Home | City of Fremantle - SPC Meeting Standard · 2018-03-08 · Agenda Attachments – Strategy and Project Development Committee 13 July 2016 Page 5 opportunities and constraints

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS

Strategy and Project Development Committee

Wednesday, 13 July 2016, 6.00 pm

Agenda Attachments – Strategy and Project Development Committee 13 July 2016

Page 2

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

SPD1607-1 GREATER FREMANTLE PARKING PLAN - DELIVERY APPROACH ADOPTION 3

SPD1607-2 GREEN PLAN 2020 - UPDATE 6

SPD1607-3 COUNCIL INFORMATION REPORT - POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME) REGULATIONS 2015 12

SPD1607-4 INFORMATION REPORT - CANTONMENT HILL PROJECT 38


Page 3

SPD1607-1 GREATER FREMANTLE PARKING PLAN - DELIVERY APPROACH ADOPTION

ATTACHMENT 1 - Greater Fremantle parking plan indicative delivery approach


Page 4

ATTACHMENT 2 - Indicative engagement methodology Stakeholder(s) Activities Purpose Indicative

Timeframe

Stage 1: Discussion Paper – Strategic engagement Purpose: To have early and open conversations on parking opportunities and constraints, understanding of current best practice, sustainable transport and economic development needs, and importantly business and community needs in order to determine the considerations for the development of the parking plan.

Community members (Outcomes from Diverse Housing Project)

Diverse Housing Project – open discussions; informational material; Road show; design workshop; electronic survey

Understanding of opportunities and constraints; understanding of parking issues in residential areas

September – November 2016

Elected members Workshop Discuss and workshop initial findings, best practice. Understanding of opportunities and constraints.

November 2016

Commercial parking operators

One to one discussions

Understand current use; future plans; understanding of opportunities and constraints

November - December 2016

Community members (all – residents, business owners, visitors)

Online survey Understanding of opportunities and constraints; understanding of parking issues in residential areas; understanding of parking issues from business owners; invitation to participate in focus group discussions.


Community members (all)

Focus group discussion(s)

Deeper understanding of opportunities and constraints specific to certain areas/groups; understanding of parking issues in residential areas; understanding of parking issues from business owners


Key stakeholders (including relevant State Government depts., Fremantle Chamber of Commerce, BID)

One to one discussions

Explain the project; Understanding of opportunities and constraints


Stage 2. Parking Policy – Project engagement Purpose: To receive feedback on the draft plan.

Elected members Workshop Receive feedback on draft policy; understand

November 2016


Page 5

opportunities and constraints

All Submission (draft released for public comment)

Receive feedback on draft policy; understand opportunities and constraints

April – May 2017

Stage 3 – Greater Fremantle Parking Plan Parking plan for the City of Fremantle (Activity Centres, residential areas, local activity centres, industrial) – Operational engagement Purpose: To receive targeted input into the operational plan.

Key stakeholders Targeted feedback on operational parking plan – Activity centre

Receive feedback on draft plan(s)

October – December 2017


Page 6

SPD1607-2 GREEN PLAN 2020 - UPDATE

ATTACHMENT 1 – New POS Investigation and Assessment – Hilton and O’Connor


Page 7


Page 8


Page 9


Page 10

ATTACHMENT 2 – 400m Walkable Catchment Gap Map – Hilton and O’Connor


Page 11

ATTACHMENT 3 - 400m Walkable Catchment Gap Map – City of Fremantle


Page 12

SPD1607-3 COUNCIL INFORMATION REPORT - POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME) REGULATIONS 2015

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 13


Page 14


Page 15


Page 16


Page 17


Page 18


Page 19


Page 20


Page 21


Page 22


Page 23


Page 24


Page 25


Page 26


Page 27


Page 28


Page 29


Page 30

ATTACHMENT 2 Department of Planning’s Review – City of Fremantle comments

Department of planning City of Fremantle

Comment Regulation/clause and

proposed change Justification

Regulations 2015

r.51 – LG may advertise proposed modifications to Scheme amendment (standard amendment) Remove the requirement for modifications to standard and complex amendments and schemes to be advertised

The final decision on schemes/amendments rests with the Minister. It is therefore proposed that a local government should not readvertise proposed modifications, as the Minister may not ultimately agree with them.

The City supports streamlining the planning framework, but not at the expense of community engagement. Under the new Regulations the City has advertised modifications to two different Scheme amendments (65 and 66). Through these additional public comment periods the City has gained further public feedback on matters and refined the amendments to address matters raised in submissions. In addition to the City’s comment above, it is also recommended that the re-advertising timeframes for modifications are reviewed. The existing wording of r.5 of the Regulations states that advertising must be for 21 days. In the City’s experience with readvertising modifications this time frame was challenging when advertising during the Christmas Holiday period. The City has in the past, through the provisions of a local planning policy (LPP1.3), ensured that all advertising during holiday periods is extended with an additional two weeks required during these times. This modification is not supported as this regulation allows the community to


Page 31




consider any additional planning matters that are raised after the initial advertising period as these changes may affect them. The City therefore recommends that advertising of modifications to standard and complex amendments are retained and that the re-advertising timeframe is reviewed in order to allow for the 21 days as a minimum time frame rather than a set timeframe.

Regulations 2015 – Schedule 2 - Deemed provisions for Local Planning Schemes

cl.3(1) Where a local planning policy may be prepared Amend to make clear that a local government (LG) can only make local planning policies (LPP) with respect to matters which it has discretion to determine (i.e. development). Further, if a LG wishes to create a LPP which is a matter of Commission discretion (i.e. Public Open Space) then the LPP will require the Commission’s approval to ensure the LPP is consistent with the state planning framework (State planning policy (R-codes) etc.

There have been calls to introduce a mechanism whereby the Commission can intervene in the process for preparing a LPP where the Commission has firm policy provision. However, rather than introducing a formal right to intervene, it is thought more appropriate to ensure that Commission approval is sought for any LPP which related to matters which the Commission determines.

The City does not support this recommendation. The Planning and Development Act 2005 and Residential Design Codes clearly prescribe what constitutes development and what can be included in a local planning policy. Prescribing that LG requires approval of the Commission can become over prescriptive and result in a less streamlined approach to Local Planning Policies.

cl.8(3) – Interim heritage listings Add a provision that provides for: where a property is proposed to be entered on the heritage list and the LG has notified the owner in writing of the proposal, then the property is automatically considered to be on the heritage list for one year or until a resolution under the heritage clauses is made

LG have requested a mechanism to protect interim heritage places from planning exemptions until assessment and formal listing occurs. It is intended that once the owner has been notified the property will be considered to be on the heritage list for the purpose of he exemptions in the permitted development deemed provisions e.g. demolition

The City is supportive of this inclusion into the Regulations 2015. The review and entry of properties into the Municipal Heritage Inventory/ Heritage List can be both time and resource intensive and currently the Regulations do not consider the interim risk and potential compromise that the exemptions of the


Page 32




Deemed Provisions allow for in relation to the demolition of Single Houses (not located on the heritage list or within a heritage area). The City believes this additional provision will allow for appropriate consideration to be given in the interim to properties proposed for inclusion on the heritage list. Additionally, the City would also like to recommend that this provision also be extended to include dwellings in areas that are proposed to be included into a Heritage Area. Within the City of Fremantle both heritage listings and heritage areas are important tools in ensuring well considered planning and heritage outcomes and therefore inclusion of heritage areas is this proposed provision of the regulations is considered to be of equal relevance.

cl.61 Protection of Significant trees Add provision or legislative note which provides that notwithstanding the exemptions, approval is required for the removal of any trees identified on a significant tree register

There is currently some confusion that the single house exemption allows for the removal of ‘significant trees’ without approval. This is not the case. Although there is an exemption for the erection of a single house, development approval is still required to remove significant trees.

The City supports a provision to clarify that exemption from requiring planning approval for one type of development does not override a requirement to obtain approval for other forms of development which are not exempt under the Regulations or other local planning scheme provisions.

cl.66(3) Consultation with other authorities with respect to a development application Amend clause to provide that the time in which a public authority has to provide comments is the same

Proposed change based on concerns raised by LGs that 42 days is too long for statutory authority to provide comments. Currently the WAPC’s delegation to LGs to determine development applications under the MRS

The City of Fremantle agrees with this modification and further recommends electronic referrals be prescribed through the Regulations to further streamline this process.


Page 33




amount of time as the public is given to make submissions.

only allows statutory authorities 30 days to provide comments otherwise it will be assumed that the statutory authority has no objection.

City of Fremantle further recommendations for the review

Regulation/clause and recommended changes

City of Fremantle comment

Regulations 2015

r.34(a) Definition of a ‘basic’ amendment

CoF recommended change: Add to definition of ‘basic’ amendment to include an amendment to delete provisions from a planning scheme that are not Model Scheme Text and would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area.

In addition to changes to the definition of a ‘basic’ amendment proposed by the Department (something the City supports), the City considers deleting non Model Scheme Text provisions in instances where there is considered to be minimal impact as a result should be classified as a basic scheme amendment. Removal of provisions that have little to no risk or effect on the community are not considered necessary to go through the same public advertising period and timeframes as a standard amendment.

Accordingly the City considers these types of amendments could be considered a basic amendment and should follow the processes outlined for a basic amendment within the Regulations.

This addition would encourage a streamlined process for minor and administrative corrections to better align Local Planning Schemes with the model scheme text.

r.50(1)(a) Consideration of submissions on standard amendments LG’s consideration period, which includes consideration of submissions received and a resolution of Council on the amendment is 60 days (or a day approved by the Commission). CoF recommended change: Increase this to 90 days.

The City is supportive of the timeframes specified in the Regulations; however in practice timeframes for submission consideration times are often very constricted. The timeframes should more appropriately consider the necessary lead times that LG officer are required to meet in order to have an item (such as a scheme amendment) presented to a Committee meeting and a Council meeting. In practice officers at the City of Fremantle are required to complete final adoption reports 30 days prior to the Council meeting to allow for the report to make the agenda and be considered by Planning Committee prior to a Council meeting. This effectively allows 30 days for officers to compile the submissions including late submissions, address issues including internal and applicant consultation


Page 34



and write a considered report.

It is considered unreasonable to have to seek WAPC approval for an extension of time each time an amendment is proposed and considered by officers and Council.

The City therefore recommends that additional time is provided to the consideration period to ensure more realistic timeframes and for the LG to effectively undertake this process.

Regulations 2015 – Schedule 2 - Deemed provisions for Local Planning Schemes

cl.18 Advertising structure plan cl. 50 Advertising of local development plan CoF recommended changes: Do not include holiday periods and adjoining weeks in the timeframe for public notification e.g. “exclude the Christmas and Easter public holidays and the week immediately before and after from the required 28 day advertising periods” Or “where the advertising period would fall over the Christmas or Easter public holidays advertising is to occur as soon as reasonably practical commence after these public holidays”

Under the Regulations there are specified timeframes upon which a LG must advertise a structure plan (SP) or local development plan (LDP) e.g. within 28 days of receiving a SP and an SP is considered received 28 days after the receipt of an application.

The City supports streamlining the planning framework, but not at the expense of community engagement. In the City’s experience the 28 day timeframe has caused challenges with the advertising over holiday periods. In the experience of the City the former Matilda Bay Brewery local structure plan, consisting of a proposed 500 dwelling structure plan would have required advertising over the Christmas period, should the applicant and the City not negotiated a later submission of the application. This would have meant that the structure plan would have been advertised for four weeks over Christmas when the City’s offices are closed. This would not have given the public a reasonable opportunity to comment or find further information. This reflects poorly on the local governments (perceptions of “pushing structure plans or LDPs” when no one can comment on them) and overall does not allow for effective community engagement. The City is of the opinion that during holiday periods additional time for public comment is necessary due to the likelihood of residents being away, mail delivery time’s increase and the City offices shutting down and limiting the ability for people to discuss proposals with relevant officers. The City currently sets these timeframes in local planning policy 1.3. For these reasons officers believe additional information specifically regarding these holiday periods is necessary. It is considered unreasonable to have to seek WAPC approval for an extension of time during these periods.

cl.18 Advertising structure plan cl. 50 Advertising of local development plan

The City supports streamlining the planning framework, but not at the expense of community engagement. Effective and meaningful community engagement is important to the City, however the structure plan advertising


Page 35



The required advertising period for a structure plan is restricted to a period of not less than 14 and not more than 28 days while a local development plan is not less than 14 days. CoF recommended changes: Amend the structure plan advertising period to 42 days or to the same, less restricted timeframe of a local development plan.

period does not allow for this.

The City, as a minimum prefers at least one information session during the advertising period on a structure plan after the community have been introduced to the proposal and with at least two week afterwards to allow for public comment. As the provisions currently specify that advertising is for a period of “no more than 28 days” this does not allow for a reasonable amount of time for this to occur. An additional two weeks (42 days the same amount of time as a standard Scheme amendment), in the City’s experience, is better suited to this and to allow for proper community engagement. Structure plans as well as Local Development Plan can often involve complex issues that are required to be discussed with a variety of stakeholders and the surrounding community during the advertising period. As this time frame is limited in the City’s experience this has not allowed for adequate time to have these necessary discussions.

In the City’s experience Structure plans and Local Development Plans for the same site are proposed concurrently. Accordingly it would be consistent to require the same timeframe(s) for both Structure Plans and Local Development Plans.

cl.20 Local government report to commission The Regulations specify that not more than 60 days after the closing date for submissions the local government must provide the WAPC with a report and recommendation on the structure plan including details of submissions received. CoF recommended changes: Extend this timeframe to 90 days.

Similar to comments made regarding the scheme amendment consideration timeframes above, the City recommends that additional time is provided for local governments to report to the Commission on structure plans. The City is supportive of the timeframes specified in the Regulations; however in practice this timeframe has not worked for the City. The timeframes should more appropriately consider the necessary lead times that LG officer are required to meet in order to have an item (such as a structure plan) presented to a Committee meeting and a Council meeting. In practice officers at the City of Fremantle are required to complete reports 30 days prior to the Council meeting to allow for the report to make the agenda and be considered by Planning Committee prior to a Council meeting. This effectively allows 30 days for officers to compile the submissions including late submissions, address issues including internal and applicant consultation and write a considered report and provide this to the Commission with all relevant documentation.

Additionally as the structure plan timeframes require a LG to advertise a structure plan shortly after receiving it there is limited time in the process to consider issues that may arise. For example with the former Matilda Bay Brewery Structure Plan required significant consultation with


Page 36



MainRoads WA due to the need for road upgrades and significant problem solving. This resulted in additional time being needed after this timeframe for these significant matters to be considered and negotiation of a better planning outcome was achieved and addressed appropriately. Therefore, these timeframes become unreasonable for officer to meet and subsequently result in additional time being requested. The City therefore recommends that additional time is required for local governments to effectively undertake this process and ensure realistic expectations are provided.

cl.27 Effect of a structure plan Under the Regulations a decision-making authority is now required to have due regard to, but is not bound by, the content of an approved structure plan. CoF recommended changes: Amend this so that approved structure plans are regarded as carrying the same statutory weight as provisions in the Regulations or local planning scheme for the purposes of assessing subdivision and development applications.

The City of Fremantle does not support the current statutory weight provided to structure plans under the Deemed Provisions. The City agrees with the majority of the procedural requirements set out for structure plans in the Deemed Provisions however the level of detailed information required for a structure plan more appropriately lends itself to holding the same if not similar weighting as the Local Planning Scheme or the Regulations. The structure plan process outlines, in detail, the contents of what should be contained within a structure plan which adequately provides applicants and local governments certainty in details required. Additionally, the issues that are required to be considered and addressed during the structure plan process are of a level of rigour most appropriately suited towards a higher statutory weight. Structure plans, in the City’s experience involve extensive context analysis, justification, site specific studies (including environmental and traffic movement studies) and rigorous assessment including public notification periods as well as Commission consideration. All of these elements of the structure plan process require the same, if not more rigour than a scheme amendment which holds greater statuary weight. It would therefore be reasonable for a structure plan to have the same consideration as a Scheme provision, not a local planning policy.

61(2)(b) exempts ‘P’ (permitted) uses from requiring planning approval

Insert into the clause a part (iii) the use complies with the local planning scheme

The City has uses in its scheme, which are permitted if the use satisfies the requirements of the Scheme. The Regulations are unclear on if the requirements of 61(2)(b) overrule the City’s requirements contained within the scheme, specifically those relating to the provision of on-site car parking. It is unclear whether ‘P’ uses are permitted without the need to obtain planning approval regardless of the car parking requirements. To clarify the provision and ambiguity officers propose the Regulations qualify that a ‘P’ use is only permitted where it


Page 37



meets all requirements of the Local Government’s planning Scheme e.g. parking, etc.

Cl.61(1)(e) exempts demolition of a single house from requiring planning approval

CoF recommended changes: Do not exempt demolition of single house under Cl. 61.

The City of Fremantle believes that the demolition of a single house should be at the discretion of the local government and should be provided as a supplemental exemption under the Local Planning Scheme whether to exempt demolition of non-heritage listed’ single houses. A blanket provision should not be used under the Deemed Provisions.


Page 38

SPD1607-4 INFORMATION REPORT - CANTONMENT HILL PROJECT

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 39

Documents

Home | City of Fremantle - SPC Meeting Standard · 2018-03-08 · Agenda Attachments – Strategy and Project Development Committee 13 July 2016 Page 5 opportunities and constraints