City officers held a meeting with the landowners of 9 - 11 McCabe Street and 130 Stirling Highway. Following the further deferral of the matter by Council on 26 February 2014, officers have held further discussions with both landowners to discuss further potential policy modifications that might address previous concerns raised by the landowners of 9 – 11 McCabe Street. These modifications form part of the policy amendments recommended in this report.


Page 31

PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of LPP3.11 is to identify limitations on the maximum height of new buildings that Council will apply in assessing structure plans and subsequent planning applications for the development of land zoned Development zone (Development Area 18) in McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance. The City’s officers have undertaken considerable consultation with the applicant and other landowners in the LPP3.11 area following the applicant’s original request to review LPP3.11 in April 2013. This consultation has indicated to the City that there is only limited support for a comprehensive review of the policy. Accordingly modifications to the height limits on the applicant’s site and 9-11 McCabe Street (Tasker’s site), North Fremantle are presented only. Officers consider there is scope to allow for additional height on these two sites on a discretionary basis, having regard to protection of key view corridors and fulfilment of criteria requiring a particularly high standard of building design including environmentally sustainable design. Additionally officers recommend a reduction in height on the applicant’s site on the frontage to McCabe Street opposite 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The other modifications to the policy are general updates to the wording. All proposed modifications are considered to be in keeping with the original intent of the policy, which is to allow for development that safeguards and respects view corridors, whilst enhancing the area by providing well designed, environmentally sustainable development. The proposed map and text modifications to LPP3.11 are discussed in detail below. Map modifications


Page 32

Figure 3. Proposed modifications 1, 2, & 3 to the heights of new buildings in LPP3.11 on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site and Tasker’s site Officers propose three modifications to the LPP3.11 map. These are numbered and circled in figure 3 above and explained below. Modification 1. In a select portion of zone H, named area H2, officers propose that future development can be considered up to a height of 33m above natural ground level. The base “as a right” permitted height would remain 17m as currently in the policy. For development to be considered capable of approval with additional height up to 33m it would have to meet the criteria as set out in the text part of the policy (see text modification discussion below). This criteria includes the requirement for development to consider the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (where applicable), be 5 star Green Star rating in design, conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building, be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, not encroach on view corridors as defined in the McCabe Street Height Study and be limited in building footprint. The additional height proposed in zone H2 (up to 33m) is substantially more than the current policy allows for (17m). Officers acknowledge this and consider the limited area of zone H2 and the supplementary text criteria in the policy, on which to consider developments proposed up to 33m in height, to be adequate measures to allow for the greater height. The premise on which the policy is based is that height of new development considers and maintains the view corridors in the area. Proposed zone H2 is aligned with, and outside of, the key view corridors identified on the policy map. Development of greater height can only be considered in a limited area and on a limited footprint within zone H2 and development would be required to achieve a 5 star Green Star (or equivalent) rating and demonstrate exceptional design quality. Accordingly, officers consider the text and map modifications to be an appropriate compromise of allowing for a limited portion of zone H to develop with additional height in exchange for exceptional design that enhances the amenity of the area. Modification 2. Officers propose that the western corner of zone E, currently 20m height limit, be reduced to a 14m height limit, by including this portion of zone E into zone F1. The reason for this is that although the original intent of the policy was to allow for a 20m high building constructed from the existing ground level at the base of a steep embankment within the Matilda Bay site immediately south of McCabe Street, through consultation with landowners the proposition was put to the City that it would be theoretically possible to construct a building approximately six storeys high at the top of the embankment directly in front of the Taskers site (9 – 11 McCabe St). As this would potentially block river views from the Taskers site, which already has planning approval for the first phase of a comprehensive redevelopment and could result in development which is contrary to the aims of the policy, it was considered a modification to the map in this area would achieve greater consistency with the overall intent of the policy. To further address this issue, additional wording to the policy is also proposed to provide greater certainty about the maximum possible building height of new development adjacent to McCabe Street in this zone E and F1, regardless of the ground level the development is constructed from. This would be achieved by a reference to an Australian Height Datum (AHD) level that the highest part of any new building in this area must not exceed. This recommended change is discussed further under the Text Modifications heading below.


Page 33

Modification 3. In a select portion of area D, now named area D2, fronting McCabe Street within the site of 9-11 McCabe Street, officers recommend that future development can be considered up to a height of 29m above natural ground level. The base “as a right” permitted height would remain 17m as currently provided in the policy. For development to be considered capable of approval for the additional height it would have to meet the criteria as set out in the text part of the policy (see text modification discussion below). These criteria include the requirement for development to achieve a 5 star Green Star rating, be exceptional in architecture and design befitting its location and not encroach on view corridors as defined in the McCabe Street Height Study. The additional discretionary height provision in zone D2 (up to 29m) is recommended partly in recognition that the building height already permitted in this location under the adopted structure plan approved by the State Administrative Tribunal independently of the current policy exceeds the maximum height under the policy. The structure plan permits a height of approximately 22-23m in this location. Officers acknowledge that the discretionary additional height now recommended is materially higher and would potentially permit an additional two storeys of building height. This is considered supportable, subject to high quality design, on the basis that in this limited area of the 9-11 McCabe Street development site a new building would be situated outside of key view corridors identified on the policy map. Text modifications In addition to the map modifications officers propose modifications to the text of the policy. These modifications include general administrative updates and the inclusion of new provisions into the policy to support the proposed map modifications. For Council’s benefit a ‘track changes’ version of the policy text is provided in attachment 1. New provisions Restrict height in zones E and F1 Officers propose additional wording in the policy that would limit the building height in zones E and F1 facing the frontage of 9-11 McCabe Street. The current height limit in zones E and F1 are 20m and 14m, respectively, from natural ground level. McCabe Street has an approximate level of 30m Australian Height Datum (AHD) at the highest point in the policy area and the former Matilda Bay site generally has an AHD level of 16.8. If development were to occur at the 16.8 AHD level in the former Matilda Bay area it would likely present as one or two storeys in height to McCabe Street. However there is a steep bank on the former Matilda Bay site that runs from McCabe Street (approximately 22.6 to 30 AHD) down to the AHD level of 16.8 There is concern that development on this bank could potentially result in development that is approximately six (zone E) and four (zone F1) storeys in height to the front of new development at 9-11 McCabe Street. Accordingly officers propose a policy provision to ‘cap’ the maximum height of any new building, irrespective of the ground level it is constructed from, to an AHD level of 37m AHD in zone E and 34m AHD in zone F1. The 37 AHD height limit in zone E would restrict any building within this zone to presenting approximately a two storey high elevation to McCabe Street and the 34 AHD height limit in area F1 would restrict any building within this zone to present approximately one storey (approximately 4.3 metres) to McCabe Street. This measure will safeguard the river views from 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle and is not considered to overly restrict development of zone E and F1.


Page 34

It would also provide an incentive to locate any new development at or near to the base of the embankment (in order to gain maximum permissible height) consistent with the original intent of the policy. Additional height criteria The more substantial text modification to the policy is the inclusion of provisions which Council would consider when exercising discretion to potentially grant approval for a building height up to 33m in zone H2 and up to 29m in zone D2. As such this height limit is not “as of right”; the base building height of both zones is 17m as it is under the existing policy. Development of a height between 17m and 29m in zone D2 or 17m and 33m in zone H2 would need to satisfy additional criteria. The criteria proposed are similar to, and modelled on, the current wording in the policy for discretionary additional height on a portion of 140 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (One Steel site). Zone H2 has three more criteria than zone D2 as the former Matilda Bay site is of heritage significance, a portion of the site is within the coastal planning zone and due to the comparatively large size of zone H2 the building footprint has been restricted. The proposed criteria to be satisfied in considering whether to exercise discretion to approve the additional height in zone H2 and D2 are as follows: Table 1 – Criteria for additional height requirement

1. Criteria for additional height requirement

2. Zone H2

3. 130 Stirling Hwy

4. Former Matilda Bay site

5. Zone D2

6. 11 McCabe St

7. Tasker’s Site

8. The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc;

10.

11. Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy;

12. 13. N/A

14. The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building; 15. 16. N/A

17. The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and

18. 19.

20. The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

21. 22.

23. The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height must not occupy more than 60% of the total land area in zone H2, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area in zone H2.

24. 25. x

The purpose of the criteria to gain the additional height is to only have development at a greater height where that development is of exceptional design and architecture, respects adjacent heritage buildings (where applicable), is consistent with the State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy (where applicable), contains green building features (5 star green star) and does not impact on the view corridors in the policy area.


Page 35

An additional proposed criterion (f), which is only applicable to zone H2, further limits the aggregate size of the footprint of proposed building(s) between 17m and 33m in height to no more than 60% of the total land area in zone H2 and limits the footprint of any individual building to an area of no greater than 20% of zone H2’s total land area. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the construction of one bulky 33m high building that could potentially obstruct views. The provision would allow for view corridors between each building as development would be limited to no more than three tall buildings in the area that are relatively small in footprint and slender in design. For example, the land area of zone H2 is approximately 6,390m2. The recommended provisions in criterion (f) could potentially enable a proposed development comprising a combination of buildings up to 33m in height that in aggregate equal a maximum footprint of approximately 3,834m2 and no single building of this height could have a footprint of larger than 1,278m2 (for example a footprint approximately 40m x 32m). It is also noted that development up to 17m in height zone H2 (and D2) is not restricted by the same criteria under this policy. It would therefore be acceptable for the applicant in zone H2 to propose a combination of buildings up to 17m and up to 33m in height in the zone. The footprint and configuration of development in zone H2 would further be informed by the plot ratio requirements of the Residential Design Codes (assuming residential land use) and the requirement in Schedule 11 of the Local Planning Scheme for a road connection between McCabe Street and Coventry Parade. These factors, as well as the policy’s criteria, would inform the design and assessment of any future proposed structure plan which is required prior to comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Overall, officers consider the criteria on which to consider additional height up to 29m in zone D2 and up to 33m in zone H2 will ensure development of greater height does not adversely impact on the policy area and the surrounding area, in terms of view corridors and standards of amenity. General text updates The general updates to the wording of the policy are where the policy refers to documents that have been updated since the policy was adopted in 2009. These documents include the Residential Design Codes, the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy and a provision in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The general text updates are discussed below:

• State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (SPP2.6) SPP2.6 was modified in July 2013. The building height limits in the policy still apply to all development within 300 metres of the horizontal shoreline datum, however the policy no longer specifies a height limit (the previous SPP2.6 specified a height limit of 25 metres) and land uses. Instead the policy provides planning criteria to have regard to when specifying a height limit. LPP3.11 has been modified to reflect these changes.

• Residential Design Codes 2013 The Residential Design Codes were updated in August 2013. The parts have been modified and changed around slightly for example, the single house and grouped dwelling requirements which were in part six are now in part five and the multiple dwelling requirements which made up part seven now form part six. Also the former “acceptable development” provisions are now named “deemed to comply”. The new wording and clause numbers have been updated as part of this review of LPP3.11.

• LPS4


Page 36

Scheme amendment No. 49 (gazetted January 2013) introduced into LPS4 variations to the height provisions for minor projections above the building. The provisions now in LPS4 are the same as those provided for in LPP3.11. Accordingly, to strengthen the policy provisions, and so as not to double up on similar requirements across the City’s planning framework, the policy has been modified to reference the new provision in LPS4.

Officers consider the recommended amendments represent a reasonable balance between maintaining the important urban design principles which underpin the current policy whilst also considering the differing views and interests of the landowner of No. 130 Stirling Highway, 9-11 McCabe Street and other landowners in the area regarding the planning merits of permitting higher development in limited locations. It is further acknowledged that there may be scope for further minor refinement of the policy amendments after consideration of submissions made during the public consultation period. In accordance with normal procedures, the report to Council following the public consultation period will address issues raised in any submissions received. CONCLUSION

This report follows extensive consultation between the City and landowners in the LPP3.11 area since the City was first approached with a request to modify the heights on 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle in April 2013. In light of the lack of support from the majority of landowners in the area for a comprehensive review of LPP3.11 officers consider a limited amendment that is restricted to modification of the height limits on a portion of No. 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle where the modification does not impact on the overall purpose and principles of the policy, is appropriate. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt the recommended modifications to Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle described in this report for the purposes of public comment.


Page 37

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the following draft modified Local Planning Policy for the purpose of advertising for public submissions:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11

MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE - HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS

ADOPTION DATE: 22 April 2009 AMENDED DATE: ??? AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the policy is to identify limitations on the maximum heights of

new buildings that Council will apply in assessing planning proposals relating to land adjacent to McCabe Street, North Fremantle as defined by the shaded area on the plan below:


Page 38

1.2 The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area defined on Plan No. 1 above do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance.

2. APPLICATION OF POLICY 2.1 The policy applies to all land within the area defined on Plan No. 1 that is

zoned under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), unless any such land is subject to specific or general height controls under the provisions of Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) of LPS4, in which case the provisions of the Scheme shall prevail.

2.2 Council will apply the policy in determining applications for planning

approval to undertake development under Part 8 of LPS4, and in determining structure plans and detailed area plans under Part 6 of LPS4 in cases where such plans include information regarding proposed building heights. The policy applies to development proposals involving both residential and non-residential land uses.

3. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 3.1 This policy has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of LPS4

relating to the preparation and adoption on local planning policies. 3.2 Clause 5.2.2 of LPS4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme,

the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes is to conform to the provisions of the Codes.

3.3 Part 7.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) states that local planning

policies may contain provisions that amend or replace deemed to comply provisions set out in part 5 and 6 of the R-codes in relation to various design elements including building height. This local planning policy replaces the deemed to comply provisions relating to building height set out in design element 5.1.6 and 6.1.2 of the R-codes.

4. POLICY 4.1 General 4.1.1 Plan No. 2 defines a series of building height zones within the area covered

by this policy. The maximum height of any new building shall not exceed the height above ground level prescribed in the height zone applying to the location of the proposed new building, except for any variations as specified in 4.1.5 below.


Page 39

4.1.2 Maximum building height will be measured as the vertical distance in metres from ground level to the highest part of the main building structure, irrespective of whether that part of the structure is a wall, parapet or roof.

4.1.3 For the purpose of measuring building height above ground level, the

meaning of ground level is the level which existed prior to the proposed development. Any site works associated with the proposed development which involve alterations to existing ground level must be included within the same application for planning approval. If any such site works involve filling above existing ground level, the depth of proposed fill as well as the height of the proposed new building(s) must be accommodated within the maximum height of development specified in this policy. The contents of this policy do not preclude Council from exercising its discretionary ability under clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to increase the standard applicable height limit by up to 0.5 metres where there is a variation in ground level over a development footprint of greater than 1 metre.

4.1.4 Where the main structure of a building is located in more than one height

zone as shown on Plan No. 2, the part of the building in each height zone must comply with the maximum height requirement for that zone.

4.1.5 Council may approve planning proposals involving variations to the

maximum building heights prescribed on Plan No. 2 in the following circumstances:

• Minor projections above the highest part of the main building

structure may be permitted subject to the criteria in clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4

• Minor projections out from the side of a main building structure over

land within an adjoining height zone where a lower maximum building height requirement applies, in cases where no part of the projection is more than 3m away from the main building structure and the total area of all projections is no more than 10% of the ground floor area of the building. Minor projections will be interpreted as including plant and equipment, canopies, awnings, verandahs and balconies, including balconies intended for regular human use.

• In the part of Zone D that is within 60 metres of the eastern boundary

of the Stirling Highway road reserve on the north side of McCabe Street, a building of a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council at its discretion subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc; (b) The development must incorporate non-residential ground floor uses that contribute to the function of the locality as an activity and/or tourist node;


Page 40

(c) The development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (d) The design of the development must perform the urban design function of an ‘entry statement’ into the City of Fremantle, including design qualities that convey a contemporary coastal aesthetic informed by the local context of North Fremantle and the Indian Ocean foreshore; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

• In the part designated zone H2 on the policy map behind the former Matilda Bay brewery building, a development with a maximum height of 33 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc; (b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building; (d)The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle. (f) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height must not occupy more than 60% of the total land area in zone H2, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area in zone H2.

• In the part designated zone D2 on the policy map fronting McCabe Street at 11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, a development with a maximum height of 29 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:


Page 41

(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc; (b)The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (c) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

4.2 Specific Requirements Additional to General Policy Provisions 4.2.1 Height Zone A – 133 -141 Stirling Highway. Notwithstanding the general

maximum building height of 11 metres permitted under this policy, the built form of any new development in this zone must incorporate at least two significant gaps between buildings down to ground level of sufficient width to provide views of the Indian Ocean from ground level on Stirling Highway. One of these gaps must approximately align with the axis of McCabe Street at its intersection with Stirling Highway.

4.2.2 Height Zones H and J – new development will be assessed in terms of its

impact upon the Matilda Bay Brewing Company building (former Ford Motor Company assembly plant) which is included on the Heritage List under the provisions of clause 7.1 of LPS4. Consideration will be given to the extent to which proposed new development helps to conserve and reveal the significance of the heritage place, including its identified significant attributes and features, through the siting and design of new buildings including their massing, bulk, relationship to street frontages and degree of separation from the heritage place in order to give prominence in the streetscape to the heritage place.

4.2.3 Height Zone E – Notwithstanding the general maximum building height of 20

metres in zone E from ground level permitted under this policy, no part of any new development in this zone may exceed an Australian Height Datum (AHD) of 37 metres irrespective of the ground level from which the building height is measured under paragraph 4.1.2.

4.2.4 Height Zone F1 – Notwithstanding the general maximum building height of

14 metres in zone F1 from ground level permitted under this policy, no part of any new development in this zone may exceed an Australian Height Datum (AHD) of 34 metres irrespective of the ground level from which the building height is measured under paragraph 4.1.2.


Page 42


Page 43

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 PSC1403-52 THE TERRACE, NO. 1 (LOT 2095), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE

OF USE TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION (172 BEDS) AND ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PRISON BUILDING - (AA DA0582/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 7 December 2011 (PSC1112-209)

20 July 2011 (PSC1107-129) Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photos Date Received: 2 December 2013 Owner Name: Department of Finance (Fremantle Prison) Submitted by: ADC Projects Scheme: Reserved – Civic & Cultural Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 1A Existing Landuse: Fremantle Prison Use Class: Tourist Accommodation Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application proposes a partial change of use to Tourist Accommodation (172 beds) and additions & alterations to existing prison building. As the site is located on land reserved under the MRS the City is not the determining authority. The application is to be determined by the WAPC on advice of the City and other relevant authorities. The application is broadly consistent with previous planning approval granted by the WAPC and supported by the City pursuant to DA0557/10. The previous approved application included provision for up to 200 beds. The application seeks re-approval for a similar development as the previous approval. The proposal seeks the exercise of discretion in relation to land use, scale and intensity of the proposal, vehicle parking and the conservation of the heritage listed Fremantle Prison. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives and merit based criteria of LPS4 and is consistent with the 2003 ‘Fremantle Prison Heritage Precinct - Master Plan’. At the time of writing this report, no heritage advice had been received from the SHO. Verbal communication with the SHO suggests that formal advice will be received before the PSC meeting and that it is likely the proposal will be supported as proposed. In such a situation, this information will be tabled as late correspondence. It is therefore recommended that the application be referred to the WAPC with a recommendation for approval. BACKGROUND

The site is reserved for ‘Civic and Cultural’ Purposes under the provisions of the Metropolitan Regions Scheme. The site is included on the National Heritage List, State Register of Heritage Places, and City of Fremantle Heritage List and Municipal Heritage inventory as Management Category Level 1A place. The site is also registered on the UNESCO World Heritage List as part of the Australian convict establishment. The prison is the only built site in Western Australia with world heritage recognition. At its meeting of 20 July 2011, the City considered an application for ‘Partial change of use to Tourist Accommodation, including partial demolition, alterations and additions’ (DA0557/10) and resolved to defer the application. The application originally included provision for 214 guests to be accommodated on-site. On 19 September 2011, the City received amended plans relating to DA0557/10 that addressed a number of concerns raised by the City. The proposal was reconsidered by the City at its meeting of 7 December 2011. On 22 December 2011 following its meeting of 7 December 2011, the City referred DA0557/10 to the Western Australian Planning Commission (‘WAPC’) with a recommendation for approval. On 19 January 2012 the WAPC granted conditional planning approval to the proposed development the subject of DA0557/10. As development has not substantially


Page 45

commenced within 2 years of the approval date (19 January 2014) this approval has lapsed and is no longer valid. On 2 December 2013, the City received the current application. Originally, the proposal included provision for up to 205 beds across the development site. On 9 January 2014, the City received amended plans reducing the number of beds to 172. Further details regarding the form of the proposed development are included in this report. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for Partial Change of Use to Tourist Accommodation (172 beds) and Additions & Alterations to Existing Prison Building including;

• The adaptive re-use of rooms and spaces contained within the former ‘Female Division’ of the Fremantle Prison facility as tourist accommodation units and associated facilities to be operated by YHA WA;

• Construction of a new single storey building in the eastern courtyard in the general location of an existing jewellery workshop (circa 1996) (‘the TAFE building’), which is proposed to be demolished;

• Internal fit-out of the northern portion of the existing ‘West Workshops’; • The use of the subject site for short-term tourist accommodation providing up

to 172 beds across 50 rooms within the subject development. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. The amended proposal differs for the originally submitted proposal in capacity; which is reduced from 205 beds to 172. This is brought about by a modification to the building in the eastern courtyard from two storeys to a single storey building. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As the site is located on an MRS reserve the City of Fremantle is not the determining authority of the application and acts a referral agency to the WAPC. Accordingly, the provisions of the City’s LPS4 and Local Planning Policies do not apply to development on the site; however these will be used to guide the City’s assessment of the application. In light of the above, the application seeks merit based assessment against three key components of the proposal;

• Land Use (Tourist Accommodation); • Scale & Intensity • Vehicle Parking; and, • Conservation of cultural heritage significance.

These matters are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

State Heritage Council


Page 46

The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) for comment as it involves works to a building of cultural heritage significance contained on the State Heritage List. As the City is not the determining authority in this instance, a referral to the SHO is not strictly required. At the time of writing this report, no formal response had been received from the SHO. The City has been advised by the SHO that the application had been considered at its committee meeting of 28 February 2014 and is due for consideration at an additional meeting on 14 March 2014. Verbal communication with the SHO suggests that formal advice will be received before the PSC meeting and that it is likely the proposal will be supported as proposed. In such a situation, this information will be tabled as late correspondence. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 January 2014, the City had received 1 submission. The issues raised are summarised as follows;

• Surrounding locality; The proposal has the potential to impact on Knutsford Street;

• Site access; The entry to the accommodation should be via the existing western entry only;

• Vehicle parking; Parking for the proposal should be provided on-site as there is limited available parking on Knutsford and Holdsworth Streets;

• Noise; Restrictions should be applied to the development to limit noise output from music and guests.

It is noted that the community consultation was undertaken on the basis of the original, 205 bed proposal. As the amended proposal reduced the scale and intensity of the proposal, the application was not re-advertised. Fremantle Port Authority The subject site is noted as being within ‘Area 3’ of the Fremantle Port Buffer Area. The Fremantle Port Authority has previously provided comment to the City of Fremantle in relation to DA0557/10 stating that there are no specific conditions that need to be provided. This is consistent with the Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines and as a result, no conditions relating to buffer area requirements are recommended.


Page 47

PLANNING COMMENT

Land use (Tourist Accommodation), scale & intensity The site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for ‘Civic and Cultural Purposes’. On this basis there is no specific indication as to the permissibility of the use, however in order to guide the City’s assessment the Conservation Management Plan has identified that the uses outlined within the 2003 Fremantle Prison Master Plan should form the basis of decisions made in respect to the future use of the site. A number of concerns were raised during the public consultation period regarding the operation of the proposed use, which include;

• A number of concerns were raised in regard to the impact such a use will have in generating high levels of noise, thereby adversely impacting on the amenity of the adjoining residents; and,

• The parking associated with the use was a repeated concern, with a number

of submitters stating that the one bay provided was inadequate for the extent of the accommodation to be provided on site. Furthermore concerns suggested that the shortfall in parking would result in an increased demand on the parking provided within the locality.

While concerns relating to vehicle parking are discussed further in this report, the use, scale and intensity of the proposal is relevant to the assessment of the application. The 2003 ‘Fremantle Prison Heritage Precinct - Master Plan’ states that;

‘short stay accommodation, designed to meet a range of budgets is considered to be a compatible use with the tourism/retail and special event uses proposed for the site.’

The proposed ‘Tourist Accommodation’ is considered to be a form of short stay accommodation and therefore is considered to be an appropriate land use for the site. The scale and intensity of the proposal is considered appropriate in so far as;

• The high walls of the prison complex will ensure that there is limited or no visual or noise interaction between the land use and surrounding residential properties. In this regard, the capacity (scale) of the proposed land use is considered to be of little consequence;

• The proposed scale is similar to other similar land uses contained within the Fremantle City Centre area; and,

• The subject site is nearby to local convenience retail, entertainment and service facilities contained within the Fremantle City Centre area. There are considered to be limited activities contained within the adjacent residential area to the north and east of the subject site that will lead to an interaction between guests of the proposal and those residents.


Page 48

Moreover, the proposed scale of development and land use is considered compatible with the cultural heritage significance of the place (see heritage comments further in this report) and the capacity proposed is less than that previously supported by the City as part of DA0557/10; which includes provision for 200 beds. It is noted that the impact of noise was an issue identified during previous consideration of DA0557/10 and also raised during community consultation of this application. The potential for the impact of noise is controlled by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (noise regulations) and the City has established processes in place for identifying and rectifying noise issues for the type of land use proposed. An advice note reminding the applicant of their obligations under the noise regulations is therefore recommended. Vehicle Parking

Scheme Requirement Provided Merit based assessment 1: Unit or Bedroom (50 bays required) 1 49

As noted earlier in this report, the provisions of LPS4 including Table 3 (Vehicle Parking) do not strictly apply to the assessment of this application. The above ‘scheme requirement’ is based on the requirements that would apply if the subject site was zoned under LPS4. In any event the proposal is considered to provide sufficient vehicle parking for the following reasons;

• The nature of the land use proposed, being predominately short-stay, small room accommodation is unlikely to generate much demand for vehicle parking, even when compared to other Tourist Accommodation establishments;

• Provision of vehicle parking on the subject site is likely to result in a detrimental impact on the conservation of cultural heritage significance;

• There is sufficient available off-site parking available nearby to the subject site, particular along Parry Street;

• The subject site is located adjacent to high frequency public transport and cycling infrastructure along South Terrace, Hampton Road, High Street and Adelaide Street, Fremantle;

• Other nearby non-residential land use assist in the provision of reciprocal off-site parking; and,

• The nature of the land use proposed, in this particular location, means that demand for vehicle parking is likely to be considerably lower than specified in Table 3.

It is also noteworthy that the previously approved application (DA0557/10) included a short fall of on-site vehicle parking of 58 bays.


Page 49

Conservation of cultural heritage significance The application was referred to the City’s Heritage department and the SHO. No objection was raised by the City’s heritage staff subject to on-going discussion with the SHO relating to new emergency exit doors proposed to the southern wall of the central, main building of the proposal. It is expected that the advice to the SHO will reflect these discussions and ultimately, the SHO advice must be given due regard by the WAPC in making its determination. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the preservation of cultural heritage significance on the subject site. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Change of Use to Tourist Accommodation and Additions & Alterations to Existing Prison Building at No. 1 (Lot 2095) The Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 9 January 2014. 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 Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Note(s)

i. The applicant is advised that the use of the proposed development is to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Please contact the City’s Environmental Health department to discuss this requirement (9432 9999).

ii. The City advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that it supports the imposition of any conditions recommended by the State Heritage Council on the planning approval.


Page 50

PSC1403-53 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 99/330 (LOT 99), SOUTH FREMANTLE -

CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO SHOP (HAIRDRESSER), INTERNAL FIT OUT AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE (AD DA0032/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans Date Received: 24 January 2014 Owner Name: Domenico Iacono Submitted by: Dongjian Huang Scheme: Mixed Use (R30) Heritage Listing: MHI management category level 2;

South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Shop Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 51

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a change of use from Office to Shop (Hairdresser), internal fit out and associated signage at No. 99/330 (Lot 99) South Terrace, South Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with the exception of the following: • Land use; • Car parking; • Signage (DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings policy)

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the discretionary decision being sought by the applicant should be supported. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ with an applicable 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) – sub area 4.3.3 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is bound by South Terrace to the west, Chester Street to the east, Jenkin Street to the north and Wardie Street to the south. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 2 (Mills & Ware Factory; Mills & Ware Administration Building Facade); and is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is a strata lot and is 90m2 (74m2 unit and 16m2 dedicated parking bay) and has a predominantly east-west orientation. The site is currently improved by a two storey mixed use building and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 24 January 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a change of use from Office to Shop (Hairdresser), internal fit out and associated signage at No. 99/330 (Lot 99) South Terrace, South Fremantle (refer DA0032/14). The proposed development plans (as amended) are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community


Page 52

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is proposing a number of discretions to the prescribed development standards of the City’s LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 February 2014, the City received two (2) submissions pertaining to the proposal. Of these two (2) submissions, one was in support of the proposal, whilst the other raised the following relevant planning concern: • Parking.

Heritage The City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and have advised that they do not have any concerns on heritage grounds. Health The City’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments

“I have no objection with this application. The premises must comply with the Hairdressing Establishment Regulations 1972. It has sufficient amount of work stations and wash stations as per the plan. A hand wash basin supplied with hot and cold water is required in preparation area. Hair dye preparation must be separated with kitchen area. The hairdressing is required to be registered under the Hairdressing Establishment Regulations 1972.”

It will be recommended that the above requirements be included as an advice note as part of this Planning Approval. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Land use The proposed hairdresser is considered to fall within the land use definition of ‘shop’ as prescribed by Schedule 1 of LPS4. A ‘shop’ in the ‘mixed use zone’ is an ‘A’ use, which:

“means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4.”


Page 53

Clause 4.2 of LPS4 provides for the objectives of each zone. Clause 4.2.1(e) provides that the objectives for the ‘mixed use zone’ are:

“Development within the mixed use zone shall— (i) provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling,

trade and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (i.e. showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation,

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

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

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

It is considered that the proposed shop use is consistent with the objectives of the mixed use zone. Parking

Required Proposed Discretion 4 on-site car parking bays 1 on-site car parking bays 3 on-site car parking bay 1 on-site bicycle rack 0 on-site bicycle racks 1 on-site bicycle rack Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, (iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car

spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,

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

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

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

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


Page 54

(viii) any other relevant considerations. Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is

not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause. (b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably

qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above. Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon

alternative transport opportunities.” In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3, it is noted that there is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site (i). Further, there is a bus stop located approximately 75m south of the subject site which provides bus services for the 532 bus route. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available (ii). In relation to (iv), the table below breaks down the on-site parking requirement (car parking bays, delivery bays & bicycle racks) and what exists on-site currently. The City understands that the premises operated in the capacity of an ‘office’ previously. In this regard, the table below utilises what the car parking requirements would have been for an ‘office’ land use for this premises under the provisions of LPS4 and compares it to what would be required as part of the proposed change of use to a shop.

Car parking bays Delivery bays Bicycle racks Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed (office) (shop) (office) (shop) (office) (shop)

Required 3 4 1 0 1 0 Provided 1 1 0 0 0 0 ( + ) / ( - ) -2 -3 -1 0 -1 0 As detailed in the table above, the current approved development on-site would have a short fall of two (2) car parking bays; one (1) delivery bay; and one (1) bicycle rack. The proposed use of a shop would exacerbate the on-site short fall of car parking bays by an additional bay, but would not affect the number of delivery bays or bicycle racks required currently, rather that it would actually reduce the requirement of both delivery bays and bicycle racks required. Therefore, Council needs to consider the impact of requiring an additional on-site car parking bay than what is currently demanded by the existing office use. In this regard, it is not considered that this will present any real significant impact that will be detrimental to the amenity of the site or the locality in general for the reasons outlined in (i), (ii) and (iv) above. It is considered that the existing provision of on-street parking in the immediate locality and the proximity to public transport, that the proposed on-site car parking discretion of one bay should be supported. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4.


Page 55

DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings Clause 1.7 of Council’s DBH6 policy states:

“1.7 In granting a licence or planning consent for the erection or display of an advertising sign the Council will have regard to and may attach conditions concerning the following matters- the location, position, size, shape, colour, degree of illumination and the presence or rate of flashing lights.”

The proposal includes a number of different signage additions to the subject site. The proposal also includes ‘frosting’ of ‘one window’ to the western elevation fronting South Terrace. The shops’ frontage to South Terrace comprises of six (6) individual windows, with three (3) large vertically-emphasised windows side-by-side with three (3) smaller horizontally-emphasised windows side-by-side atop the larger ones. It is unclear from the plans whether the ‘frosting’ is proposed to all three large windows, or whether it relates to just one of them. Notwithstanding, frosting of all three would not be considered a desirable outcome as it will eliminate any active or passive surveillance of the street to and from the shop. In this regard, it will be recommended that only one of the three large vertically-emphasised windows can be frosted. CONCLUSION

The proposed change of use from Office to Shop (Hairdresser), internal fit out and associated signage at No. 99/330 (Lot 99) South Terrace, South Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The discretionary decisions sought in relation to on-site car parking have been assessed against the relevant criteria of LPS4 and is considered to be supportable. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the change of use from Office to Shop (Hairdresser), internal fit out and associated signage at No. 99/330 (Lot 99) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 24 January 2014. 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 significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. At least two of the three vertically-emphasised windows as contained within the western elevation (fronting South Terrace) shall be visually permeable as viewed from the street and from within the shop and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 56

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

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

Advice Note:

i. The applicant is advised that the City’s Environmental Health Department has provided the following comments: • The premises must comply with the Hairdressing Establishment Regulations

1972. It has sufficient amount of work stations and wash stations as per the plan.

• A hand wash basin supplied with hot and cold water is required in preparation area. Hair dye preparation must be separated with kitchen area.

• The hairdressing is required to be registered under the Hairdressing Establishment Regulations 1972.

Further enquiries regarding the above should be directed to the City’s Environmental Health Department on (08) 9432 9999.


Page 57

PSC1403-54 MATHIESON AVENUE, NO. 41 (LOT 25), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0066/14) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photos Date Received: 7 February 2014 Owner Name: H Heller Submitted by: Next Residential Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House at No. 41 Mathieson Avenue, North Fremantle The proposal meets the relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and the requirements of the adopted local planning policy ‘Local Planning Policy 3.13 – Minim Cove’ (‘LPP3.13’) with the exception of that relating to;

• Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall) • Lot boundary setbacks • Visual Privacy • Open space

The application proposes an upper floor balcony and living room with openings over adjoining properties; most particularly, the southern adjoining property. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in relation to boundary setbacks and open space. The proposal is, on-balance, not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy given its proximity and elevated position above the adjoining lot. It is noted that the southern adjoining site is currently vacant with no development approval or proposal currently in place. Notwithstanding this, the provision of screening material to the rear boundary (fence line) of the subject site will afford the adjoining site with a significant area (up to 7.8m wide measured from its rear boundary) that will be obscured from view from the upper floor balcony and living room. On the basis of the above, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site measures 420m2 and exists on the southern side of Mathieson Avenue, in the portion of the street bound by Westmeath Street to both the west and the east. The subject site is zoned Residential and coded R25 while also being subject to specific planning requirements contained in LPP3.13 and ‘DGN9 – Rocky Bay Estate (formally State Engineering Works Site). The subject site is currently vacant of improvements. The subject site was created out of the subdivision of the former No. 24 (Lot 9503) McCabe Street, North Fremantle (WAPC133796); which resulted in the creation of 24 freehold lots identified as the ‘Minim Cove’ estate.


Page 59

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House including;

• A ground floor double garage, office, three bedrooms, living and services areas as well as an external pool area;

• An upper floor main suite, lounge, dining and kitchen areas as well as a south facing balcony; and,

• External air-conditioner plant, gas hot water system, paved driveway.

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Merit based assessments are sought against the relevant requirements in relation to;

• Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall) • Lot boundary setbacks • Visual Privacy • Open space

These merit based assessments are discussed further 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. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 27 February 2014, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised;

• The proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy;

• The location of major openings and raised outdoor spaces are likely to impact on the future outdoor living area of No. 9 Westmeath Street, North Fremantle;

• Design changes that restrict views from the upper floor balcony and living room could satisfactorily address issues of privacy;

• The level of shadow cast by the proposal is likely to have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of outdoor living areas.

In relation to the forth point above, it is noted that the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes in relation to solar access and also a 3m setback requirement of LPP3.13.


Page 60

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)


East Walls built up to or within 750mm 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.

Garage – 9.0m long x 3.3m

high

See comments.

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

• The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight as measured by the R Codes owing to its location of the eastern boundary and its setback to the existing dwelling contained on the adjoining site;

• 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; and,

• The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

Lot boundary setbacks


West 2.0m (17m long x 6.0m high, no major openings)

1.5-2.1m Nil-0.5m

The lesser setback 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.


Page 61

Visual Privacy


South – Upper floor balcony and living

room

7.5m (balcony), 6.0m (living room)

4.0m (balcony & living room)

3.5m (balcony), 2.0m (living room)

East – Upper floor balcony (north and

south facing)

7.5m 3.2m (north & south) 4.3m (north & south)

West – Upper floor living room (south

facing)

6.0m 5.0m 1.0m

The land adjoining the subject site (No. 9 & 11 Westmeath Street and No. 43 Mathieson Avenue) is currently vacant of improvements. Moreover a search of the property files of surrounding properties found that no other adjoining lots have, or are currently seeking, development approval. The proposal results in views over a large portion of the southern adjoining property from the upper floor areas of the dwelling. This is due to the subject site’s elevated portion and two storey design. The proposal in that respect is not considered to meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes as these areas could look into the future rear yard of the southern adjoining property. However, approximately 3.0m of the adjoining site is already obscured based on a direct line-of-sight, as a result of level difference and retaining wall between the two sites. On the basis of the figure below, with the addition of screening material to a height of 1.8m, a total length of 7.8m (as measured from the adjoining sites rear boundary) will be obscured from view. This is considered to be a sufficient area to accommodate a sufficient rear outdoor living area.

Note: Figure not to scale


Page 62

A condition of approval requiring screening of the rear fence line of the subject site is therefore recommended. Open space

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment 50% (210m2) 44.1% (185m2) 5.9% (25m2)

The lesser amount of open space provided is considered to be consistent with the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The subject site is provided with a large excess of outdoor living area (greater than 62m2). This is considered satisfactory in providing for the needs of residents of the proposed dwelling;

• The lesser open space is not considered to contribute to a sense that the subject site is over-built. Merit based assessments sought in relation to lot boundary setbacks are supported and the building otherwise meets other ‘deemed-to-comply’ criteria; and,

• The lesser open space does not reduce the impression of excess building scale when viewed from the public street.


That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Metropolitan Region Scheme for the Two Storey Single House at No. 41 (Lot 25) Mathieson Avenue, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 7 February 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the rear boundary (fence line or equivalent) on the southern elevation shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.80 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 1.80 metres above the floor level, or

c) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


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


Page 63

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

Advice Note(s)

i. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

• submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or • submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the

infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

ii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the

removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iii. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.


Page 64

PSC1403-55 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8

(LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13)

(Regulation 12)

TITLE PSC MEETING STANDARD - Office 2007

Property Location: No.8 (Lots 133, 134 & 135) Pakenham Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Partial Demolition of existing Warehouse and Construction of a Five (5) Storey building which includes Tourist Accommodation (73 Room – 122 Bed) use

DAP Name: Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: TPG - Peter Simpson Owner: Fairgreen Pty Ltd LG Reference: DAP80001/13 Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle Authorising Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Department of Planning File No: DP/13/00463 Report Date: 11 March 2014 Application Receipt Date: 21 May 2013 Application Process Days: 90 Days, (1st Extension of time granted

extending RAR report due date to 30 August 2013, 2nd Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 19 September 2013, 3rd Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 21 November 2013, 4th Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 28 November 2013, 5th Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 10 January 2014, 6th Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 3 February 2014, 7th Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 17 February 2014, and 8th Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 20 March 2014.)

Attachment 1: Amended Plans date stamped having been received by the City on the 06 March 2014 – reference Image 03 – Artist Impression (View 01 option 06), Site Plan (SK01), Basement Plan (SK02), Ground Floor Plan (SK03), First Floor Plan (SK04), Level 2 Floor Plan (SK05), Level 3 Floor Plan (SK06), Level 4 Floor


Page 65

Plan (SK07), Roof Plan (SK08), Short Street Elevations (SK09), Pakenham Street Elevation (SK10), South & East Elevations (SK11), Section AA (SK12)

Attachment 2: City of Fremantle Heritage Assessment and Additional Heritage Comments on Amended Plans dated 24 August 2013 & 15 November 2013.

Attachment 3: Schedule of Public Submissions. Attachment 4: Applicant’s response to heritage

Assessment, Public Submissions and the City’s Development Assessment Committees Comments from previous meetings and Locality Survey (Aerial Photo) indicating various Buildings AHD Level.

Attachment 5: Site and Immediate locality Photo’s Attachment 6: Council Meeting Report and Minutes –

Ordinary council meeting held 27 November 2013

Attachment 7: Design Advisory Committee Minutes 28 February 2014 Meeting

Recommendation: That the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel:

Approve DAP Application reference DP/13/00463 (City of Fremantle reference DAP80001/13) dated 06 March 2014, having been received by the City of Fremantle on the 06 March 2014, Image 03 – Artist Impression (View 01 option 06), Site Plan (SK01), Basement Plan (SK02), Ground Floor Plan (SK03), First Floor Plan (SK04), Level 2 Floor Plan (SK05), Level 3 Floor Plan (SK06), Level 4 Floor Plan (SK07), Roof Plan (SK08), Short Street Elevations (SK09), Pakenham Street Elevation (SK10), South & East Elevations (SK11), Section AA (SK12) in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, subject the following conditions:

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

approved plans, dated 06 March 2014. 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. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.


Page 66

2. Prior to the issue 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 DAP80008/13, for the development of public art works and/or heritage works to the enhance to the public realm to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost the development being $15,000,000.00, the contribution to be made is $150,000.00.

3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does

not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building proposed to be retained. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

green star standard as per Local Planning Policy L.P.P2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing and/or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is 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 City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle:

a) A copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of

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

b) A copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the

development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

5. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof or balconies of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit

further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit application, detailed drainage plans

shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Air-conditioning units are not permitted to be located on the balconies.


Page 67

9. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and, eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. The approved land use of Tourist Accommodation shall operate in

accordance of Tourist Accommodation as per the definition of the Local Planning Scheme No.4.

11. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby permitted, No.8 (Lots 133,

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

12. Prior to the commencement of development and at the applicant’s

expense, an archaeological investigation is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and a copy the report of that investigation be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being

modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee, relating to:

a. The new glazed corner ‘folly’ element is to contain active usable

space accessible from within the building. b. The height of the corner ‘folly’ element is to be reduced. c. The concrete panels that extend above the height of adjacent

buildings are to incorporate vertical texture in response to the vertical ribs on the new floors 3 and 4.

d. The recessed set back of the zinc-clad top floor on both the Pakenham and Short Street frontages is to be increased;

e. The projecting “hooded” window strategy employed for the levels 3 and 4 is to be tested for application to the new openings in the heritage façade and the 5th floor.

f. Details of the treatment of the new ground floor openings in terms of achieving adequate levels of security, privacy and sun protection.

14. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City to Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; b) Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve; c) Protection of street trees; d) Security fencing around construction sites; e) Gantries;


Page 68

f) Access to site by construction vehicles; g) Contact Details; h) Site offices; i) Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries; j) Sand drift and dust management; k) Waste management; l) Dewatering; m) Traffic management; and n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The approved Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development.

15. Prior to occupation, 2 Bicycle Racks shall be provided onsite in accordance with the provisions of Aust Roads Standards, Part 14 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development of the new building portions 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 new annex development shall provide the following:

a. 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.

b. Air conditioners shall provide internal centrally located ‘shut down’

points and associated procedures for emergency use; and

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

Advice Note(s):

(i) All noisy work on a construction site shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm on any day which is not a Sunday or Public Holiday. If work is to be done outside these hours a noise management plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle at least 30 days prior to the noisy work commencing.

(ii) The proponent must make application during the Building Permit

application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9999

mailto:[email protected]�


Page 69

(iii) The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9999.

(iv) In relation to Condition 2, the applicant is advised that Council may waive

the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of L.P.P2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in Condition 3 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.

Background: Property Address: No. 8 (Lots 133, 134 & 135) Pakenham

Street, Fremantle Zoning MRS: Central City Zone LPS: City Centre Zone Use Class: A – Tourist Accommodation

P – Shop (Clause 8.2 s LPS4) P – Restaurant (Clause 8.2 s LPS4) P- Office (Clause 8.2 s LPS4)

Strategy Policy: N/A Development Scheme: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme

No. 4 Lot Size: Lot 133 - 769m2, Lot 134 – 483m2 and Lot

135 – 549m2 = total 1801m2 Existing Land Use: Warehouse Value of Development: $15 million The City of Fremantle records show that the subject site has been utilised as a warehouse (known as the John Lysaught Warehouse) for the past 70 years. The subject site is located on the corner of Pakenham Street and Short Street, Fremantle. The site incorporates three lots that equate to approximately 1801m2 in area. Currently on site there is a warehouse currently occupied by Halco Tackle and used for warehouse and Industry general purposes. The existing building incorporates an approximate wall height of 8.5 – 9.5m and has a saw tooth roof. The development site is located within and subject to Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas of LPS4. Specifically, the site is within Local Planning Area Sub Area 1.3.1 – West End of Schedule 12. The subject site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as having a management category Level 1B and therefore is recommended to be included on the State Heritage Register.

mailto:[email protected]�


Page 70

Additionally, the subject site is located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area which is prescribed Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). At its ordinary 27 November 2013 meeting, Council resolved the following:

That Council:

A) Advice the applicant that Council is not prepared to support the current proposal and plans dated 15 November 2013.

B) Invite the applicant to attend another workshop and submit an amendment to

the current application, incorporating the following changes and additional information:

i. That the planning modules of the new additions be set out to conform

to the structural grid of the existing building. ii. Remove the gap between the old and the new by attaching the new

additions to the conserved external walls. iii. Retain the intactness of the external walls of the heritage building by

only forming new window openings to match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building.

iv. Design the new additions so that the windows in the external wall serve as the windows of the new accommodation units.

v. Behind the retained facades the floor levels of the new additions should match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building.

vi. Design the new additions so their siting, bulk, and height do not overwhelm the façade of the heritage building.

vii. Set out the level of the second floor so the existing parapet can serve as the balustrade for the terrace formed at this level.

C) Upon receipt of the amended application and these plans addressing the

issues outlined in Part ‘B’ above to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, Council will refer the a recommendation to the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel to approve the development, subject to appropriate conditions.

D) In the event that amended plans addressing the issues outlined in part B)

above, are not submitted to the City of Fremantle, and the amended plans not being to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, Council will refer the following recommendation to the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel:

Refuse DAP Application reference DP/13/00463 (City of Fremantle reference DAP80001/13) and accompanying plans dated 15 November 2013, having been received by the City of Fremantle on the 15 November 2013 Basement Plan (SK02), Ground Floor Plan (SK03), First Floor Plan (SK04), Level 2 Floor Plan (SK05), Level 3 Floor Plan (SK06), Level 4 Floor Plan (SK07), Roof Plan (SK08), Elevations (Short Street Elevations) (SK09), Elevations Pakenham Street Elevation (SK10), Elevations South & East (SK11), Section


Page 71

AA (SK12), Survey Plan (SK13), Pakenham Street Cross Street Section (SK14), Artist Impression Pakenham Street View (Image 03) & Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council Wednesday 27 November 2013 Page 251 Artist Impression Atrium View (Image 04) in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the following reasons:

1. The building height of the proposed development does not comply with the height requirements contained within Schedule 12 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

2. The proposed development does not satisfy all of the criteria listed under Clause 5.8.1 and 7.5 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

3. The proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality and is not in the interests of orderly and proper planning having regard to the advice of the Design Advisory Committee and Clauses 11.8.5, 11.8.6.2 and 11.8.6.3 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

Since this Council meeting and subsequent workshop meeting organised part of part B of Council’s above resolution, the applicant has lodged amended plans, sated 06 March 2014, which have been presented back before the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC). Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to several other extension to the RAR report due date with J-DAP (the determining authority for this application), with the latest extension requiring the City’s RAR report due on 20 March 2014. Details: Outline of development application The applicants are seeking to partially demolish the existing Warehouse Building and replace it with a new five storey, 122 bedrooms (73 units) with basement Tourist Accommodation building. The applicant is proposing to retain the Pakenham and Short Street façade walls of the existing heritage listed warehouse building, but is proposing to incorporate several new openings to the ground floor levels on both Pakenham and Short Street facades. It’s also intended to incorporate a section of the existing saw tooth roof trusses, columns and gantry into the internal courtyard area of the new development. The proposed Tourist Accommodation building will incorporate a total of 73 self contained tourist accommodation apartments (49 two bedroom and 24 Single bedroom units), two small commercial/ retail tenancies, gym, restaurant (café) and conference room with roof terrace. The most recent submitted amended plans dated 06 March 2014 include the following works: • Basement Floor;

o Including Staff Room, Storerooms, Linen Storage, Transformer and Fire Equipment tank rooms;

• Ground Floor: o 9 Apartments (9 Two bedroom [ranging from 68-93m2]), o Central Courtyard o 57m2 Café (Restaurant),


Page 72

o Loading/ Service Area off Short Street, o 116m2 Commercial / Retail Tenancy & Tourist Accommodations Office and

reception room, incidental lift, stairways and storage facilities; • Level 1 Floor:

o 17 Apartments (7 Single bedroom [ranging from 25 – 45m2] and 10 Two bedroom [ranging from 68-98m2]),

o 55 Commercial/ retail, incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;

• Level 2 Floor: o 15 Apartments (5 Single bedroom [ranging from 23-43m2] and 9 Two

bedroom [ranging from 68-82m2]), o 57m2 Conference room with 27m2 terrace roof space, o 44 m2 Gym, o Incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;

• Level 3 Floor: o 17 Apartments (7 Single bedroom [ranging from 22 – 43m2] and 10 Two

bedroom [ranging from 68-82m2]), o Incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;

• Level 4 Floor: o 15 Apartments (4 Single bedroom [24-27m2] and 11 Two bedroom [ranging

from 62-72m2]), o Incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;

Summary of changes between original and amended development plans

21 May 2013 (Original Plans)

24 August 2013 Plans

15 November 2013 Amended Plans

06 March 2014 Amended Plans

5 Storey – (15.8m external wall height)


5 Storey – (15m external wall height)


77 Apartments - 34 Single bedroom

apartments and 43 Two bedroom self

contained apartments = 120

bedrooms

70 Apartments - 20 Single bedroom apartments and 50 Two bedroom self contained apartments = 120 bedrooms



Basement – Gym, Staff room general Amenity & Service/ plant Equip rooms



Basement –Staff room general Amenity & Service/ plant Equip rooms

58m2 Restaurant (Café) fronting

Pakenham Street,

58m2 Restaurant (Café) fronting

Pakenham Street,

49m2 Restaurant (Café)

57m2 Restaurant (Café)

94 m2 Meeting/ Conference Room,

94m2 Meeting/ Conference

Room,

53m2 Conference room

53m2 Conference room with new 27m2 roof terrace


Page 73

4 car bay (2 x 2 Car stackers)

basement area, 1 Loading Bays & 12

Bicycle racks

1 onsite car bay, 1 Loading Bays &

8 Bicycle racks

1 loading bay 1 loading bay Introduction of two Commercial/ retail tenancies – 55 and 116m2 ground and first floor.

In respect to heritage conservation, previous DAC concerns and Council recommendations the following amendments proposed as part of the most recent submitted amended plans include, but limited too:

The planning modules of the new additions are set out to conform to the structural grid of the existing building.

The new additions are attached to the conserved external walls of the heritage building.

New window openings on the ground floor match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building.

Deletion of the upper window treatments of the original Pakenham and Short street façade walls,

The ground and first floor levels of the new additions match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building;

Amended 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor set-backs form both Pakenham and Short Streets. Significant alterations relating to the choice of materials, colours and textures to the

upper floor addition projecting above the exiting façade of the building. Introduction of the corner glazed treated tower with the artist impression of the

Manning Foley tower imprinted onto the glass, Greater element of the internal structural columns, roof trusses and gantry being

retained and incorporated into the proposed internal courtyard area of the development, and

The existing parapet serves as the balustrade for the terrace formed at second floor level.

Legislation & policy: The legislative framework and policy base providing for the assessment and determination of the subject application is as follows: 1) City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) – application for

development on the site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 10 of LPS4.

City of Fremantle LPS4 Provisions: The following Scheme provisions are considered the most relevant in the consideration of the planning application: • Table 2 - Zoning; • Table 3 – Vehicle Parking requirements; • Clause 4.2.1(b) - Objectives for the City Centre Zone; • Clause 5.15 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures; • Clause 7.5 – Variations to Scheme provisions for a heritage place or heritage area;


Page 74

• Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee; • Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions; and • Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area 1 City Centre – Sub Area 1.3.1 West End State Government Policies: • Nil Local Planning Policies The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies: • Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3) • Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessment (LPP 1.6) • Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles Of Design • Local Planning Policy 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines

(LPP2.3) • Local Planning Policy 2.5 – External Requirements (LPP2.5) • Local Planning Policy 2.7 – Archaeological Investigation as a condition of Planning

Approval(LPP2.5) • Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13); • Local Planning Policy 2.19 Contribution for Public Art/and or Heritage Works

(LPP2.19), and • D.G.F14 West End Conservation Policy (DGF14) Consultation: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 28 days. The advertising within this period included: • Sign on site was erected to the frontage of the existing building; • Letter to owners and occupiers within 100m of the site; • Advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website; • the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association were informed of the proposal; • Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 4 and

11 June 2013. A Community Information session was held on the 25 June 2013 for a one hour period. Land owners/occupiers within a 100m radius of the site and elected members were invited to attend the Community Information Session. The session was attended by 3 members of the public, the applicant and a City of Fremantle Councillor. A total of 18 submissions were received. Specific comments about each submission are included in ‘Attachment 3’. The amended plans received 06 March 2014 have not been advertised as the proposed changes to the development are not considered to significantly alter previous sought discretionary matters of LPS4 and Council Local planning policies for which the original application was required to be advertised under clause 9.4 of LPS4 and Council’s LPP1.3 policy.


Page 75

Consultation with Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port buffer area. In accordance with LPP2.3, the Fremantle Port Authority was advised of the development proposal. The authority advised the City in a letter dated 5 June 2013 that it had no objections to the development provided the development was designed and constructed in accordance with the built form requirements for Area 2, as detailed in the City of Fremantle’s “Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines”. The guidelines contain specific conditions of approval that are to be applied to developments within Area 2. These would be included as conditions of approval if the application was being recommended for approval. The amended plans dated 06 March 2014 were note referred to FPA as the previous received advice is still relevant to this current proposal. Consultation with State Heritage Office (SHO) The application relates to a place which is recommended to be included on the State Heritage Office (SHO) Register of Heritage Places and is located within the West End Conservation Area which is included on the SHO Register of Heritage Places. Accordingly the application was referred to the SHO for assessment. SHO responded on 19 June 2013, stating:

The Heritage Council’s Register Committee previously identified it as a place warranting assessment for possible entry in the State Register of Heritage Places; however, a full assessment to its cultural heritage significance has not yet been undertaken.

Again the amended plans dated 06 March 2014 were not referred to SHO as the previous received advice is still relevant to the amended proposal. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 3 occasions: • 18 March 2013 - Concept Designs only; • 14 June 2013 – Original DAP Application Plans dated 21 May 2013; • 12 August 2013 • 9 September 2013 - Amended DAP plans dated 24 August 2013; • 15 November 2013 - Amended DAP plans dated 15 November 2013; and • 28 February 2014 - Amended DAP plans dated 6 March 2014 A summary of the comments from the most recent DAC meeting is reproduced below. For a complete copy of the DAC minutes from this meeting see ‘Attachment 7’ below of the report. 28 February 2014 DC Meeting DAC RECOMMENDATION


Page 76

The modified façade design is considered to meet the Council resolution and is supported subject to the following condition of planning approval:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle, having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee, relating to:

1. The new glazed corner ‘folly’ element is to contain active usable space

accessible from within the building. 2. The height of the corner ‘folly’ element is to be reduced. 3. The concrete panels that extend above the height of adjacent buildings are to

incorporate vertical texture in response to the vertical ribs on the new floors 3 and 4.

4. The recessed set back of the zinc-clad top floor on both the Pakenham and Short Street frontages is to be increased;

5. The projecting “hooded” window strategy employed for the levels 3 and 4 is to be tested for application to the new openings in the heritage façade and the 5th floor.

6. Details of the treatment of the new ground floor openings in terms of achieving adequate levels of security, privacy and sun protection.

Internal Environmental Health Department Review The Environmental Health section have reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: • The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the

premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.

• Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction.

• The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. City Works City works were contacted in relation to the proposed onsite waste management (bin storage and rubbish collection) with the proposed development. City works commented that the following condition should be included as part of the Officers Recommendation:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Heritage (Internal) The amended proposal was referred to the City’s Heritage department for comment. Additional comments which should be read as an addendum to the City’s heritage assessment and previous heritage comments dated 4 September 2013 and 20th November 2013 (Also forming part of Attachment 2 of this report), were received on 10 March 2014 (see Attachment 2) and are summarised as follows;


Page 77

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 it was agreed that the applicant be advised that Council was not prepared to support the proposal and plans dated 15 November 2013. In addition the applicant was invited to attend another workshop and submit an amendment to the current application, incorporating the following changes and additional information:

i. That the planning modules of the new additions be set out to conform to the structural grid of the existing building.

ii. Remove the gap between the old and the new by attaching the new additions to the

conserved external walls.

iii. Retain the intactness of the external walls of the heritage building by only forming new window openings to match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building.

iv. Design the new additions so that the windows in the external wall serve as the

windows of the new accommodation units.

v. Behind the retained facades the floor levels of the new additions should match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building.

vi. Design the new additions so their siting, bulk, and height do not overwhelm the

façade of the heritage building.

vii. Set out the level of the second floor so the existing parapet can serve as the balustrade for the terrace formed at this level.

The submitted drawings are the result of a number of workshops. Through the process significant improvements have been achieved and in summary the proposed development is considered acceptable because the design has not only retained the warehouse character of the heritage building but also because of the coherent relationship created between the retained heritage façade and the additions. Comments on the submitted proposal The submitted drawings are the result of a number of workshops. It is thought that significant design improvements were achieved as a result of the workshop process. The revised proposal has been assessed on the basis of the seven criteria set at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday, 27 November 2013. Criteria (i) That the planning modules of the new additions be set out to conform to the structural grid of the existing building. Comment: The planning modules of the new additions are set out to conform to the structural grid of the existing building. Criteria (ii)


Page 78

Remove the gap between the old and the new by attaching the new additions to the conserved external walls. Comment: The ground and first floor levels of the additions are attached to the conserved external walls of the heritage building. Criteria (iii) Retain the intactness of the external walls of the heritage building by only forming new window openings to match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building. Comment: The intactness of the external walls of the heritage building has been improved by new window openings being formed at ground floor level only and by their matching the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building. It is considered that the proposal retains the warehouse character of external wall. Criteria (iv) Design the new additions so that the windows in the external wall serve as the windows of the new accommodation units. Comment: The windows in the external wall serve as the windows of the new accommodation units. Criteria (v) Behind the retained facades the floor levels of the new additions should match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building. Comment: The floor levels of the new additions match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building. Criteria (vi) Design the new additions so their siting, bulk, and height do not overwhelm the façade of the heritage building. Comment: Through the use of set-backs and choice of materials, the new upper floors combine with the heritage building to create a clear and coherent relationship between the old and the new with no part overwhelming any other part. The combined effect of the arrangement of height, volumes and silhouette combine as a classically influenced composition where the retained heritage building reads as a clearly defined base and the upper storeys of the additions form its middle and upper parts. By the combined use of set-backs and the choice of materials, the upper floors have been arranged to reduce the overall bulk of the building. The heritage building reads as a clearly defined base and the upper floors of the additions combine to form the middle and upper parts of the classically influenced composition. The introduction of a corner element is consistent with the precedent set by other classically influenced buildings in Fremantle Criteria (vii) Set out the level of the second floor so the existing parapet can serve as the balustrade for the terrace formed at this level


Page 79

Comment: The existing parapet serves as the balustrade for the terrace formed at second floor level. Archaeology The existing warehouse occupies the site of the former ‘Manning Folly’; a building of considerable significance in the history of the West End. The existing warehouse consists largely of perimeter walls and apart of the administration offices, the interior is an open space. Consequentially it is likely that within the site, the warehouse may have been constructed without disturbance of the foundations of the earlier building. Recommendations

It is considered that the revised design successfully addresses the seven criteria set at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday, 27 November 2013. The proposal is therefore supported.

It is recommended that an archaeological survey of the site be undertaken.

Planning Assessment: Zone Objectives and Land Use The objectives for this zone are set out in Clause 4.2.1(b), which are reproduced below:

(i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12, (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by

development.

The proposed Tourist Accommodation, Restaurant and Shop use for the site is considered be an appropriate land use in accordance with sub clause (i) above, there are no objectives illustrated for local planning area 1 of Schedule 12 of LPS4 to be addressed and the amended design and proposal are considered to conserve the heritage significant building onsite and therefore equate to a positive contribution to the West End Conservation Area. Further specific discussion relating to sub clause (ii) and (iii) is included below in the building height discretion section of the report. Design Clause 11.8.5 and 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 states that Council is to have regard to the comments of the DAC when dealing with a matter involving an application for planning approval. Clause 11.8.6.3 outlines the matters which the DAC shall have due regard to assist in determining the design quality of the development. Such matters include character, continuity, quality of the public realm, ease of movement, legibility, adaptability and diversity. Such matters directly relate to whether the proposal has an impact on the amenity of the locality and is in the interests of orderly and proper planning. Numerous concepts and development plans have been presented before the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) of which these individual presentations and DAC’s


Page 80

recommendations to these presentations have been included in ‘Attachment 6’ of this report referenced in the last Council report. At its last meeting DAC stated the following components of the amended proposal as Strengths:

1. The siting, bulk and height of the upper floors are not considered to overwhelm the façade of the heritage building;

2. The proposed design is a significant improvement on previous designs in the way it has responded architecturally to the original building;

3. The selection of façade materials is considered appropriate in terms of quality; 4. The varying width of the vertical facade ribs on the 3rd and 4th floors is considered a

positive outcome as it provides texture, colour and depth on this section of the facade which is recessed and set above the original façade;

5. The use of zinc cladding with associated vertical ribs on the new top floor is a positive contribution to the building’s variety of materials and finishes;

6. The recessed and zinc clad top floor reads as a mansard roof, assisting in visually containing the extended height of the building.

In stating the above strengths, DAC also commented on how the proposal could be improved. Since this meeting the applicant has taken on this advice and amended the DAC submitted plans, incorporating the following:

- an active use for the second floor new corner element, - reducing the corner element from 17.8m to 17m, - Introducing projecting “hooded” windows employed for the levels 3 and 4 to the new

ground floor openings in the heritage façade on Short Street, and - Extending the zinc cladding to the upper floor eastern and southern boundary walls

to assist in diminishing the reading of overall height and creating more useable balconies to the top floor rooms.

In summary, DAC advised that the amended proposal met the Council resolution subject to the following condition:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle, having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee, relating to:

a) The new glazed corner ‘folly’ element is to contain active usable space

accessible from within the building. b) The height of the corner ‘folly’ element is to be reduced. c) The concrete panels that extend above the height of adjacent buildings are to

incorporate vertical texture in response to the vertical ribs on the new floors 3 and 4.

d) The recessed set back of the zinc-clad top floor on both the Pakenham and Short Street frontages is to be increased;

e) The projecting “hooded” window strategy employed for the levels 3 and 4 is to be tested for application to the new openings in the heritage façade and the 5th floor.

f) Details of the treatment of the new ground floor openings in terms of achieving adequate levels of security, privacy and sun protection.


Page 81

Accordingly the above condition is included in the ‘Officers Recommendation’. Building Height The development site is located within Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre (Schedule 12 of LPS4) and is subject to the specific building height controls set out in Sub Area 1.3 West End of that local planning area. Application of the height controls is shown below in the Building Height Table: Building Height Table: Required Provided Discretion Permitted Sub Area 1.3 permitted building height Three Storey’s and 11m external wall height Discretionary Height Additional Storey (4th Storey subject to; the upper floor being

sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site,

max external wall height of 14m, and

Compliance with clause 1.2 of Schedule 1 – Area 1.

5 Storeys and max external wall height of 16.3m.

1 Storey, and

the portion of the

building above 11m external wall height, being 5.3m, and

Upper 5th floor not

being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site.

The City’s heritage assessment identified John Lysaght Warehouse, 8 Pakenham Street, to be of ‘considerable’ significance as it is a good, intact and authentic example of an Inter-War Chicagoesque style warehouse that displays characteristics of scale, composition and materials that contribute to the townscape qualities of the historic West End and to an understanding of the history of development of the West End and Fremantle. Demolition of Buildings and Structures Clause 5.15.1 states that, Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

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

LPS4 also states under Clause 5.15.2 that in determining an application in light of the above, Council shall have regard to any heritage assessment required under clause 7.4 of LPS4, which is enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 2).


Page 82

In stating the above, it’s acknowledged that the heritage assessment undertaken for the application has found the existing building onsite proposed to be partially demolished to be of ‘considerable’ significance, and therefore sub clause (a) above cannot be satisfied and therefore clause 5.15 of LPS4 not addressed. Notwithstanding this, the proposed partial demolition could be entertained under clause 7.5 of LPS4 subject to addressing the relevant criteria of clause 7.5 of LPS4. Further discussion relating to this matter will be included below. Clause 7.5 of LPS4 – Variations to Scheme provisions for a heritage place or heritage area, if the development Pursuant to clause 7.5, Council may vary LPS4 provisions for a heritage place or heritage area where it is considered desirable to:

(a) facilitate the conservation of a heritage place entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the Heritage List under clause 7.1.1; or

(b) (not relevant)

As the site is included on the City’s heritage list established under clause 7.1.1 of LPS4, clause 7.5 (a) applies. The applicant seeks Councils discretion in relation to the proposed building height under this sub clause of 7.5 of LPS4. The key expression to this clause is considered to be, ‘where desirable to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place’. The words desirable and facilitate are defined by the Macquarie Dictionary as:

‘Desirable’, ‘means worthy to be desired’,

‘Desire’ relevantly means ‘to wish or long for, crave, want’

‘Facilitate’ means ‘to make easier or less difficult’.

‘Conservation’ is defined in Schedule 1 of LPS4 to have the same meaning as in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, which is reproduced below:

“conservation” means, in relation to any place, the management of that place in a manner that will —

(a) enable the cultural heritage significance of that place to be retained; and

(b) yield the greatest sustainable benefit for the present community without

diminishing the cultural heritage significance of that place, and may include the preservation, stabilization, protection, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation, and maintenance of that place in accordance with relevant professional standards, and the provision of an appropriate visual setting;


Page 83

The applicant contends that the proposed partial demolition and building height discretion can also be granted under Clause 7.5 for the following reasons:

The subject property is listed under Clause 7.1.1 and therefore it is desirable to facilitate the conservation of the place (otherwise it would not be listed). The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter defines conservation as "all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural heritage significance" (Article 1.4). Article 14 of the Burra Charter describes the specific processes relating to conservation, stating the following:

Conservation may, according to circumstance, include the processes of: retention or reintroduction of a use; retention of associations and meanings; maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaption and interpretation; and will commonly include a combination of more than one of these.

The proposed development includes a range of processes which comprise conservation as defined above, including the preservation and restoration of significant portions of the fabric of the place, including the streetscape presentation, majority of the corner office building and a portion of the internal steel structure; reconstruction of elements formally a part of the place including the corner entrance and an awning; adaption of the place to suit a new use; and interpretation of the history of the site.

Given the above, we consider that the proposed development will result in a good conservation outcome, and therefore satisfies the requirements of Clause 7.5 for the exercise of height discretion.

In considering the proposed height of the development, Council must be satisfied that the development directly gives rise to, and promotes the conservation of heritage values on the site. As stated previously the amended plans dated 06 March 2014 include several major positive changes compared to the original proposal in respect to conservation works of the heritage building. It is acknowledged that ‘conservation’ is a broad concept as reflected in the range of processes outlined in the above definition. The two key aspects regarding the proposed development which relates to the proposed building height and enable retention of elements of the warehouse building which ultimately contributes to the cultural heritage significance of the site are:

(1) the alignment of the floor levels of the ground floor and first floor of the new development with the existing corner warehouse component of the building, and

(2) preservation of some of the internal space and volume of the existing warehouse building and related structures through the creation of the internal courtyard which will incorporate some existing saw tooth roof trusses, columns and gantry.

Whilst its recognised that by lifting the ground floor and first floor, floor to ceiling heights to match the existing building levels would typically result in increased wall height, this ultimately could also be achieved without the need to increase the number of storeys of the development, and as such this alone isn’t considered to warrant support to vary the building height under clause 7.5 of LSP4.


Page 84

However, with regards to the proposed retention and preservation of the internal warehouse volume and space and associated structures, necessarily means that any new development would not be able to occupy this part of the site, resulting in a significant loss of development potential in terms of internal volume. Therefore, to accommodate the retention of this internal floor space, which would otherwise occupy the internal courtyard area, the applicant is proposing to relocate some of this development area and incorporate it into a fifth storey. With regards to the appropriateness of the amended development building height, street setbacks, building bulk and scale and overall design, the City’s DAC generally supported the new proposal, subject to the specific criteria outlined in recommended condition no.13. Additionally it must be noted that the amended plans dated 6 March 2014, already include some amendments to address parts of condition No.13. Remembering that clause 7.5 does not require the proposed height variation to be necessary or essential to conserve this heritage place, but rather the conservation of this place is made easier or less difficult (as per the definition of ‘facilitate’) by the building height variation. Given that the proposed height variation ultimately facilitate conservation of the warehouse building as it assists with the preservation, adaption and retention of several key elements of the existing building which are integral to the sites cultural heritage significance, in this case the proposed fifth storey is considered appropriate particularly given the support the proposal has received from the City’s Heritage department and Design Advisory Committee. For these reasons, the proposed building height variation is supported under Clause 7.5 (a) of LPS4. Car parking

Required Provided Discretion Sought Car Parking bays Tourist Accommodation Use 1:1 unit or 1: bedroom 73 Units = 73 bays or 122 bedrooms = 122 bays

Nil

122 Bays

Delivery bay 1: Administration centre

1 bay

Complies

Bicycle Racks N/A

N/A

N/A

Car Parking bays Restaurant (Café) Use – 57m2 = 35m2 is for dinning

Nil

7 Bays Delivery bay


Page 85

1: service storage

Nil

1 Bay

Bicycle Racks 1:100m2 gla – 57m2 proposed

1 Rack

1 Bike Rack

Car Parking bays Office = 171m2

Nil

6 Bays Delivery bay 1: 500m2

Nil

1 Bay Bicycle Racks 1:200m2 gla

Nil

1 Bike Rack Sub Total Carbays Delivery bays Bike Racks

Nil 1 Bay

Nil

SHORTFALL

135 Bays 1 bay

2 Bike Racks Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances where Council may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3. The following provisions of clause 5.7.3 are considered directly relevant to this proposal:

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, (vii) the proposal involves the restoration of a heritage building or retention of a

tree or trees worthy of preservation; The discretionary decisions relating to vehicle parking and loading/ delivery bay is supported for the following reasons;

The proposal includes the adaption and façade restoration of a heritage building located on a site with no practical means of providing vehicle parking. Requiring all 135 vehicle and delivery bays to be provided on-site may be detrimental preservation of the heritage facades of the building, consistent with clause 5.7.3.1(a)(vi) of LPS4;

The subject site is approximately 250m from the Fremantle Railway Station, Bus Station and Taxi rank facilities all of which are considered to be primary forms of transport for interstate and international travellers which are also considered to targeted occupiers of this development. These high frequency public transport facilities are considered to provide a significant offset to the demand for vehicle parking as a result of the proposal, consistent with clause 5.7.3.1(a)(ii) of LPS4; and,

There are a number of public parking areas available nearby the subject land on Phillimore Street and Little High Street that are in public ownership and offer all-day parking, consistent with clause 5.7.3.1(a)(i) of LPS4.

Furthermore, with regards to the shortfall of the two bike racks, the site is capable of providing and storing this facility internally, with no impact to the cultural heritage significance of the site and as such a condition is recommended requiring this provision to be incorporating it into the new development.


Page 86

It is noted that Local Planning Policy D.B.M7 – Cash-in-lieu of car parking policy is not relevant to consideration of this application as Council has resolved to suspend operation of the policy for twelve months from 25 September 2013. In September 2013 the Council resolved to suspend for 12 months the application of Local Planning Policy D.B.M7 – Cash-in-lieu of car parking to proposed developments in the Fremantle Strategic Metropolitan Activity Centre which involve land uses that support delivery of the Council’s strategic economic revitalisation objectives for the centre – notably retail and office uses. This decision was taken to provide a clear incentive for early development investment in the City Centre, and in recognition that there is currently significantly underutilised public car parking capacity in the centre and this spare capacity will likely remain available for a number of years notwithstanding new development activity including development of existing car park sites. Evidence of underutilised public parking capacity was obtained through a comprehensive study of city centre car parking supply and demand patterns carried out by specialist consultants Luxmoore on behalf of the City in late 2012. The Luxmoore study indicated that in the precinct of the City Centre that includes the subject site there are 435 off-street public car parks plus 509 on-streets parking bays totalling 944 car bays. The average vacancy rate of parking spaces in the precinct identified from surveys undertaken for the study was 26%. 26% equates to 245 free car bays during peak hours. Furthermore, the Luxmoore study elaborates that in relation to this specific site, of the 20 on street Short street & 53 on street Pakenham Street (between Collie and Phillimore Street) available parking bays, during peak periods 59% and 22% of these bays were vacant, equating to an average of 24 immediate on street bays being available during peak periods. The findings of the Luxmoore study are informing the City’s development of a longer term strategic approach to public parking provision as part of the preparation of the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan, which is currently in progress. Additional Planning Matters raised during the Consultation Process ‘Attachment 3’ contains a Schedule of Submissions (18 submissions received) and a response to the issues raised in those submissions. The applicant has taken opportunity to provide additional response to these 18 submissions received regarding the proposal and the applicant response can be viewed in ‘Attachment 3’.The issues raised in the submission are either addressed in the report or are not relevant planning considerations as identified in the Schedule. Local Planning Policies Requirements Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3) The subject site is within the Fremantle Ports Referral Area 2. Council’s policy L.P.P2.3: Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines states that all applications for developments having the potential to accommodate 20 or more persons on a full or part-time basis shall be referred to the FPA for comment.


Page 87

The development has the potential to accommodate more than 20 people and therefore the application was referred to FPA for comment. The FPA responded stating that they did not have any objection to the proposed development; however conditions relating to the built form requirements for the new built form additions for Area 2 of the City’s Fremantle Port Buffer policy were recommended. Accordingly, a condition requiring these provisions has been included as part of the Officer’s Recommendation. Local Planning Policy – 2.7 – Archaeological Investigation as a condition of Planning Approval Clause 7.7 of LPS4 sets out the requirements for archaeological investigations to be undertaken as part of development proposals. Clause 7.7.2 specifies that;

‘The condition referred to in clause 7.7.1 may be imposed where;

(a) the place to which the planning approval relates:

(i) is a vacant site at the time the planning approval is granted; or (ii) will be wholly or substantially redeveloped in the planning approval is

implemented.’

(b) the Council has reasonable evidence the place may include contents, materials or objects that have aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social significance for the present community and future generations.

The proposed development is considered to fall into ‘substantial redevelopment’ of the site and given that the heritage assessment prepared by the City’s heritage department for this proposal specifies that there is reasonable evidence of archaeological material being present at the subject site (see Attachment 2). Specifically, the following comments are made;

‘The existing warehouse occupies the site of the former ‘Manning Folly’; a building of considerable significance in the history of the West End. The existing warehouse consists largely of perimeter walls and apart of the administration offices, the interior is an open space. Consequentially it is likely that within the site, the warehouse may have been constructed without disturbance of the foundations of the earlier building.’

On the basis of the advice received a condition of approval requiring an archaeological investigation to be undertaken is recommended. Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13) Pursuant to LPP2.13, the application is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia rating tool, or an alternative rating tool to the same affect. A condition of approval requiring compliance with LPP2.13 is therefore recommended.


Page 88

Local Planning Policy 2.19 - Contribution for Public Art/and or Heritage Works (LPP2.19) The proposed development is required to adhere to the provisions contained within Council’s L.P.P2.19 Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works. The applicant is seeking discretion in accordance with the criteria of clause 6 of the policy in the case that public art work is to be incorporated into the development at a value of 1% of the total cost of development in a position clearly visible to the general public. The development plans indicate a ‘photo engraved precast wall panelling’ on the upper portions southern and eastern boundary walls. However as no further detail in relation to the public art proposal has been provided, the appropriateness and artistic merit of the proposal cannot be determined. On this basis, a condition of approval has been recommended requiring the applicant to contribute a monetary amount of 1% of the estimated total cost of development to the City for the development of public art/heritage work in accordance with clause 2 of L.P.P2.19. Further, in accordance with clause 6 of L.P.P2.19 the applicant’s requirement to meet the 1% contribution may be waived where the public art is proposed as part of the development through a subsequent application for planning approval where public art is proposed on the development site, at a value of 1% of the estimated total cost of development which is located in a position clearly visible to the general public. Conclusion: Planning Approval is sought for the partial demolition of the existing Warehouse building and construction of a Five (5) storey Tourist Accommodation building onsite. The proposal is recommended for conditional approval, having regard to the following conclusions;

The proposed design of the development is considered to not overwhelm the existing heritage façade of the building on site,

Proposed variations to the planning framework relating to building height, partial demolition and vehicle parking are considered acceptable for the reasons outlined above;

The proposed land use, conservation and adaptive heritage works proposed to the former John Lysaught Warehouse Building are considered appropriate and acceptable on heritage grounds,

As per relevant City’s local planning policies, conditions of approval requiring the proposal to meet the specific design requirements of L.P.P2.3, L.P.P2.7, and LPP2.13 & LPP2.19 are recommended.

The proposal is therefore recommended for conditional approval


Page 89

PSC1403-56 HIGH STREET, NO. 3/269 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - PATIO ADDITION

TO GROUPED DWELLING - (KS DA0048/14) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 30 January 2014 Owner Name: Anne McDermott & Francis McDermott Submitted by: Quality outdoor improvements Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Two storey Grouped dwelling Use Class: Grouped dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council as an objection was received from an adjoining property owner which cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application is recommended for conditional approval. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a patio addition to the Grouped dwelling at No. 3/269 High Street, Fremantle (subject site). The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies and requires Council’s discretion in regard to the following design principle assessment:


Page 90

• Boundary wall (east). The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional factors of assessment as contained within LPP2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 3/269 High Street, Fremantle is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25 and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site currently comprises a two storey Grouped dwelling which forms part of a Grouped dwelling development comprising four Grouped dwellings. The subject site is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List nor is the dwelling located within a designated heritage area under LPS4. The property is located within the street block bound by High Street, Chalmers Street, Blinco Street and Swanbourne Street. DETAIL

The applicant is seeking planning approval for a patio addition to the existing Grouped dwelling at No. 3/269 (Lot 3) High Street, Fremantle. The patio is proposed as follows:

• Located east and north east of the dwelling; • The portion of patio on the eastern boundary comprises a flat roof, with a wall

height at 3.1m. The length of wall on the boundary is 4.8m in length. The boundary wall is comprised of patio posts located on the boundary with the roof element setback 0.5m from the eastern boundary; and

• The portion of patio to the north of the dwelling pitches down from a wall height of 3.1m from the dwelling to 2.4m to its northern wall. This element of patio is setback at a distance of 1m from the northern boundary and 1.85m from the eastern boundary.

For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for development plans. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 20 February 2014, the City had received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, raising the following planning concern:

• Boundary wall (east). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions sought against policy requirements or assessment against the R Code’s design principles are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 91

PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary Wall Required Provided Discretion Boundary walls to:

• Abut non residential land uses;

• To abut a boundary wall of similar or greater dimension; or

• Located on a property with a frontage of less than 10m.

Eastern boundary wall at 3.1m in height and 4.8m in length.

• Boundary wall abuts residential use;

• Does not abut existing boundary wall of similar or greater dimension; and

• Is located on a property with a frontage that is greater than 10m.

The boundary wall is supported against the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional factors of assessment in LPP2.4 for the following reasons:

• The impact of building bulk upon the eastern adjoining property is not considered significant as the building is open in nature and the roof of the patio is setback at a distance of 500mm from the property boundary. On this basis, the structure is considered to appear similar to a pergola which is not subject to any lot boundary setback requirements;

• The patio will abut rear backyard area associated with the eastern adjoining Grouped dwelling that is currently under construction;

• Given its location on the eastern boundary and the open nature of the roof within 500mm from the boundary the patio is not considered to have any significant impact in the restriction of sunlight upon the eastern adjoining property as measured by the R Codes;

• The proposal will not be visible from any public road and thus will have no impact upon any streetscape; and

• The patio will not restrict any views of significance for any adjoining property. CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the City’s LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant local planning policies. Where discretion and design principle assessment has been sought in relation to the eastern boundary wall the development is considered to support its relevant criteria. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 92


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the patio addition to Grouped dwelling at No. 3/269 (Lot 3) High Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 30 January 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



Page 93

PSC1403-57 JEWELL PARADE, NO. 15 (LOT 31), NORTH FREMANTLE - THREE

STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE AND TWO (2) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0094/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 28 February 2013;

18 February 2014 (amended plans); 28 February 2014 (overshadowing diagram)

Owner Name: Robert Maughan Submitted by: As above Scheme: Mixed Use (R25, however eligible for R60 density bonus) Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 3 (limestone

features); North Fremantle Heritage Area

Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: ‘Office’ & ‘Multiple Dwelling’ Use Permissibility: ‘P’ & ‘A’


Page 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a three storey mixed use development (Office and two (2) Multiple Dwellings) at No. 15 (Lot 31) Jewell Parade, North Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following: • Height; • Car parking; • LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines; • DGN4– Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local

Area The proposal is considered supportable in relation to both height and car parking. It is also considered supportable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions bringing the development into compliance with LPP2.3 and is supported on-balance in relation to Council’s DGN4. The applicant is also seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ in relation to: • Building size (plot ratio); • Lot boundary setback • Landscaping • Site works • Visual privacy • Overshadowing • Utilities and facilities The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes. Accordingly, the application is on balance recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA 3) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. Notwithstanding that the subject site is coded R25, the development subject of this application is eligible for the R60 density code in accordance with Clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 as a mixed use development is proposed. The site is located in the street block bound by Pearse Street to the west, Jackson Street to the north, Tydeman Road and Queen Victoria Street to the south and Jewell Parade the east. The site is on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a Management Category Level 3 (limestone features) and it is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4.


Page 95

The subject site is 392m2 and is located on the western side of the Jewell Parade, North Fremantle. The subject site is currently vacant and in terms of its topography, the subject site slopes upwards by approximately 1.60 metres from its south-eastern corner fronting Jewell Parade up to its north-western corner. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning or to this application. DETAIL

On 28 February 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a three storey mixed use development (Office and two (2) Multiple Dwellings) at No. 15 (Lot 31) Jewell Parade, North Fremantle (refer DA0094/13). On 18 February 2014, the City received amended plans which included a number of amendments. These amendments included converting the previous ‘Grouped Dwellings’ to ‘Multiple Dwellings’ as well as a reduction to the overall height of the building, making it possible for Council to give consideration under Clause 5.1.8.2 of LPS4 in granting height discretion. On 28 February 2014, the City received an overshadowing diagram from the applicant. The proposed development plans (as amended) are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 22 April 2013, the City had received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, of which raised no objections.

Heritage The City’s heritage department have reviewed the proposal and have advised that they have no concerns with the proposal on heritage grounds, providing the following comments:

“It is considered that the remnant wall does not contribute significantly to understanding the early formation of Jewell Parade (unlike 8 Jackson Street and 13 Jewell Parade). The demolition of the wall is therefore considered acceptable.”


The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 96

PLANNING COMMENT

Density bonus The applicable density coding of the subject site is R25. Notwithstanding, Clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 provides that:

“Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 5.2.3 residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.”

Schedule 1 of LPS4 defines the term ‘mixed use’ as follows:

“means, when used in relation to a Planning Application, a combination of one or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 2 - Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development.”

The table below breaks down the gross lettable area of the proposed development and each of the proportionate share of the total gross lettable area.

Land Use Gross Lettable Area (GLA) Proportionate share of total GLA

Office 171.71m2 31.63% Residential 371.09m2 68.37%

Total 542.80m2 100% Accordingly, as each of the two proposed use classes exceeds the minimum 25% gross lettable area of the development, Council may grant the density bonus of up to R60 where it is of the opinion that the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area. The amenity impacts of the proposed development are discussed further below. Height

Permitted Proposed Discretion Maximum external wall height of 7.50m

Maximum external wall height of 7.85m

0.35m

As the proposal exceeds the prescribed height requirements for development within the mixed use zone of the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA 3), clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 states that:

“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,


Page 97

(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 subject site is currently vacant and there are no buildings adjacent to the site that contains a building that depicts a height greater than 7.5 metres so it cannot satisfy the ‘trigger’ of discretionary criteria of clause 5.8.1.1. Notwithstanding that the proposal does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of clause 5.8.1.1, clause 5.8.1.2 of LPS4 states that:

“Where there is a variation in ground level over a development footprint of greater than one metre, Council may increase the specific height requirements of Schedule 12 subject to— (a) no portion of external wall of the building exceeding the maximum external

wall height requirement of Schedule 12 by greater than 0.5 metres, and (b) no portion of external wall of the building that exceeds the maximum external

height requirement of Schedule 12 being situated on the higher side of the development footprint as measured from natural ground level.”

As detailed in the ‘background’ section of this report, in terms of its topography, the subject site slopes upwards by approximately 1.60 metres from its south-eastern corner fronting Jewell Parade up to its north-western corner. Notwithstanding, the ‘trigger’ of this discretionary clause requires there to be a variation in ground level over the development footprint of greater than 1.00 metre. The ground level over the development footprint (as distinct from the site itself) is 1.16 metres, thereby satisfying the ‘trigger’ of this clause and permitting consideration against (a) and (b) above. In relation to (a) above, the proposed maximum external wall height of 7.85 metres is within the 0.5 metre additional height permitted atop of the prescribed 7.50 metres, thereby satisfying (a). Furthermore, and in relation to (b) above, the portion of external wall of the building that exceeds the maximum external height requirement of Schedule 12 is not situated on the higher side of the development footprint as measured from natural ground level, thereby satisfying (b). Therefore, it is considered that the proposed height discretion should be supported against clause 5.8.1.2 of LPS4. Car parking

Use Car Bay Delivery Bay Visitor Bay Bicycle Rack Residential 2 0 1 0 Office 6 1 0 1 Total Required 8 1 1 1 Proposed 7 0 0 0 Shortfall/surplus -1 -1 -1 -1 The following assessment is separated into residential and office land uses. Residential -


Page 98

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • It is considered that there is sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the type,

number and size of dwellings; • There is provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and

surrounding locality of the subject site, particularly on Queen Victoria Street between Tydeman Road and Jackson Street;

• There is a bus stop located approximately 60m due-east of the subject site on Queen Victoria Street which provides bus services for the 98, 99 and 103 bus routes; and there is another stop located approximately 170m due-south of the subject site on Queen Victoria Street which provides bus services for the 381 bus route. In addition, there is the North Fremantle train station located approximately 550m due-north of the subject site. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available.

Office -

In relation to the discretions sought for the office land use, pertaining to the provision of on-site parking bay, delivery bay and bicycle rack, Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, (iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car

spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,

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

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

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

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

(viii) any other relevant considerations. Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is

not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause. (b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably

qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above. Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon

alternative transport opportunities.”


Page 99

In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3(i), it is noted that there is provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site, particularly on Queen Victoria Street between Tydeman Road and Jackson Street. Regarding (ii) above, There is a bus stop located approximately 60m due-east of the subject site on Queen Victoria Street which provides bus services for the 98, 99 and 103 bus routes; and there is another stop located approximately 170m due-south of the subject site on Queen Victoria Street which provides bus services for the 381 bus route. In addition, there is the North Fremantle train station located approximately 550m due-north of the subject site. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available. In relation to (iii), due to the mixed use nature of the proposed development, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that some of the car parking bays associated with the residential component of the development may be available during business hours, which may provide for opportunity for any excess parking requirement for the office to utilise. It is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the provision of a minimum of one (1) bicycle rack as part of the development to satisfy the Office land use. It is considered that the existing provision of on-street parking in the immediate locality and the proximity to public transport, that the proposed on-site car parking bay and delivery bay should be supported, whilst the provision of a bicycle rack for the office land use should be adhered to. In relation to (viii) above, the applicant has verbally advised that the proposed ‘office’ will become the new office for his own building company, whilst the three bedroom Multiple Dwelling will become his new residence and that the single bedroom Multiple Dwelling will be used to house a family member. This would offset the demand of on-site car parking for the residential and office land uses as they would in fact be sharing their requirements. Notwithstanding, due to the nature of operating hours typically associated with an office land use, the demand of on-site car parking requirements between it and residential are inherently different and do not directly compete with one another. Furthermore, Council has exercised parking discretions before for more than what is proposed on other land zoned ‘Mixed Use’ (e.g. restaurants on South Terrace) that immediately abuts ‘Residential’ zoned land. Whilst the subject site also abuts land zoned ‘Residential’, that is land that is to the west and fronts a separate street (Pearse Street) and therefore is considered to have less of an impact than if it were land zoned ‘Residential’ on the same street. It is noted that land on the eastern side of Jewell Parade is zoned ‘Local Centre’. The proposal includes five on-site car parking bays within the primary street setback area, inclusive of one disabled bay. There is also provision for an additional two on-site car parking bays within the garage. It is noted that the two bays within the garage area are only directly accessible to and from the ground floor ‘Office’ use and are therefore not considered to be associated with that ‘Multiple Dwelling’ land uses. Given this, the possibility of a ‘tandem’ parking arrangement would be considered appropriate for the two car parking bays immediately in front of the car parking bays contained within the garage to be used for the ‘Office’ land use.


Page 100

The 3 southern of the five on-site car parking bays within the primary street setback area could also be associated with the ‘Office’ land use, whilst the two northern-most bays could be used for the two Multiple Dwellings proposed. It is recommended that this allocation of bays be imposed as a condition of approval. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Building size (plot ratio)

Permitted Proposed 0.7 (274.4m2) 0.8 (314.57m2) It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • As the proposal includes excavation to accommodate the ground floor of the

development, visually it presents as a two-and-half storey development to Jewell Parade, despite it actually being a three storey development;

• The ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes require a minimum primary street setback of 2.00 metres, the proposed primary street setback of the development is 3.944 metres. It is considered that providing a primary street setback almost double what is required assists in reducing its bulk and scale as viewed from the street;

• The proposed first and second floors do not extend for the full width of the lot. The subject site is 15.09 metres in width, whilst the ‘solid’ wall element of the proposed first and second floors occupy only 8.45 metres (or 55.99%) of the lot frontage as there is an open ‘terrace’ on the first floor, and an open ‘void’ on the second floor – both on the northern side of the dwelling. This is considered to assist in breaking up the building bulk of the development as viewed from the street when compared to upper level development that is wider, and occupies more of the lot frontage than that proposed;

• The proposed skillion roof provides significantly less bulk as viewed from the street compared to a hipped or gabled roof solution;

• The proposal is considered to satisfy the discretionary building height provisions as prescribed by clause 5.8.1.2 of LPS4.

• In light of the above, it is considered that whilst the proposal may not be consistent with the existing built form of the locality, the zoning and development control mechanisms within LPS4 for Jewell Parade provide for opportunity for a similar type of development in the future. In this regard, it is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’.

Lot boundary setback

Dwelling Required Proposed 1 1 (single

bedroom) Ground floor, west (bath/ldry, bed) – setback required 1.00m

Nil (0.00m)

2 1 (single bedroom)

First floor, west (kitchen/living) – setback required 1.50m Nil (0.00m)

3 2 (3 bedroom) First floor, south (ptry, kitch, stairs) – setback required 1.80m

1.71m


Page 101

In relation to (1) and (2) above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • That they will provide adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for the building

and open space associated with them; • That they moderate their visual impact as half of (1) is actually sunken below natural

ground level. It is considered that this serves to reduce the overall impact by way of building bulk upon the western adjoining property;

• That they ensure access to daylight and direct sun for the western adjoining property; • That they assist with the protection of privacy with the western adjoining property; • The proposed boundary wall is some 8.0m from the wall of the dwelling on the

adjoining western property. In relation to (3) above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • The shortfall of 9cm is not considered to be visually noticeable; • That it will provide adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for the building and

open space associated with it; • That it moderates its visual impact as its bulk is broken up by varying finishes and

materials along its length as well as a hi-lite window. It is considered that this serves to reduce the overall impact by way of building bulk upon the southern adjoining property;

• That they ensure access to daylight and direct sun for the western adjoining property for the majority of the year, with exception of midday of the winter solstice. Notwithstanding, it is considered that even if this wall was to be setback 1.80 metres, that the areas of the southern adjoining property affected by the shadow cast will not significantly change;

• That it assists with the protection of privacy with the southern adjoining property. Landscaping

Required Proposed Landscaping of open spaces in accordance with the following:

• the street setback areas developed without car parking, except for visitors’ bays, and with a maximum of 50 per cent hard surface;

Street setback developed with car parking and greater than 50% hard surface

• lighting provided to pathways, and communal open space and car-parking areas; and

No lighting proposed to pathways, communal open space and/or car parking areas

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • There are opportunities for landscaping along the side and rear setback areas of the

proposed development and this has been indicated on the proposed ‘ground level’ plan;

• It is anticipated that the amount of landscaping proposed will meet the projected needs of the residents and that any future buyer of the dwelling(s) will be fully aware of what they are purchasing at the time of sale;


Page 102

• It is considered that the amount of landscaping proposed enhances security and safety for residents;

• As it is mainly the commercial component of the development which fronts Jewell Parade, it is not considered that the proposed provision of landscaping detracts from the streetscape.

Site works

Required Proposed All excavation or filling behind a street setback line and within 1m of a lot boundary shall not be more than 0.5m above the natural ground level at the lot boundary

Excavation behind street setback line and within 1m of side and rear boundaries is greater than 0.5m

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • As detailed in the ‘background’ section of this report, in terms of its topography, the

subject site slopes upwards by approximately 1.60 metres from its south-eastern corner fronting Jewell Parade up to its north-western corner;

• The proposed excavation seeks to reduce the overall height of the building through excavation and in this regard is considered to respond to the natural features of the site;

• It is considered that the proposed level of excavation respects the natural ground level at the boundary of the site and adjoining properties as viewed from the street.

Visual privacy

Required Proposed 6.00m setback from unenclosed outdoor active habitable space to lot boundary

(1) Southern boundary, second floor (southern elevation – balcony) – 5.00m

(2) Northern boundary, second floor (northern elevation – balcony (accessed via ‘Retreat’)) – 4.95m

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • The proposed rear balcony (second floor, southern elevation) is only 0.50 metres in

width, which under the R-Codes gazetted on 22 November 2010 would have been excluded from visual privacy requirements as it was not considered to represent an ‘active habitable space’. Notwithstanding, the R-Codes gazetted on 22 November 2010 have since been rescinded and superseded by the R-Codes gazetted on 13 August 2013. This current version of the R-Codes changed the definition of ‘active habitable space’ to read as follows:

“Any active habitable room with a floor area greater than 10m2 and any balcony, verandah, terrace or other outdoor living area raised more than 0.5m above natural ground level.”

• Whilst there has been a fundamental change to the definition of ‘active habitable space’ of the R-Codes between 2010 and 2013, it is not considered that the proposed 0.50 metre wide balcony will serve to act reasonably in the capacity of a ‘true’ balcony and that this, in and of itself will serve to inhibit the need to provide any screening devices to prevent overlooking of the southern adjoining property.


Page 103

In relation to (2) above, the northern adjoining property, being No. 17 (Lot 32) Jewell Parade, is currently used for industrial purposes and is not used for residential purposes. Notwithstanding, the visual privacy setback requirements are applicable as per the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards, of which the proposal is seeking assessment against the prescribed ‘design principles’. In this regard, the ‘design principles’ explicitly refer to developments having (underlined for emphasis):

“Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through...”

The northern balcony meets the ‘design principles’ as the northern adjoining property does not have a dwelling upon it. Whilst the northern adjoining property has the potential for residential development in the future, the layout and design of any such development cannot be reasonably anticipated and it is possible that no such development may ever take place in the near future. Should PSC consider that the southern portion of the balcony should be screened the following conditions should be applied:

“Prior to occupation, the balcony (accessed via ‘Retreat’) as contained on the northern elevation of second floor shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

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

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive

Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 6.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

Overshadowing

Permitted Proposed 25% of adjoining property (i.e. up to 98m2) 31.45% of adjoining property (123.36m2) It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • Whilst the southern adjoining property, being No. 13 (Lot 30) Jewell Parade contains

two (2) Grouped Dwellings it is currently not used for residential purposes due to its physical condition;

• Notwithstanding, whilst it is acknowledged that the shadow cast by the proposal will impact the outdoor living area and a major openings to habitable room towards the rear of the northern-most of the two Grouped Dwellings on the southern adjoining property, it is considered that the development is designed to protect solar access to these sensitive areas as far as practicable. This has been done by locating the higher three storey elements closer to Jewell Parade and gradually reducing the height of the proposal down to single storey at the rear;

• There are no roof mounted solar collectors on the southern adjoining property.


Page 104

It is noted that the southern adjoining property currently has an application for Planning Approval with the City for consideration for Demolition of heritage buildings and construction of three storey (with undercroft) mixed use development (Multiple Dwellings and Office) (refer DA0247/12). This application has sought, and is eligible for an increased density up to R60 in accordance with Clause 5.2.5 of LPS4. In this regard, if development were to be approved at the R60 density, the overshadowing permitted of that property by the proposal on the subject site would increase from 25% up to 50% (196m2) of No. 13 (Lot 30) Jewell Parade, whereby the proposal would easily satisfy with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards pertaining to overshadowing. Utilities and facilities

Required Proposed An enclosed, lockable storage area, constructed in a design and material matching the building/dwelling where visible from the street, accessible from outside the dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 1.5m and an internal area of at least 4m2 shall be provided for each multiple dwelling.

• Dwelling 1 (one bedroom) – not provided • Dwelling 2 (3 bedroom) – not provided

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons: • Dwelling 1 and Dwelling 2 should be supported as it is considered that there is ample

space in 1.80m southern boundary ground floor setback area for bin storage, whilst it’s outdoor living area is capable of being used for clothes drying.

DGN4 – Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local Area Council’s DGN4 policy was adopted by Council on 23 March 1994 under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3). Clause 4.4.1 of Council’s DGN4 policy states:

“Within Jewell Parade, the traditional occurrence of mixed land use shall continue to be supported by the Council. It is envisaged that land uses will be of a small scale, residential/commercial of specialist nature.”

Whilst there is no definition of ‘small scale’ within DGN4, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Clause 4.4.1 of DGN4 in that it provides for a mixture of land uses – traditional to Jewell Parade and in this regard, should be supported. Clause 4.5.6 of Council’s DGN4 policy states:

“In Jewell Parade, it is envisaged that building form will remain small scale. This will predominantly result in single storey buildings above street level, with additional floor space in the roof if necessary.”


Page 105

Again, whilst there is no definition of ‘small scale’ within DGN4, it is considered that the proposal should be supported on-balance for the following reasons: • The requirements of DGN4 for buildings to be single storey is in direct conflict with

the scheme requirement that permits a maximum wall height of 8.0m; • As the proposal includes excavation to accommodate the ground floor of the

development, visually it presents as a two-and-half storey development to Jewell Parade, despite it actually being a three storey development;

• The ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes require a minimum primary street setback of 2.00 metres, the proposed primary street setback of the development is 3.944 metres. It is considered that providing a primary street setback almost double what is required assists in reducing its bulk and scale as viewed from the street;

• The proposed first and second floors do not extend for the full width of the lot. The subject site is 15.09 metres in width, whilst the ‘solid’ wall element of the proposed first and second floors occupy only 8.45 metres (or 55.99%) of the lot frontage as there is an open ‘terrace’ on the first floor, and an open ‘void’ on the second floor – both on the northern side of the dwelling. This is considered to assist in breaking up the building bulk of the development as viewed from the street when compared to upper level development that is wider, and occupies more of the lot frontage than that proposed;

• The proposed skillion roof provides significantly less bulk as viewed from the street compared to a hipped or gabled roof solution;

• The proposal is considered to satisfy the discretionary building height provisions as prescribed by clause 5.8.1.2 of LPS4.

LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines The subject site is contained within the Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2 as prescribed by Council’s LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines policy. Whilst the application was not required to be referred to the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) for comment in accordance with Clause 5.0 of LPP2.3, it is subject to the built form requirements prescribed by Clause 4.2 – Area 2 of LPP2.3. It will be recommended that these requirements be imposed as a condition of Planning Approval. CONCLUSION

The proposed three storey mixed use development (Office and two (2) Multiple Dwellings) at No. 15 (Lot 31) Jewell Parade, North Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The discretionary decisions sought in relation to on-site car parking and building height has been assessed against the relevant criteria of LPS4 and is considered to be supportable. The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes in relation to: building size (plot ratio); lot boundary setback; landscaping; site works; visual privacy; overshadowing and utilities and facilities. Furthermore, the proposal is considered supportable on-balance in relation to Council’s DGN4 policy. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.


Page 106

Should Council however consider that the proposal should not be supported due to design principles assessment and discretions sought, a refusal recommendation would read as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the three storey mixed use development (Office and two (2) Multiple Dwellings) at No. 15 (Lot 31) Jewell Parade, North Fremantle for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not meet the design principles of the R Codes relating to building size (plot ratio), lot boundary setbacks, landscaping, site works, visual privacy, overshadowing and utilities and facilities.

2. The discretions sought relating to height, car parking and DGN4– Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local Area will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the three storey mixed use development (Office and two (2) Multiple Dwellings) at No. 15 (Lot 31) Jewell Parade, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 18 February 2014 and 28 February 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: a) 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.

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

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

3. Prior to occupation, a minimum of one (1) bicycle rack be installed on-site and

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

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the western boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 107

5. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, with the two northern-most on-site parking bays allocated for the exclusive use of the two Multiple Dwellings and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and

the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

7. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. Advice Note(s)

i. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

• submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or • submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the

infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

ii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the

removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iii. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.


Page 108

PSC1403-58 TUCKFIELD STREET, NO. 67 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - CARPORT

ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0606/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site Photos (from applicant and submitter) Date Received: 13 December 2013 Owner Name: Rachel James & Peter Cock Submitted by: Phoenix Patios & Outdoor Centre Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 2;

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


Page 109

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a carport addition to existing Single House at No. 67 (Lot 123) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following: • LPP2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development; The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria of LPP2.4 and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on-balance, subject to appropriate conditions. 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 Fremantle Local Planning Area 2 (LPA2) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Dorothy Street to the north, Tuckfield Street to the west, and to the East Street to the east and Malcolm Street to the south. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as a management category level 2; however it is not located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 749m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation, is currently improved by a two storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application: • On 24 July 2006, the City granted Planning Approval for alterations and additions to

existing dwelling at No. 67 (Lot 123) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle (refer DA297/06); • On 19 December 2012, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for internal

alterations to existing two storey Single House at No. 67 (Lot 123) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle (refer DA0573/12).

DETAIL

On 13 December 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a carport addition to existing Single House at No. 67 (Lot 123) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle. A copy of the proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community


Page 110

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 January 2014, the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, raising the following concerns relevant to planning: • Overshadowing; and • Building bulk.


The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary walls

Required Setback Proposed Discretion Southern boundary (carport) – 1.00m 0.60m (600mm) 0.40m (400mm) This discretionary decision is supported, on-balance, for the following reasons: • The majority of the length of the proposed carport is located so as to abut the existing

boundary wall on the southern adjoining property (approximately 71% of its length); • It is not considered that the proposed carport presents a significant impact upon the

adjoining southern property by way of building bulk, as the proposal is open in design and layout and uses lightweight materials;

• It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site; • In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the wall is not considered to

significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk; access to direct sunlight and ventilation to outdoor living areas; nor access to views for the southern adjoining property;

• Overall the proposed southern boundary wall is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the southern adjoining property, in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity;

• Therefore the proposed discretion is supported as it is considered to address the relevant ‘design principles’ of Design Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and the additional criteria stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.

The outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property measures 6.38m in length by 3.48m in width, totalling an area of 22.2m2. The existing boundary fence between the subject site and No. 65A (Lot 2) Tuckfield Street, which abuts the outdoor living area of the latter property, measures approximately 3.6m in length. Based on the plans submitted by the applicant, the eaves overhang of the proposed carport will sit below the height of the existing boundary fence and as such will not add to the overshadowing already caused by the proposed fence. In this regard, it is considered the proposal should be supported on-balance.


Page 111

CONCLUSION The proposed the carport addition to existing Single House at No. 67 (Lot 123) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. On-balance, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on-balance, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the carport addition to existing Single House at No. 67 (Lot 123) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 13 December 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



Page 112

PSC1403-59 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. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the information is noted.


Page 113

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1403-60 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF TERMS OF

REFERENCE AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A 2 YEAR TERM

DataWorks Reference: 039/062 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 March 2014 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Manager Statutory Planning 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)

Attachment 1: Tracked Changes Revised Terms of Reference Attachment 2: Motion from AGM of electors on 3 February 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2010 Council established a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) and associated terms of reference pursuant to clause 11.8 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). After receiving nominations for the membership of DAC in June 2010 Council appointed the 5 members of the DAC. The June 2010 Council resolution also required that the terms of reference be reviewed in 12 months time. Changes to the scheme as part of Amendment No. 49 strengthened the link between the role of the DAC and the advice it provides and the determination of city centre development proposals under the provisions of the Scheme. In January 2012 Council resolved to delay the review of the terms of reference until the changes to the scheme arising from Amendment 49 were finalised. Amendment 49 was adopted by Council in March 2012. A review of the terms of reference has been undertaken having regarding to Amendment 49, discussion at a recent Informal Elected Members Briefing and the operation of the DAC over the past several years and will correspond with the appointment of DAC members for a further 2 year term. Should the new terms of reference be adopted, the appointment of new DAC members will occur in May/June 2014 when memberships reach the end of their 2 year term. All recommended DAC appointments will be presented to Council first. It is recommended that the terms of reference be revised as detailed in this report and public expressions of interest be call for DAC membership. BACKGROUND


Page 114

In February 2010 Council resolved that: 1. A Design Advisory Committee be established under clause 11.8 of Local Planning

Scheme No 4, 2. The terms of reference, as shown italicised in this report, be adopted, 3. Expressions of interest be publicly sought for membership of this Committee for a

period of 28 days, 4. A further report be presented to Council following assessment of the expressions of

interest to enable appointment of members. In June 2010 Council resolved: 1. That the following be appointed to the City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee

for a period of 2 years from the date of this resolution in accordance with Clause 11.8 of Local Planning Scheme No 4;

Geoffrey London Dominic Snellgrove Alan Kelsall Linley Lutton A nomination from the Office of the Government Architect of WA,

2. That the sitting fee for members be set at $200 per hour, up to a maximum of 3

hours per meeting. 3. That the Terms of Reference, as adopted in February 2010, be modified as follows;

(a) inclusion of 5 members, including a nomination from the Office of the Government Architect of WA,

(b) deletion of the reference to the Chair of the Committee being determined by the Council

4. That the Terms of Reference be reviewed in 12 months time. In January 2012 Council resolved:

“That the review of the Design Advisory Committee’s terms of reference be deferred for a maximum of 6 months until the details of changes to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 arising from Amendment No. 49 are finalised, as these changes may have implications for the terms of reference of the Advisory Committee.”


Page 115

In May 2012 Council reviewed the terms of reference in the following ways (summarised): 1. Method of appointment of DAC members modified from requiring public expressions of

interest (EOI) for all members to only requiring it for new members i.e. existing members wishing to renominate for another term need not go through the full public EOI process again and simply need to indicate their intention to renominate for a further term.

2. Modified method for seeking new (i.e. to fill remaining positions that been filled by renominating members) DAC position from a public EOI to process to a selected EOI process.

3. Modifying the criteria by which proposals are referred to the DAC by: Deleting reference to the City Centre, Mixed Use and Development Zones; Adding the reference to the requirements of a planning policy relating to the role of the DAC and 11m or 3 storey high development except in the Residential or Industrial zones.

4. Modification of “Manager Development Services” to “Manager Statutory Planning”. 5. Deletion of the requirement to pay a $2000 fee. 6. Modification of the portion of the DAC deliberations that are referred to the applicant and

the DAC. 7. Adding the ability of the Chair (or nominated Committee member) to meet/have a

discussion with proponents with the permission and/or attendance of the Manager Statutory Planning.

8. Adding to the role of the Chair (or nominated Committee members) attendance at State Administrative Tribunal related matters relevant to proposals previously considered by the DAC.

9. Adding reference to clause 11.8.6.3 of the scheme which details specific design quality principles that the DAC is to have regard to when considering a proposal.

Also in May 2012 Council resolved:

“That Nerida Moredoundt be appointed to the City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee for a period of 2 years from the date of this resolution in accordance with Clause 11.8 of Local Planning Scheme No 4.”

In March 2012 Council adopted Amendment 49 which amongst other things, made changes to clause 11.8 of the scheme relating to the DAC to include specific provisions that: 1. Requires the Council to establish and maintain a Design Advisory Committee (DAC)

(clause 11.8.6);

2. Requires the Council to prepare and adopt a local planning policy that details the type and scale of development applications and planning proposals that will be referred to the DAC (clause 11.8.6.1);

3. Detail principles of design that the DAC would have due regard to in providing

Council with advice on the design quality of development (clause 11.8.6.3) The City was then requested by the Minister for Planning to modify the wording of the principles of design contained in proposed clause 11.8.6.3 to not be ‘overly detailed or subjective’ and to be worded to ‘more appropriately reflect scheme provisions’, prior to the Minister formally approving the amendment.


Page 116

Clause 11.8.6.3 was subsequently modified and gazetted as part of Amendment 49 in January 2013. Please refer to the Statutory and Policy Assessment below for the new clause 11.8 wording. In June 2013 Council adopted Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design to reflect the Ministers modification to Amendment 49. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Clause 11.8 of the Scheme states: 11.8.1 The Council may from time to time establish Advisory Committees to

advise it on any matters in the Scheme, subject to such terms of reference, procedures and conditions of office as the Council thinks fit.

11.8.2 The membership of an Advisory Committee may comprise of community

representatives and/or technical experts who in the opinion of the Council have the relevant knowledge, experience or expertise to give fair and reasoned advice on the matters referred to the Committee, but the number of members shall not be more than five.

11.8.3 The Advisory Committee shall comprise no more than 5 members

appointed by the Council and shall be chaired by a person elected by the Committee.

11.8.4 A member of an Advisory Committee shall not discuss or vote on any

matter before the Committee in which that member has a pecuniary interest.

11.8.5 When dealing with any matter involving an application for planning approval

or structure plans or when dealing with any other matter involving a development or land use proposal, the Council shall have due regard to any relevant recommendation of any Advisory Committee.

11.8.6 The Council will establish and maintain a Design Advisory Committee,

subject to the requirements of clauses 11.8.1 to 11.8.5 inclusive, to advise it on any matters related to the design quality of development.

11.8.6.1 The Council shall prepare and adopt a Local Planning Policy in accordance

with clause 2.4 that details the type and scale of development applications and planning proposals that will be referred to the Design Advisory Committee.

11.8.6.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Local Planning Policy prepared

under clause 11.8.6.1, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee.


Page 117

11.8.6.3 In providing advice to the Council, the Design Advisory Committee shall have due regard to the following matters, in association with the local planning policy prepared under clause 11.8.6.1, to assist in determining the design quality of the development–

(a) Character Whether the development promotes character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development, landscape and culture. (b) Continuity and enclosure Whether the development promotes the continuity of street frontages and the enclosure of space by development which clearly defines private and public areas.

(c) Quality of the public realm Whether the development promotes public spaces and routes that are attractive, safe, uncluttered and work effectively for all in society, including disabled and elderly people.

(d) Ease of movement Whether the development promotes accessibility and local permeability by making places that connect with each other and are easy to move through, putting people before traffic and integrating land uses and transport.

(e) Legibility Whether the development promotes legibility through development that provides recognisable routes, intersections and landmarks to help people find their way around.

(f) Adaptability Whether the development promotes adaptability through development that can respond to changing social, technological and economic conditions.

(g) Diversity Whether the development promotes diversity and choice through a mix of compatible developments and uses that work together to create viable places that respond to local needs.

CONSULTATION

No external consultation is required for the modification to the Term of Reference. Advertising of DAC member nomination is proposed to occur for a period of 2 weeks.


Page 118

PLANNING COMMENT

Terms of Reference On 16 January 2014 an Informal Elected Members Briefing was held that discussed methods by which the DAC process could be improved that included more detailed DAC reports that:

1. Clearly indicate support (or not) of designs having specific regard to scheme provisions that relate to design quality; and

2. Express strengths, weakness and how the design can be improved. Based on the above and a general review of the terms of reference a summary of the proposed changes are detailed below.

CHANGE COMMENT 1. Membership numbers be taken from a pool. There have been several occasions where

one or more DAC members have had a conflict of interest on a particular item resulting in a minimum quorum of 3 members not being achieved. Pending the number of nominations received, it is proposed that a pool of members be appointed that may include an option for deputy members (in the instance that regular members are not able to attend). Note that the chair position is not proposed to rotate for consistency.

2. Change to the renomination process after 2 years from renomination of existing members to be a full public process of expressions of interest.

In the interests of transparency and probity it is considered that new DAC membership should undergo a full public process. While existing members are free to renominate, they will be considered amongst other nominations.

3. Minor amendment to the Role of the DAC to: a. refer to updated clause 11.8.6.2 of the

scheme; and b. DAC report being provided to the applicant

and attached to any public report.

a. This is to reflect the modifications to clause 11.8 made as part of Amendment 49 as mentioned above.

b. It is proposed to provide the full meeting report to applicants and attach to public reports.

4. Change to the Operation of the DAC to require: a. Proposals to be considered by DAC at least

once before a formal planning application is lodged;

b. Require the applications to focus their presentation to DAC on:

i. Streetscape Character Analysis; ii. 3D streetscape perspective; iii. Design matters raised in Local

Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design;

iv. Client attendance strongly encouraged; and

a. There have been no issues to date with

applicants attending DAC before a formal planning application is lodged so it is considered unlikely that this will result in any operational issues.

b. Applicants are already requested to focus their presentation to DAC on these matters so formalising this in the terms of reference is not likely to result in any operations issues.

c. See comments for b. above.


Page 119

v. CABE Alarm Bells c. Define what CABE Alarm Bells are.

5. Modifications to Recording of the Meeting to require that the Chair of DAC provide a comprehensive report that includes the following headings:

1. CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES a. Character b. Continuity and Enclosure c. Quality of Public Realm d. Ease Of Movement e. Legibility f. Adaptability g. Diversity h. Overall Design Quality and

Functionality i. Appropriateness of Materials and

Finishes j. General Comments

2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT a. What are the Strengths b. How can the Proposal be

Improved 3. RECOMMENDATION (selection 1 or a

combination of the below) a. The design is supported; b. The design is supported and is of

sufficiently high quality to meet relevant scheme provisions in relation to discretionary height;

c. The design is supported subject to the following conditions;

d. The design is not supported e. As the design is at concept stage

only, the plans have not progressed to a stage where they can be recommended for support or not.

Some comments have been made that the current DAC format for advice is sometimes not comprehensive enough for the purposes of applicants, planning staff, Council and DAP to form a judgement on whether scheme requirements are met relating to design quality. The modified format will provide clearer advice in this regard. This format has already been used for several large city centre developments that have been considered by PSC recently. Where the report includes a recommendation indicating support, non-support, it is not appropriate for the report for recommend approval or refusal as the DAC is an advisory body and is not a decision making body. This revised report format is more consistent with the reporting of heritage advice. This is appropriate as both DAC and heritage advice are a highly relevant consideration in the determination of development applications.

Annual General Meeting of Electors At the Annual General Meeting of Electors on 3 February 2014 the following was resolved (summarised):

1. DAC advice should be in the form of a clear approval or refusal; 2. A 1-2 page report should be compiled noting any differences of opinion concluding

with a final recommendation with any conditions of approval; 3. The full DAC and not just the chair is to sign off on the final report; 4. DAC advice forms the basis of the staff recommendation; 5. The full DAC report is included in the agenda to PSC and full Council; 6. The above changes are written into the revised terms of reference; and 7. The DAC should be comprise of experts from other disciplines including

landscape architecture, urban planning and building services/engineering. A full copy of the motion is included in Attachment 2.


Page 120

Items 1, 2 and 5 have already been included in the suggested changes. In relation to items 3, 4 and 7 the following comments are made: SUGGESTED CHANGE COMMENT The full DAC and not just the chair is to sign off on the final report.

It is the role of the chair to accurately document the comments of the committee in the report. It is not practical for all DAC members to sign off the report.

DAC advice forms the basis of the staff recommendation.

DAC forms a material planning consideration in the assessment of a planning application much like any other form of advice for example heritage advice. The scheme requires that Council is to have due regard to DAC advice. Each planning application is considered on its planning merits and DAC advice will be given due regard.

The DAC should be comprise of experts from other disciplines including landscape architecture, urban planning and building services/engineering.

The CABE Guidelines state that “As well as recruiting architects, it is essential to bring in members from related fields such as planning, landscape architecture, urban design, the historic environment, sustainability and environmental services, accessibility, civil and structural engineering, transport, public art and property development.”

Staff from the disciplines of Planning, Urban Design, Heritage, Technical Services, Park and Gardens, Environmental Health and Building already provide input into the assessment process and DAC members are advised on any significant matters identified in these disciplines. Also the current terms of reference already require that DAC membership comprise of at least 1 member that has expertise in the following fields:

• City centre planning and development; • Heritage and urban conservation; • Energy efficient building design and sustainable

development; • Public space planning and development.

Also as the majority of the matters considered by DAC are located in the inner city, are built boundary to boundary and there are no requirements for landscaping, it is not considered necessary for a landscape architect to be included on the DAC. Any matters relating to adjoining park land or verge landscaping is referred to the City Parks staff for comment. Parks staff include a Landscape Architect.

Appointment of Replacement DAC Member The 2 year term of existing DAC members concludes in May/June 2014. As mentioned above it is proposed to seek nominations for DAC membership through a public expression of interest process that includes 14 days advertising in:


Page 121

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

Nominees will be required to submit their curriculum vitae and references. A report will be referred to Council to appoint members. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

1. That the review of the Design Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference as detailed below be adopted.

2. 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 122

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil.


Page 123

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 limitations associated with the issue.


Page 124


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.

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.


Page 125


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 126

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 - Home | City of Fremantle application was previously considered by PSC on 19 February 2014 and Council on 26 February 2014 where it was recommended to defer the item to the