Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 October 2013 · CITY OF FREMANTLE NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 16

October 2013 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.

Graeme Mackenzie CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 11 October 2013

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

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 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council and Special Meeting of Council dated Monday 16 September 2013, Wednesday 25 September 2013, and Tuesday 1 October 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

COMMITTEE REPORTS 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 1

PSC1309-123 HALE STREET NO 30 (LOT 1) BEACONSFIELD - RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0121/13) 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 2 OCTOBER 2013 8

PSC1310-149 TUCKFIELD STREET, NO. 34-36 (LOT 10 & 11) - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0359/13) 8

PSC1310-150 HIGH STREET, NO. 194B (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - BALCONY EXTENSION AND SHADE STRUCTURE (PERGOLA) ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AD DA0287/13) 13

PSC1310-153 WESTGATE MALL - RESERVE NO. 38030 PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY (PAW) - RESULTS OF PUBLIC ADVERTISING TO PROPOSED (TEMPORARY) PARTIAL CLOSURE OF LOT 2130 AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL (OPTION 2) TO TRANSFER PAW TO A MALL RESERVE - (KW) 18

PSC1309-154 HOLLIS PARK, SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE - PROPOSED INCLUSION ON STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES 24

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 9 OCTOBER 2013 29

SGS1310-3 SALE OF TAPPER STREET MEWS RETIREMENT VILLAGE 29

SGS1310-4 CANTONMENT HILL WORKING GROUP - UPDATE AND INTERIM ACTIVATION INITIATIVES 33

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 40

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 40

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 40

COUNCIL ITEMS 40

C1310-2 NEWBOLD STREET NO 2 (LOT 1) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0269/13) 40

C1310-3 STEVENS STREET NO 6A (LOT 112) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0423/13) 46

C1310-4 FORREST STREET NO 156A (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0429/13) 54

C1310-5 TAYLOR STREET NO 21 (LOT 4) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION - (AA DA0391/13) 60

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 67

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

C1310-2 NEWBOLD STREET NO 2 (LOT 1) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0269/13) 2

C1310-3 STEVENS STREET NO 6A (LOT 112) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0423/13) 13

C1310-4 FORREST STREET NO 156A (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0429/13) 27

C1310-5 TAYLOR STREET NO 21 (LOT 4) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION - (AA DA0391/13) 35

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday 16 October 2013

Page 1

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER 2013

PSC1309-123 HALE STREET NO 30 (LOT 1) BEACONSFIELD - RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0121/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 September 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Numbers: PSC0801-24 (23 January 2008) Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 15 March 2013 Owner Name: Martin Dawson and Andree Dawson Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Level 2 Existing Landuse: Existing Single House with two storey rear additions under

construction Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’



Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as previous matters involving development at the subject site have been determined by Council and objections have been received that are unable to be addressed through conditions of planning approval. The applicant is seeking planning approval for both retrospective and proposed additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 30 (Lot 1) Hale Street, Beaconsfield (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 the following discretionary decisions:

Boundary wall and

Site works The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of LPS4, the Design principles of the R-Codes and Council’s relevant policies. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 30 (Lot 1) Hale Street, Beaconsfield is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hale Street, Beaconsfield and comprises 922m2 in area. The subject site comprises an existing single storey heritage significant dwelling with two storey rear additions which are currently still under construction. The site is identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a level 2 listed property and is included within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. No. 30 Hale Street, Beaconsfield is located within the street block bound by Hale Street, Beard Street, Livingstone Street and Milbourne Street. The site has an extensive planning history as follows:

On 8 January 2001 the City granted conditional planning approval for alterations and two storey rear additions at No. 30 Hale Street, Beaconsfield (refer DA721/00);

On 26 February 2002 the City granted conditional planning approval for increased finished floor levels to the second storey rear additions at the subject site (refer DA803/01). Condition 1 of this planning approval required the roof ridge height and roof pitch to not be increased and that ground and first floor levels be increased to accommodate either reduced upper level ceiling heights or an upper level cathedral ceiling treatment;

The applicant appealed Condition 1 associated with planning approval DA803/11 at the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal (now the State Administrative Tribunal) which was resolved under mediation. The mediation outcome resulted in the rewording of Condition 1 of DA803/01 dated 9 October 2002;



Page 3

The City granted 3 subsequent extensions to the term of planning approval for DA803/01 between 2004 and 2007. A further extension of time was granted by Council at a meeting on 4 April 2007 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 which included a nine month extension in time to the term of the building license on the condition that if works remain incomplete at the expiration of the building license the City’s Principal Building Surveyor serve notice on the owner of the subject site in accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring them to show cause why the building should not be demolished and removed;

In accordance with the above resolution the Principal Building Surveyor served a notice dated 22 November 2007 on the owners of No. 30 Hale Street Beaconsfield under Section 409A of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring the owner’s to show cause as to why the two storey rear additions at No. 30 Hale Street, Beaconsfield should not be demolished;

On 13 February 2008 the City refused an application seeking planning approval for alterations to the existing Single House and an extension of time to the term of building license (refer DA633/07);

The owner appealed the above decision at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) who overturned Council’s decision and granted planning approval for the alterations sought to the existing Single House in a hearing held on 17 April 2008. The SAT hearing also dismissed the City’s decision to refuse granting an extension to the building license and ceased the City’s notice upon the subject site to demolish the two storey rear additions; and

On 17 January 2013 City officers conducted a site inspection at the subject site which found that openings on the eastern elevation of the ground level of the rear addition had been widened without planning approval or a building permit and subsequently an infringement notice was issued by the City on 24 January 2013. Further, the City issued a direction notice on 6 February 2013 directing the owner of the subject site to stop work and not recommence until an application for planning approval has been made to the City and approval received.

The committee are advised that a separate report will be included in a future agenda in relation to the compliance issues associated with this application.

DETAIL

On 15 March 2013 the City received a planning application seeking approval for both retrospective and proposed additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 30 (Lot 1) Hale Street, Beaconsfield. A site inspection was conducted by a City officer on 30 April 2013 revealing further retrospective development on site which was not included in the planning application. Subsequently, the applicant submitted revised plans on 4 June 2013 seeking planning approval for retrospective and proposed additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 30 Hale Street, Beaconsfield as follows: Retrospective development

a) Widening of ground level opening on eastern elevation by 0.2m; b) Rain water tank stand addition within the eastern setback of the dwelling at 2.8m in

height above natural ground level and 11.4m in length; c) Partial construction of attic in upper level of rear addition;



Page 4

d) Upper level bay window extended to ground level on southern elevation of rear additions;

e) Relocation of the position of the stair case between the original dwelling and rear additions;

f) Porthole window additions within roof on southern and northern elevations of rear additions;

g) Modification of upper level bay window on northern elevation of the rear addition to include a hinged door with an awning addition above;

h) Increase in dimension of upper level major opening on the western elevation; and i) Addition of concrete stairs within southern setback area.

Proposed development

j) Dormer window associated with attic addition within roof of two storey rear addition; k) Glass canopy cover for staircase between original dwelling and two storey rear

additions; l) Alterations to internal layout of upper level of rear addition; m) Traditional double gate proposed on front elevation (primary street fence

extension); n) Service pit addition within ground level (garage) of rear additions; o) Gate addition beneath rainwater tank stand (northern end); p) Chimney addition to rooftop of rear addition (associated with proposed fireplace

stove in upper level of rear additions); and q) Box window addition to western elevation of ground level of rear addition.

The City officer who conducted the site inspection on 30 April 2013 also noted that a structure with a clear plastic roof within the southern boundary setback adjoining the ground level of the rear addition existed onsite which had no associated planning approval. This structure is not indicated on the development plans and the property owner/applicant has advised that this structure is temporary, associated with construction occurring onsite and will not remain after the completion of works. For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for development plans and ‘Attachment 2’ for site photos.The above additions and alterations have been indicated on the development plans with their corresponding letter. 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 8 July 2013, the City had received 4 submissions. The following issues were raised:

Persistent noise and concerns in relation to ongoing development and failure to

complete the existing development;

Ongoing unauthorised works and compliance issues;

Impact of dust upon adjoining properties as a result of development at the subject site;

Inconsistencies between development plans and building on site;

External finishes still not completed;



Page 5

Fill within 1m of southern boundary;

Developments potential to damage underground utilities;

Eastern boundary wall. The rainwater tank stand is considered to be an extension to the ground level garage;

Stormwater disposal associated with eastern boundary wall;

Concerns in relation to the structural integrity of development;

Works continue on site without a planning approval; and

Health hazards from rainwater tanks and breeding of mosquitoes.

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 from the prescribed standards sought in this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary Walls The rainwater tank stand comprises of a solid roof and encloses the eastern setback between the rear addition and eastern boundary of the subject site. On this basis, the structure is considered to be a building and has been assessed against the lot boundary setback requirements of the R-Codes and L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development.

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.

Height: 2.8 m; and Length: 10.7 m.

Boundary wall abuts existing residential use;

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

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

The discretion is supported for the following reasons:

The discretion is located on the eastern boundary and is fully contained behind the existing eastern boundary brick fence. Whilst the rainwater tanks placed above the stand may be considered bulky in nature and are setback at a distance of 0.5m from the eastern boundary, these elements are not subject to the discretionary decision as they are considered minor development permitted without planning approval in accordance with LPS4. On this basis, the rainwater tank stand is not considered to result in an excessive impact of building bulk upon the eastern



Page 6

adjoining property nor result in a sense of confinement for this property. Further, being fully contained behind the existing boundary fence the discretion will not restrict any sunlight to the eastern adjoining property;

The stand and tanks are fully contained behind the eastern boundary fence the discretion will not restrict any views of significance and the enclosure of the eastern setback is considered to result in the efficient use of space onsite;

The development will not be visible from the street and have no impact upon the streetscape;

Objections were received in relation to the disposal of stormwater from the proposed building and impact upon the structural integrity of the retaining wall that exists along the eastern boundary. A standard condition of approval is recommended to ensure all stormwater is retained and disposed of onsite. Further, the applicant has had the development certified by a structural engineer and the structural integrity of the building will be assessed by the City in a subsequent application for building permit; and

The discretion is not considered to result in the dwelling at the subject site having inadequate access to ventilation or sunlight.

Site Works


No greater than 0.5 metre of fill within 1 metre of common boundaries.

Up to 0.8 metre of fill within 1 metre of the southern boundary (associated with concrete stairs).

0.3 m


The fill is fully contained behind an existing boundary fence which is in excess of 3m in height above natural ground level. On this basis, the fill will be unnoticeable from the southern adjoining property; and

The discretion pertains to a set of concrete stairs providing access from an opening in the southern elevation of the garage to the outdoor drying area. The fill exists only along a portion of the boundary and is not considered to significantly disrupt the natural level of site.

Primary street fence The applicant has proposed a fence (‘traditional double gate’) along the Hale street boundary where the existing vehicle access exists in the western portion of the site. Detail in relation to the fence has only been provided on the site plan with no detail on the elevations and, on this basis, has insufficient detail for an appropriate assessment (especially given the property’s level 2 heritage listing). The applicant was contacted in relation to providing additional information in the provision of an elevation for the front fence and requested that the front fence (‘traditional double gates’) be deleted from this planning application. On this basis, it is recommended that the ‘traditional double gate’ be deleted and not form part of this application.



Page 7

CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the City’s LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s relevant local planning policies. Discretion has been sought in relation to boundary wall and site works requirements which have been supported against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes and additional factors of assessment in L.P.P2.4. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the retrospective planning approval for additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 30 (Lot 1) Hale Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 4 June 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. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.

3. That the ‘traditional double gate’ proposed along the Hale Street boundary as indicated in red on the approved site plan dated 4 June 2013 be deleted and not form part of this planning approval.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting, to allow the parties to be invited to attend professional mediation. CARRIED: 4/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.



Page 8

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 2 OCTOBER 2013

PSC1310-149 TUCKFIELD STREET, NO. 34-36 (LOT 10 & 11) - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0359/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 October 2013 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: 31 July 2013 Owner Name: W & G Routledge Submitted by: W & G Routledge Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Two Storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’



Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Addition to an existing Two Storey Single House at the subject site. The application proposes lesser setbacks to the primary street to both the ground and upper floor than required in the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (‘LPP2.9’). The lesser setbacks have been considered against the setback of other buildings within the prevailing streetscape. The ground floor element to Tuckfield Street is considered to meet the discretionary criteria contained at clause 1.2 of LPP2.9. The upper floor setback is, on balance, not supported as there is a pattern of single storey development in the street and surrounding locality. The application is therefore recommended for on-balance refusal, however an alternative recommendation for approval is also provided should the Council form a different view. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ and coded R25 pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists on the western side of Tuckfield Street, south of Burt Street, Fremantle. The subject site contains an existing Two Storey Single House and hardstand vehicle parking area (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos for images of the subject site and surrounding area).

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Addition to an Existing Two Storey Single House including;

A lower floor garage for two vehicles access via an existing crossover to Tuckfield Street and storage area adjacent to the existing Single House; and,

An upper floor storage and balcony area. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


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

Primary street setback; and,

Lot Boundary Setbacks. The discretionary decisions are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.



Page 10

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 18 August 2013, the City had received 2 submissions including 2 objections. The issues raised are summarised as follows;

Streetscape character; The existing house is already significantly out of character with the street and contains an extensive blank wall on the footpath. The proposed addition adds further to the lack of keeping with the rest of the houses on the street. The proposal simply extends the already substantial impact of the blank wall of the house further detracting from the house hiding behind the current gardens;

Street wall; The proposal will create a continuous 21m long wall section extending across the whole frontage of the site;

Heritage; The proposed development does not consider the heritage values of the street. It is important for the Council to protect the heritage values of this section of Tuckfield Street and encourage sympathetic development.

Consideration of the matters raised is discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Primary Street Setback

Element Required Provided Discretion Sought

Ground Floor 5.0m 2.0 3.0m

Upper Floor 7.0m 2.7 4.3m

The proposed development does not meet the prescribed setback requirements of Table 1 of LPP2.9 in relation to both the ground and upper floor elements of the proposal. The setback of the ground floor element, being the portion of building with an external wall height less than 4m is supported on the basis that the setback is clearly consistent with the setback of buildings in the prevailing streetscape and the rest of Tuckfield Street more generally. However the proposed upper floor setback is not considered, on-balance to satisfy the discretionary criteria contained at clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 for the following reasons;

The proposal is not considered consistent with the setback of buildings in the prevailing streetscape. A site inspection confirmed that the prevailing streetscape contains single storey development only (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos). While this street contains many single storey buildings with small ground floor setbacks, there is an absence of two storey development in the prevailing streetscape other than the existing dwelling on the subject site;



Page 11

The proposed upper floor section will represent a projecting element, similar to the existing dwelling, the exists out of character with the otherwise consistent streetscape;

The sloping topography of the land will exacerbate the perception of scale of the upper floor sections when viewed from Tuckfield Street. The higher portion of the dwelling will project several meters above the roof line of the adjoining dwelling at No. 32 Tuckfield Street (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos).

As the proposal has a matching external wall height to the ground floor of the existing dwelling, the Council may consider the proposal to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9. An alternative recommendation is provided at the conclusion of this report should Council form an alternative view. Lot Boundary Setbacks

Boundary Required Provided Discretion Sought

South 1.2m 1.1 0.1m

The discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons;

The proposal is not considered to result in adverse building bulk or scale when viewed from adjoining sites, notwithstanding the high visibility of the proposal from the street boundary;

The lesser setback does not impact on an adjoining outdoor living area or major opening to habitable rooms in respect to access to sunlight or ventilation; and,

The lesser setback does not contribute to any impact on visual privacy;

Despite the above, the proposal will cast a shadow over existing solar panels at No. 32 Tuckfield Street. While the shadow cast by the development is compliant with the prescribed R-Code requirements, the lesser setback is nonetheless supported. The overshadowing caused by the proposal is considered to be no additional impact compared to a proposal that would otherwise meet the 1.2m setback requirement. CONCLUSION

The application proposes a lesser setback than required in LPP2.9. The ground floor setback is supported but the upper floor setback is considered to be inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape. The application is therefore, on-balance, recommended for refusal. Should the Council take an alternative view, an alternative recommendation is provided below; ‘That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition to Existing Two Storey Single House at No. 34-36 (Lot 10 & 11) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:



Page 12

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 29 July 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. Prior to occupation, the balcony on the western and southern elevation shall be

either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6 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 1.65 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.65 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.

3. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition to Existing Two Storey Single House at No. 34-36 (Lot 10 & 11) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, for the following reason: The upper floor element of the proposed development is inconsistent with the setback requirements contained in Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscape Policy and is considered inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape. CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Dave Hume Cr Dave Coggin

Cr A Sullivan requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Cr D Coggin.



Page 13

PSC1310-150 HIGH STREET, NO. 194B (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - BALCONY EXTENSION AND SHADE STRUCTURE (PERGOLA) ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AD DA0287/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans and photos Date Received: 19 June 2013 Owner Name: Ashley Makepeace Submitted by: Jill Birt Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D

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 balcony extension and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 194B (Lot 3) High 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 pursuing the following discretionary decision:



Page 14

Boundary setbacks;

Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria 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 (LPA 2) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Ellen Street to the north, Ord Street to the west, Loukes Street to the east and High Street to the south. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within the Memorial Reserve Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 250m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation and is currently improved by a two storey Grouped Dwelling and associated structures. In terms of its topography, the subject site is relatively flat. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 19 June 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a balcony extension and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 194B (Lot 3) High Street, Fremantle. The proposed development plans 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 proposing a number of discretions from the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 September 2013, the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, of which did not raise any objections to the proposal. State Heritage Office (SHO)

In accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the City was required to refer development applications to the State Heritage Office (SHO) if the proposal may affect a State Registered Heritage Place, being the:

‘Fremantle Grammar School (former)’ located on High Street, Fremantle; and

‘Samson House’, located on the corner of Ord and Ellen Streets, Fremantle.



Page 15

The SHO provided the following referral comments to the City in relation to this application:

“The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of Fremantle Grammar School or Samson House.”


The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes 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

Boundary setbacks

Required Proposed Discretion

Upper floor, western boundary 2.50m 1.05m 1.45m

This discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons:

It is not considered to present significant impacts by way of building bulk upon the western adjoining properties, being No. 190 (Lot 22) High Street and No. 61-63 (Lot 927) Ellen Street, as the proposed upper level balcony extension is open in design, does not have any form of roof above its floor level;

It is considered that the proposed upper floor balcony extension will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and on the western adjoining properties;

In terms of visual privacy and in relation to No. 190 (Lot 22) High Street, the proposed upper level balcony extension is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact upon that property as there is substantial vegetation on that property that provides an effective form of screening so as to prevent overlooking;

In terms of visual privacy and in relation to No. 61-63 (Lot 927) Ellen Street, the proposed upper level balcony extension is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact upon that property as this property is known as ‘Samson House’ which operates in the capacity of a house museum and not for the purposes of a residential dwelling. Further, the owners of this property provided no-objection to the proposal.

Visual privacy

No. Required Proposed Discretion

1 7.50m setback for upper floor ‘balcony’ to western adjoining property

1.05m 6.45m

2 7.50m setback for upper floor ‘balcony’ to north-western adjoining property

1.05m 6.45m

3 7.50m setback for upper floor ‘balcony’/’walkway’ to northern adjoining property

3.90m 3.60m

The discretionary decision pertaining to the reduced setback for the upper floor ‘balcony’ (1) is supported for the following reasons:

The extent of overlooking of the western adjoining property from the upper floor ‘balcony’ is almost entirely restricted by existing vegetation on that property, of which



Page 16

is considered to provide an effective form of screening so as to prevent overlooking of that dwellings’ outdoor living area and major openings to habitable rooms.

The discretionary decision pertaining to the reduced setback for the upper floor ‘balcony’ (2) is supported for the following reasons:

The north-western adjoining property, whilst zoned Residential under LPS4, is not used in the capacity of a dwelling. Further, the owners of this property provided no-objection to the proposal.

The discretionary decision pertaining to the reduced setback for the upper floor ‘balcony’/’walkway’ is supported on balance, for the following reasons:

There is a large mature tree on the northern side of the dwelling as contained within the subject site which is considered to restrict or limit the amount of direct overlooking of the northern adjoining property. However should that tree be removed in the future, there will no longer be an effective form of screening to prevent direct overlooking of the northern adjoining properties outdoor living area and/or major openings to habitable rooms from the proposed ‘balcony’/’walkway’. On this basis it is recommended that a condition of planning approval being included requiring that the tree be retain unless otherwise approved by Council.

While the retention of the mature on site will partially screen the proposed deck extension, a small 1.0m length of the 0.7m wide walkway is not screened. It is considered however that this portion of walkway is not likely to be habitated for extended periods of time compared to the proposed deck and that the 1.0m length of walkway only overlook as small corner of the pergola on the adjoining northern property. On this basis it is not considered that this portion of walkway requires screening.

CONCLUSION

The proposed balcony extension and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 194B (Lot 3) High 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 discretionary criteria pertaining to boundary setbacks and visual privacy subject to a condition requiring the retention of the mature tree on site that serves to screen the proposed balcony from the adjoining northern property’s outdoor living area. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on balance, subject to appropriate conditions.



Page 17

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the balcony extension and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 194B (Lot 3) High Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 19 June 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. The 6.3m high mature tree that exists on site immediately adjacent to the

proposed deck extension is to be retained unless otherwise approved by Council.


CARRIED: 4/0

For Against

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Hume Cr Dave Coggin

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.



Page 18

PSC1310-153 WESTGATE MALL - RESERVE NO. 38030 PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY (PAW) - RESULTS OF PUBLIC ADVERTISING TO PROPOSED (TEMPORARY) PARTIAL CLOSURE OF LOT 2130 AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL (OPTION 2) TO TRANSFER PAW TO A MALL RESERVE - (KW)

Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 02 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SGS0903-2, SGS0905-10 and PSC1303-43 Attachment 1: Table of Submissions Attachment 2: Reserve No. 38030 enquiry details

Figure 1 - Advertised proposal to close a portion of the PAW

Figure 2 - Alternative Proposal (Option 2) to re-designate the whole PAW to a Reserve for the purpose of a "Mall"



Page 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to submit to Council the results of a 35 day advertising and public comment period in relation to the proposed temporary closure of a portion of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) Reserve No. 38030 being Lot Nos. 2130 and 55 (known as Westgate Mall) and identified as the hatched area in the map above (Figure 1). The purpose of the temporary closure was to return the land to the Crown as Unallocated Crown Land in order for the City to lease the land from the Crown. Subsequent to the advertising period, a concept plan for a seven (7) storey Hotel development has been proposed for 52 Adelaide Street, Fremantle being the property located on the southern and western common boundaries of Westgate Mall. The concept plan identifies an opportunity to introduce alfresco dining space (within Westgate Mall) in front of eight (8) proposed tenancies facing south west and north west. Consequently it is recommended to discontinue the current proposal as advertised and described above in favour of an alternative proposal as outlined below (Alternative Proposal Option 2) that will accommodate the proposed alfresco dining areas while retaining public access for the full length of the reserve. Alternative Proposal (Option 2) As the current PAW reserve status does not permit leasing or licensing for alfresco dining and other uses, it is recommended to re-designate or transfer the PAW to a Reserve for the purpose of a "Mall" pursuant of Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA). The alternative proposal, explored by senior officers from the Department of Land (DoL) formally known as the Department of Regional Development (RDL) and checked by their Legal section; will accommodate alfresco dining and future commercial activity without the current restrictions afforded to a PAW. This option will require a public advertising period of 35 days reporting back to Council and forwarded in an application to DoL (subject to Council approval). Therefore it is recommended that Council notes the results of a 35 day public comment period ending on the 11 June 2013 and discontinue the proposed temporary partial closure of the Westgate Mall Pedestrian Access way in favour of the Alternative Proposal (Option 2). BACKGROUND

There has been an extensive history of unsuccessful proposals to revitalise the Westgate Mall PAW and address ongoing security and maintenance issues. During April and May of 2012 the City discussed other options with the senior staff at DoL in order to find a way to close off and provide improved security for tenants and the public alike. DoL staff suggested presenting the City's requirements in a Business Case together with an application to close a portion of the PAW being the subject Land. The



Page 20

proposal would allow the Land to be returned to the Crown allowing the DoL to lease directly to the City providing the power to sublease to tenants. With the PAW status removed the blocking off of the Adelaide Street access leg could be achieved subject to the Minister’s approval. Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 27 March 2013 (PSC1303-43) resolved: 1. APPROVE the proposed temporary closure of a portion of Lot 2130 located within the

Pedestrian Access Way Reserve No. 38030 - Westgate Mall, Fremantle (as detailed in the City's map dated 26 February 2013 - Figure 1) for the purposes of returning the land to the Crown as Unallocated Crown Land (UCL) - in order for the City for the City of Fremantle to lease the UCL directly from the Crown.

2. Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day public

comment period in regard to the proposed temporary closure of a portion of the Pedestrian Access Way as described in item 1.

3. Following the completion of the advertising period, consider the submissions received

during the advertising and public consultation in a report to Council for a final decision prior to an application being made to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and the department of Regional Development and Lands (RDL) requesting the temporary closure of the Pedestrian Access Way described in item 1.

The advertising period was undertaken during May and June 2013. The results of the advertising period are considered elsewhere in this report. On 07 June 2013, towards the end of the advertising period, the City's Design Advisory Committee considered a concept plan for a proposed seven (7) storey Hotel development from the owners of 52 Adelaide Street, Fremantle being the property adjoining Westgate Mall on the south west and north western boundaries. The plan anticipated that an area of Westgate Mall be utilised for alfresco dining. The DoL subsequently confirmed, however, that the current PAW classification for Westgate Mall does not permit licences or leases for alfresco dining and other uses within the reserve. On 21 August 2013 - the City received an outcome from the ongoing enquires with the DoL as to the way to accommodate alfresco dining and future leasing and licences for commercial activities anticipated for the Westgate Mall, while at the same time retaining public access through the mall. The DoL Legal department examined the City's Outdoor Eating Area Licence including the City's Local Law relating to outdoor eating areas and concluded that the provisions as set out in Section 18 of the LAA will allow the City to re-designate the PAW to a Reserve for the purpose of a "Mall" and thereby accommodate these activities if the hotel proposal was to proceed. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The Alternative Proposal (Option 2) - requires the re-designation of the PAW being the whole of Reserve No. 38030 to a reserve for the purpose of a "Mall" pursuant of Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 titled "Various transactions relating to Crown land to be approved by Minister".



Page 21

The Department of Land recommend that the City should re-advertise the Alternative Proposal to the public for a period of 35 days. COMMENTS The Westgate Mall is Crown Land (Reserve No. 38030) owned by the State of WA and managed as a Pedestrian Access Way by the City of Fremantle. All PAW's are required to remain open and provide public access under the LAA therefore a local government must not install gates or close off any of the access legs. In addition local governments may not lease or licence land reserved as a PAW. Therefore the current land tenure of PAW Reserve No. 38030 requires amendment as part of the revitalisation of the Westgate Mall. A number of proposals have been investigated over the years with one similar proposal in November 2011 to the Alternative Proposal (Option 2). The 2011 proposal involved the transfer (re-designation) of the PAW to a "Mall Reserve" under Section 59 of the LAA with the requirement for By-Laws to be made by the Management Body pursuant of Section 61 of the LAA. The By-Laws were deemed necessary for the installation of gates (for after hours use) and parking controls. However, due to the lengthy process and legal costs involved to create new By-Laws together with the requirement to keep the "Mall" open to pedestrians and vehicles; the proposal was not supported. After further investigations, the City approved the public advertising of the proposed partial temporary closure of the Adelaide Street access leg to enable the City to lease a portion the land directly from the Crown (State of WA). The Alternative Proposal (Option 2) differs from the November 2011 proposal only by the selection of Section 18 of the LAA as recommended by the DoL with their comments and advice noted in the points below. The concept plan submitted by the owners of No. 52 Adelaide Street, Fremantle (where the use of the Westgate Mall for alfresco dining is proposed) has provided the City with an alternative direction to pursue. The DoL legal department examined the City's Outdoor Eating Area Licence together with the associated Local Law and recommended the use of Section 18 of the LAA in preference to the usual Section 59 of the LAA and provided the following comments and advice:

1. To request the re-designation of Reserve No. 38030 from a PAW to a Reserve for the purpose of a "Mall" pursuant of Section 18 of the LAA (a "Mall Reserve").

2. The City is not required to create local laws in order to manage the Reserve. 3. Alfresco dining is allowed and the DoL considered the City's Outdoor Eating Area

Licence to be a permit rather that a licence and as such DoL would not require the City to obtain the Ministers consent each time a licence was issued.

4. A Mall Reserve may be closed off at night providing it is consistent with the purpose. The Senior DoL officer assisting the City confirmed that to close the Mall for security purposes is an acceptable reason in accordance with the purpose.

5. The City will have a future option available to request the amendment of the Mall Reserve Management Order to include the power to lease or licence for a period of up to 21 years (being usual time requested) in order to accommodate future



Page 22

leasing and or licensing requirements - actioned by a simple request from Council with the details of the proposed commercial activity.

EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Community

The proposed temporary closure of the Adelaide Street section of Westgate Mall Pedestrian Access Way Fremantle (as shown in figure 1) was advertised for a period of not less than 35 days in accordance with statutory requirements. Public advertising included:

Advertisement placed in the Fremantle Gazette on 07 May 2013 with a 36 day public comment period.

Proposal advertised on the City of Fremantle Public Engagement website.

Two advertising signs were placed on the western wall of the adjoining building looking into Adelaide Street leg of the Westgate Mall PAW.

Letters sent to all occupiers and owners abutting the Westgate Mall PAW.

Letters sent to public utilities requesting their comments. At the conclusion of the 36 day advertising period, being 11 June 2013, the City had received a total of seven (7) written submissions with two (2) in support and four (4) objecting to the proposal with one (1) in support of proposed closure and objecting to the proposed leasing of the subject area. A further two (2) telephone calls were received one (1) in support and one (1) objecting - the objector also followed up with a written submission No.4. From the submissions received the majority of the submissions came from owners and business operators adjoining Westgate Mall. The comments opposing the proposal indicated a shared concern that the proposal to close off the Adelaide Street leg of the PAW will reduce pedestrian traffic impacting directly on their businesses and property values in a negative way. There was a suggestion that the subject area should be amalgamated with the adjoining properties, however in order for an amalgamation to occur the subject portion of the PAW would have to be permanently closed first. The submissions received in support of the proposal were encouraged by any improvement to the current 'emptiness' of a 'dreary, lifeless and rarely used space'. Supporters of the proposal suggested having small businesses on one side and seating on the other. Other suggestions to attract visitors included outdoor dining and well-nurtured greenery together with a visually strong aspect applied to the main wall for example. No objections were received from the public utilities. All submissions are summarised and tabled in attachment 1. CONCLUSION

The City has received the results of public comments in relation to Reserve No. 38030 PAW proposed (temporary) partial closure of Lot 2130 in order to provide options to lease and secure access. The public comments indicated a need for the Mall to remain open and any improvements to the area would be welcomed.



Page 23

At the time of advertising the City had not received the proposed Hotel development concept plan from the adjoining property at 52 Adelaide Street, Fremantle and as a result an Alternative Proposal (Option 2) is now provided for Council consideration that is customised to the future requirements of Westgate Mall. Therefore the Council is recommended to advertise the Alternative Proposal (Option 2) where the whole of Reserve No. 38030 is re-designated from a PAW to a Reserve for the purpose of a "Mall" in accordance with Section 18 of the LAA. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. NOTE the results of the 36 day public comment period ending on the 11 June 2013 in relation to the proposed (temporary) partial closure of Lot 2130 Westgate Mall Pedestrian Access way.

2. DISCONTINUE the proposed (temporary) partial closure of Lot 2130 the

Westgate Mall Pedestrian Access way as a result of public comments and the opportunity provided by a recent proposal for an adjacent property that could significantly revitalise the mall.

3. APPROVE the Alternative Proposal to re-designate or transfer the whole of

Reserve No. 38030 being Lots 2130 and 55 from a Pedestrian Access way to a Reserve for the purpose of a "Mall" pursuant of Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

4. Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day

public comment period with regard to the Alternative Proposal as outlined in item 3.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against




Page 24

PSC1309-154 HOLLIS PARK, SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE - PROPOSED INCLUSION ON STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES

DataWorks Reference: 114/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Coordinator of Heritage Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1212-196 Attachments: 1. Previous item PSC1212-196 2. Copy of State Heritage Office plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In December 2012 the Planning Services Committee considered an item recommending a response to a request from the State Heritage Office for the City of Fremantle to provide comments on a proposal to include the Hollis Park area of the South Fremantle landfill site on the State Register of Heritage Places. The Committee deferred consideration of the matter to enable officers to obtain information on the social heritage values of the place for informal consideration at an elected member’s workshop prior to reporting back to the Committee. The matter was discussed at an informal elected member’s briefing in August 2013, with officers from the State Heritage Office in attendance. This discussion assisted in clarifying the City’s understanding of the reasons the Heritage Council of WA considers the area should included in the State Register, as an expansion of the existing registration of the South Beach Horse Exercise Area, and enabled the potential implications of state registration of Hollis Park for the City’s management of the area as part of the South Fremantle landfill site (a registered contaminated site) to be discussed. Following this discussion, City officers consider the proposed registration could be supported, however before a final decision is made on the matter by the Heritage Council it would be appropriate for additional information to be included in the documentation prepared to support the registration process to more accurately and clearly identify the significant physical fabric and heritage values of Hollis Park. It is also recommended that the City seek agreement from the State Heritage Office to jointly prepare and agree the content of a statement that will guide the management of the site and provide reassurance to the City that action it may need to take to fulfil its obligations under the Contaminated Sites Act will be supported by the Heritage Council. BACKGROUND

On 5 December 2012 the Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to defer consideration of an item dealing with a request from the State Heritage Office for the City of Fremantle to provide comments on a proposal to include the Hollis Park area of the



Page 25

South Fremantle landfill site on the State Register of Heritage Places. The proposed registration would comprise an expansion of the existing entry on the State Register referred to as the South Beach Horse Exercise Area which is located within the City of Cockburn. Further background is provided in Attachment 1 – previous item PSC1212-196. The PSC resolved to defer this previous item to enable officers to obtain information on the social heritage values of the place for informal consideration at an elected member’s workshop prior to reporting back to the Committee. It was subsequently agreed between City officers and officers of the State Heritage Office (SHO) that this information could best be provided by SHO officers attending and participating in the workshop discussion with elected members. This discussion occurred at the informal elected members briefing held on 5 August 2013. PLANNING COMMENT

The decision on whether a place is of sufficient heritage significance to warrant entry on the State Register is determined through a process of analysis of the documentary and physical evidence, and assessment of the various heritage values of the place in terms of the State Heritage Office’s prescribed criteria. The assessment documentation, including a Statement of Significance, is the formal record of the outcomes of this process. The Statement of Significance is a succinct statement, broken down into several points, describing the cultural significance of the place. The Burra Charter defines cultural significance of a place in terms of its aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations and that is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. The Burra Charter also states that places of cultural significance must be conserved for present and future generations and it defines conservation as all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. At the discussion on 5 August this year, it was explained by the SHO officers in attendance that there was information available to the SHO regarding the cultural heritage significance of the Hollis Park area that was not explicitly identified in the Statement of Significance document previously referred to the City for comment. SHO representatives also considered that descriptions of the heritage values of the South Beach Horse Exercise Area as a whole already contained in the Statement of Significance should be read as implicitly applying to the Hollis Park area as well, due to its associations with the horse training and racing industry. Having regard to information provided verbally at the discussion on 5 August, SHO representatives have acknowledged that the level of significance of Hollis Park may not have been fully apparent in the information available to City officers when the previous report and recommendation to the Planning Services Committee was prepared. Moreover it is reasonable for the City to expect the assessment documentation to clearly and fully explain the heritage values of Hollis Park and how the proposed area embodies the heritage values attributed to it. The SHO publication Criteria for the assessment of local heritage places and areas states that a Heritage Area should always be established on the basis of a clear statement of significance and a clear identification of the



Page 26

significant physical fabric in the area. Additionally, the SHO also notes that for the State Register to be credible, it is desirable that places in it have at least reasonable levels of condition and integrity while also having a high degree of authenticity. Condition refers to the current state of the place in relation to each of the values for which that place has been assessed. Integrity is a measure of the likely long-term viability or sustainability of the values identified, or the ability of the place to restore itself or be restored, and the time frame for any restorative process. Authenticity refers to the extent to which the fabric of a heritage place is in its original state. The current SHO documentation does not address condition and integrity and authenticity with reference to the particular characteristics of the landfill site. The Statement of Significance defines the cultural heritage significance of a place. It also explains why and how it is significant and thus is the basis for the future conservation and management of the place. Therefore whilst it may be appropriate for the City to indicate its support in principle for the proposed addition of the Hollis Park area to the South Beach Horse Exercise Area state registration, it is also reasonable to expect shortcomings in the current SHO documentation to be addressed before the Heritage Council and Minister for Heritage make a final decision on the matter. In particular, the Statement of Significance should be amended to accurately identify and describe the heritage values of Hollis Park and how they are embodied in its physical fabric. A second issue referred to in the previous PSC item was the possible implications of state registration of Hollis Park for the City’s management and use of the South Fremantle landfill site as a whole, including fulfilment of its obligations as a landowner under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. In consultation with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the City has implemented measures to restrict public access to most of the site except for the hard surfaced path linking Cockburn Road/Hampton Road with South Terrace/Ocean Road and some land directly abutting the path. This path is used by pedestrian, cyclists and horses and is included within the curtilage of area proposed for state registration. The City is also engaged in a long term program of site investigation and monitoring of contaminants to help determine the most appropriate approach to management of the site and, in the longer term, remediation treatment. This involves some minor physical works to the site such as installation of gas monitoring probes. The City has also received approaches regarding possible use of parts of the site for purposes including a community garden/urban farm and a solar power generation facility. A resolution of Council in April 2013 has given a conditional indication of support in principle for these types of low impact, interim uses of part of the site if they can be demonstrated to be compatible with its contamination status. Under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 most types of proposed development affecting a place on the State Register are required to be referred to the SHO for comment. However, some minor works including maintenance (which may include certain ground excavation works) do not have to be referred. Due to the relatively unusual nature of some of the activities associated with management and use of the landfill site, in the event that a final decision is made to include Hollis Park on the State Register officers consider that it would be beneficial to all interested parties if the City and the SHO could jointly agree to a management statement relating to the site. This could provide clarity and certainty regarding the scope of activities and works that could take place without needing to first be referred to the SHO for comment. Whilst there is no reason to presume that the SHO would object to works generally associated with management of the site in its current state, it would reduce the workload burden for both



Page 27

the SHO and the City and avoid delays in being able to proceed with planned activities if an agreement could be put in place exempting certain works from the referral process. It is therefore recommended that the City’s response to the SHO should propose such an arrangement. CONCLUSION Having given consideration to the further information provided verbally by officers of the State Heritage Office at the informal briefing with elected members on 5 August 2013, officers consider the proposed expansion of the State Register entry for the South Beach Horse Exercise Area to include Hollis Park could be supported. However, before a final decision is made on the matter by the Heritage Council it would be appropriate for additional information to be included in the documentation prepared by the SHO to support the registration process to more accurately and clearly identify the significant physical fabric and heritage values of Hollis Park. It is therefore recommended that the City’s response to the SHO should include a request to address this matter. It is also recommended that the City seek agreement from the State Heritage Office to jointly prepare and agree the content of a statement that will guide liaison with the SHO over the management of activities on the site for the reasons outlined above. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the State Heritage Office be informed that the City of Fremantle supports in principle the proposed amendment to permanent registration of the South Beach Horse Exercise Area in the State Register of Heritage Places to include Hollis Park, subject to the following action being taken prior to a final decision on the amendment being made by the Heritage Council: a) Further information being included in the Statement of Significance to:

(i) more clearly describe Hollis Park and its heritage values, including how they are embodied in the physical fabric of the area;

(ii) clearly identify the relative importance of the heritage values attributed to Hollis Park, particularly with reference to the landfill site; and

(iii) explain the levels of condition, integrity and authenticity of Hollis Park, particularly with reference to the landfill site.

b) A management statement being prepared and agreed between the State Heritage Office and the City of Fremantle to provide guidance on the following matters:

(i) the management and use of the dual use path linking Cockburn Road/Hampton Road with South Terrace/Ocean Road;

(ii) the City’s ability to fulfil its obligations under the Contaminated Sites Act in respect of management and remediation of the former South Fremantle Landfill Site, of which Hollis Park forms part, in the context of inclusion of Hollis Park in the State Register of Heritage Places; and

(iii) the level of consultation required with the State Heritage Office regarding consideration by the City of potential interim land uses on the



Page 28

landfill site (including Hollis Park), including uses that might involve the placement of lightweight, removable structures.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against




Page 29

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 9 OCTOBER 2013

SGS1310-3 SALE OF TAPPER STREET MEWS RETIREMENT VILLAGE

DataWorks Reference: 023/006; 023/050; 038/036 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 October 2013 Previous Item: TFC1209-1; SGS1209-10; T1305-1 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Confidential documents for the received expressions of

interest (under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tapper Street Mews which consist of 11 x 1 bedroom units for affordable accommodation managed under the Retirement Village Act were offered for sale by expression of interest expiring 18 September 2013. Four proposals were received with none being equal or above the adopted reserve price.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle Trust Fund Committee resolved at its meeting on Wednesday 8 August 2012 that Tapper Street Mews, subject to legal advice, was to be sold to Access Housing. Ten (10) of the units at Tapper Street Mews have lease for life tenancies that operate under the Retirement Village Act. The remaining unit has a residential lease. After investigating the financial viability of developing the site under these agreements, Access Housing informed the City of Fremantle that they had reconsidered their proposal for the property and no longer intended to proceed with the purchase. A recommendation was put to the Trust Fund Committee at its meeting on 8 May 2013 advising of Access Housings withdrawal and a resolution was made for the Trust to proceed to offer the Tapper Street Mews site for sale as a Retirement Village. The property was then put on the market for sale by expression of interest with the closing date being 18 September 2013. Four submissions were received all of which were under the received market valuation.

COMMENT

The life time leases on these units impede on the possibilities of redevelopment at the site and possible financial stability. These factors are assumed to have contributed to the lack of interest in the premises overall. Marketing was specific to groups, businesses and societies to which an affordable housing element would be suitable, however the



Page 30

offers the City received were of a low level and not worthy of consideration for acceptance. It is recommended that the City continue to discussion options with various providers to see if further interest can be attained and a sale agreement negotiated.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

All offers received were considerably under the recent market sale valuation. Legal

Local Government Act 1995 Operational

The City currently has an external company managing the retirement village. Organisational

The City can continue to liaise with various operators in this market to see if a sale could be negotiated.

CONCLUSION

Two of the four submissions received hold a possibility of negotiation however it is recommended to not accept any of the expressions received. It is also recommended that Council delegate authority to seek interested parties to consider the purchase of Tapper Street Mews Retirement Village.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required



Page 31

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Does not accept any of the four expressions of interests received for the sale of

Tapper Street Mews 2. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the sale of Tapper

Street Mews Retirement Village above the recent property valuation received from Matt Gormmy dated 6 September 2013.

Cr S Wainwright MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer negotiate the sale of Tapper Street

Mews Retirement Village above the recent property valuation received from Matt Gormmy dated 6 September 2013 and bring any relevant negotiations to Council for approval.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr David Hume Cr Jon Strachan Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council:

1. Does not accept any of the four expressions of interests received for the sale of Tapper Street Mews

2. Requests the Chief Executive Officer negotiate the sale of Tapper Street Mews Retirement Village above the recent property valuation received from Matt Gormmy dated 6 September 2013 and bring any relevant negotiations to Council for approval.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Tim Grey-Smith



Page 32

Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To request that the Chief Executive Officer negotiate the sale of Tapper Street Mews Retirement Village and bring any relevant negotiations to Council for approval.



Page 33

SGS1310-4 CANTONMENT HILL WORKING GROUP - UPDATE AND INTERIM ACTIVATION INITIATIVES

DataWorks Reference: 039/068 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 October 2013 Previous Item: SGS1202-8 Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Manager City Works Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Cantonment Hill Master Plan Implementation Project

Plan Project Schedule (under separate cover) Architectural Request for Services Landscape Architect Request for Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item updates Council on the progress of the Cantonment Hill Working Group’s considerations and a proposal for interim activation initiatives particularly at the Signal Station. The Cantonment Hill Working Group (CHWG) has commenced work on the master plan and proposes the methodology be expanded to allow for a holistic design approach. It also seeks consideration to progressing interim activation of the site which will complement the overall objectives and should not cause any delays to the overall project implementation. It is envisaged that through an overall design approach it will take 12 to 18 months before the first stages of construction of the master plan are commenced. Also subject to funding availability it is anticipated it will be between 2 to 5 years for the restoration of the signal station and naval store. The signal station facility in particular continues to be the regular target of graffiti and property damage. It is considered that interim activation of this area could deter antisocial behaviour and reduce the current expenditure to maintain the buildings to an acceptable condition. Approval is sought for calling of expressions of interest for activation of the Signal Tower and Naval Store and to implement maintenance works, including to re-connect the services to the signal station.

BACKGROUND

Council authorised at its December 2012 Ordinary Meeting to reinstitute the Cantonment Hill Working Group to participate in the implementation of the approved master plan and associated first stage works for Cantonment Hill. The Cantonment Hill Working Group (CHWG) has commenced work on the City’s master plan project and proposes the methodology be expanded to allow for a holistic design



Page 34

approach. It also seeks consideration to progressing interim activation of the site which will complement the overall objectives and should not cause any delays to the overall implementation. It is envisaged that it will take approximately 12 to 18 months before the first stages of construction of the master plan are commenced and a further 2 to 5 years for the restoration of the signal station and naval store. The Signal Station facility continues to be the regular target of graffiti and property damage and it is considered that the implementation of interim activation activities could deter antisocial behaviour and reduce expenditure on maintaining the buildings. The core focus of the CHWG is the implementation of the preliminary master plan stages and ensuring the following essential outcomes are achieved:

integrated implementation and management of stages

consultation with the community.

secure available grant funding.

cooperative working arrangement with the Army Museum Foundation. The key recommendations of the plan include short and long term goals. The main options in the plan are: Oval Area Community consultation results identified that the oval area is considered a priority for a low key nature play area with interpretive signage, river views, irrigated lawn and requires earthworks to reinstate original landform. The estimated cost of these works including the indigenous garden area near the tunnel is $700 000. Bush Forever Site Proposal to retain all trees and revegetate site, plus construct new paths, interpretive sites with detailed site management and interpretive plans are to be developed. The report provides an estimated cost of $300 000. Naval Store This is a significant entry statement and will require part restoration in the short term. Suggested various uses include a bicycle service centre, café / kitchen, multi - purpose music performance space to semi permanent studio / office space. Signal Station This is a highly visible landmark, and the draft report recommends that the City should carry out partial restoration including;

Up-lighting the building

Remove all fencing except those sections required for safety reasons

Repair windows and reconnect services. To address safety and risk implications building audits were carried out on the Naval Store and Signal Station to assess the condition of these structures and suitability for potential uses. The structural Inspection carried out by GHD Consultants indicated that the signal station building was in good structural condition internally. However for the Signal Station externally some defects were observed in the brick work and balcony. It was noted that these defects did not pose an immediate risk to the overall structure.



Page 35

The structural inspection on the Naval Store similarly indicated the structure is in good condition however some defects were identified requiring repairs in the short and longer term. The master plan indicates that if partial restorative works are undertaken immediately some use of the area and buildings is possible and can generate an income stream for the City. Expressions of Interest For the Naval Store and Signal Station, it is proposed that the City invite expressions of interest from public and commercial organisations who may be interested in leasing all or parts of these facilities for their best use in accordance with the objectives of the master plan. Stage of works It was proposed that initially, the Oval and the Bush Forever site works be undertaken as the first stage works. It is now considered that whilst these detailed designs are underway for these works the reconnection of services to the signal station building, up lighting and expediting the expression of interests for either short or long term use be progressed.

COMMENT

The working group is of the view that an holistic approach completing the detailed design for all the stages of the master plan upfront will be more effective by limiting the retendering for the various stages on the design component, therefore being more cost effective, ensure design synergy, and provide a stronger platform for securing the large amount of grant funding required to deliver the outcomes of the master plan. It was estimated that the design element of the Oval and Bush Forever works would be in the order of $ 70, 000 and the complete design costs in excess of $ 150, 000. Over the past 12 months the site has had numerous vandalism incidents including graffiti and property damage and it is forecast the currents year’s expenditure will be $25, 000. The working group has identified several initiatives if adopted and implemented may deter vandalism and reduce expenditure to rectify damage whilst the detail planning, design and approvals are completed for the of the master plan implementation. The proposed initiatives include expediting the fast tracking of an expression of interest to either award short term commercial use or a long term arrangement including restoration of the buildings in alignment with the master plan recommendations. The reconnection of all services would be essential and need to be undertaken now. It is estimated this cost would be $30,000. A community project involving a mural of artwork on the boarded windows of the second and third floors is proposed to improve the current presentation of the signal station. The artwork will reflect the historic themes of the site and create greater interest due to the high visibility of the signal station.



Page 36

The initial stage to activate the ground floor to a past service level will be relatively easy to achieve with only minor vandalism elements needing to be addressed. However if it is the intent to enable full access to any or all of the upper levels an extensive amount of compliance work will have to be undertaken to address safety elements of entry and egress. In looking at the structure from an access and inclusion perspective in line with the City’s Access and Inclusion Policy it must be indicated that the current status is non compliant, thus not enabling access or accommodating for people with disabilities in any manner. It is also important to note that the current access staircase and egress does not comply with current standards relating to means of fire escape.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Due to time constraints it is unlikely grant funding will be secured for the interim works and the City will have to allocate funds from existing and/or reserves for Cantonment Hill. Currently there are cash-in-lieu funds of $130,000 available, $250 000 in the current budget and $2 million allocated in reserve funding for Cantonment Hill. It is expected that other longer term funding opportunities for the implementation of the master plan might come from the Lotteries Commission 'Big Ideas' category or other Federal and State Government bodies. It is estimated the interim works to the signal station including reconnection of services, carrying out minimum repairs to the building as per the consultant’s audit, lighting and mural work will cost approximately $150,000. This will enable ground floor access and a return to the past service level. It must be noted that past service level did not make provision for Disability Access and Inclusion. Making provision for access to the ground floor under the policy , which includes wider doors, ramps and toilet modifications, may add additional cost of approximately $150,000 to the indicated cost making the interim amount for activation of the lower ground $300,000. Legal

The master plan was prepared in consultation with the Heritage Council of WA, Department of Planning and other stakeholders. In order for any works to occur on Cantonment Hill, consent from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs under Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 must be obtained. Operational

Implementation of the interim works of the master plan can be supervised with internal resources across the Directorates engaging contractors pending task specifics. An internal project team is in place to provide the necessary support as required. Organisational

The implementation of the interim initiatives will draw resources from multiple business units and require the preparation of the required contract documentation. The Directorate Corporate Services will progress the administration of calling of expressions of interest



Page 37

and commercial operations. The Directorate Community Development will assist with the community mural works on the signal station.

CONCLUSION

The working group is highly motivated, committed to delivering an excellent result on the ground and seeks to complete the detailed design stage of the project for all the stages upfront which can reduce expenditure on the design phases and ensure greater synergies between the phases of the master plan. However, it is considered that expressions of interest for activation of the site should be called prior to design of the signal station. The working group and project team will need to ensure that the works on the oval and bush forever site are not delayed. The interim activation will create a presence and prevent further neglect of this highly visible landmark and the works required to support any commercial venture would be required in any event in implementing the master plan. The mural artwork falls outside of the master plan however the improvement in the presentation of this significant landmark could lead to greater interest in the site and expedite master plan development.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Strategic Imperative - Character Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage and history. Strategic Imperative - Urban Renewal and Integration Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The whole process of developing the master plan was a community engagement and facilitation exercise. The preparation of the master plan included three open days of the signal station. These took place in September 2010, May 2011 and February 2012. Members of the group also carried out an on-line community survey and presented the report to the working group. The South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (SWALSC) recommended a consultant who identified the Elders for engagement. This consultation involved a meeting in Fremantle and visit to Cantonment Hill. SWALSC were sent a copy of the final draft plan for comment.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required


That Council:



Page 38

1. Endorses calling for expressions of interest to establish public and or commercial activities at the Cantonment Hill site

2. Authorises interim actions including reconnection of services at the signal station, the up-lighting of the building and mural artwork

3. Authorises additional funds of $150 000 to be transferred from the Cantonment Hill Reserve for the interim actions and to support the activation of the ground floor of the signal station and naval store

4. Lists progression of the implementation of the Cantonment Hill Master Plan as a high priority in future budgets.

5. Defers consideration of changing the Cantonment Hill Working Group project scope to include the design for restoration of the signal station and naval store buildings

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED a minor amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

5. Delays changing the Cantonment Hill Working Group project scope, pending the Expression of Interest process outcomes.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council:

1. Endorses calling for expressions of interest to establish public and or commercial activities at the Cantonment Hill site

2. Authorises interim actions including reconnection of services at the signal station, the up-lighting of the building and mural artwork

3. Authorises additional funds of $150 000 to be transferred from the Cantonment Hill Reserve for the interim actions and to support the activation of the ground floor of the signal station and naval store

4. Lists progression of the implementation of the Cantonment Hill Master Plan as a high priority in future budgets.

5. Delays changing the Cantonment Hill Working Group project scope, pending the Expression of Interest process outcomes.



Page 39

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To reword Part 5 of the Officer's Recommendation.



Page 40

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1310-2 NEWBOLD STREET NO 2 (LOT 1) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0269/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans (as amended) Date Received: 10 June 2013; 17 September 2013 (amended plans) Owner Name: David Cadman Submitted by: Mike Richardson Architect Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed; Not within heritage area Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D



Page 41

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 two storey additions and alterations to the existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 2 (Lot 1) Newbold, White Gum Valley. 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:

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP2.9) The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles in relation to:

Building height;

Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes and the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on balance, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a split density coding of R20/R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area 6 (LPA 6) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Watkins Street to the north, Newbold Street to the west, Wongan Avenue to the east and Samson Street to the south. 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 479m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation and is currently improved by a single storey Grouped Dwelling, outbuilding and associated structures. There are also a number of mature trees and other vegetation throughout the site. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 1.30 metres downwards from its northern boundary to its southern boundary. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application:

On 14 May 1992, the City granted conditional Planning Approval under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) for the construction of a Grouped Dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 2 (Lot 26) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley (refer DA297/89.04);

On 3 November 1993, the City granted conditional Planning Approval under the former TPS3 for minor alterations and additions at No. 2 (Lot 26) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley (refer DA297/89.05);

On 19 June 1996, the City granted conditional Planning Approval under the former TPS3 for a brick and lattice wall at No. 2 (Lot 26) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley (refer DA199/06).



Page 42

DETAIL

On 10 June 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for two storey additions and alterations to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 2 (Lot 1) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley (DA0269/13). On 17 September 2013, the City received amended plans which included the following change to the original plans:

Reduction of overshadowing of southern adjoining property so as to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R Codes.

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 15 July 2013, the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, of which the following relevant planning concerns:

Visual privacy; and

Overshadowing. Internal Referral Comments

City’s Parks and Landscapes Department

On 28 August 2013, the City’s Parks and Landscapes Department provided the following comments in relation to possibly using the existing trees on-site as part of an argument to support a reduced primary street setback for the proposed upper floor:

“Regarding the trees at property on 2 Newbold St, I have provided the South Australian National Trust criteria for evaluating significance

Natural: remnant indigenous vegetation that provides important habitat, conserves biodiversity or is a seed or food source. Selected trees may be rare, endangered or vulnerable.

Historic or cultural: associated with Aboriginal, colonial or post-colonial people, events or communities. Selected trees may celebrate a historic event or person, significantly associated with an ethnic group or community, form part of a private or public garden, or are or have been important in the life of the local community.

Aesthetic: related to unusual size, great age, intrinsic physical features, outstanding appearance or occurring in a unique location or context, and thus provide a special contribution as a landmark or landscape feature.

Botanical: of medicinal or genetic value. Selected trees may be isolated specimens, have State or National conservation status, be of original genetic stock, a cultivar resistant to disease or exposure, or propagated from biologically important stock.



Page 43

A visual inspection for the trees in private could not be adequately undertaken. However what could be seen were what looked like a Corymbia maculata and a Eucalyptus botryoides both about 15 years old. There was also what looked like a Lophostemon conferta, which appeared to be more than 10 years old. Considering the Significance Criteria below, none of the trees have Natural or Aesthetic Significance. I am unable to comment on their Historic, Cultural or Botanic Significance, though I doubt this will be the case. It may require the owners to prove significance under these latter headings.”


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

LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy


Prescribed minimum setback for development with an external wall height of greater than 4 metres in White Gum Valley is 12 metres

10.50 m 1.50 m

As the proposal is not considered to meet the setback requirements above, it is required to be assessed against the following provisions of Clause 1.2 of Council’s LPP2.9, which states:

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

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

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

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

It is not considered that the proposal is supportable under discretionary criteria 1.2 (i) as there are no other examples of two storey dwellings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’. In relation to the discretionary criteria 1.2 (iii) above, and as detailed in the ‘Consultation’ section earlier in this report, the City does not consider any of the existing trees on-site to be mature, significant trees worthy of retention and as such the proposed primary street setback discretion is not supported against the discretionary criteria 1.2 (iii) of LPP2.9.



Page 44

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposed reduced primary street setback is supportable, on balance, against the discretionary criteria of clause 1.2 (ii) above for the following reasons:

The proposed two storey additions presents generally as a loft, and not appear as a true second storey to the street (refer ‘south’, ‘north’ and ‘west’ elevations of development plans as part of ‘Attachment 1’ of this report). This design is considered to present considerably less building bulk to the street than a true second storey addition would, with any perceived bulk associated with the addition ameliorated by the sloping pitch of the roof away from the street itself;

It is not considered to present a projecting element into the streetscape vista of Newbold Street as the proposed two storey additions are located in line with the existing 10.50 metre setback from the street of the existing dwelling;

There are two existing dwellings within the prevailing streetscape; being No. 4 (Lot 1) and No. 8 (Lot 23) Newbold Streets which are set back closer to the street than the existing dwelling on the subject site (and therefore the proposed additions) and in this regard the proposed reduced street setback for the upper floor will not result in a projecting element into the established streetscape vista.

Building height

Permitted Proposed Design Principles Assessment

Top of roof ridge 9.00m

Between 9.50m and 10.20m (for approximately 13.20m in length)

0.50m to 1.20m (for approximately 13.20m in length)

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

The proposal complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes pertaining to overshadowing;

Due to the significant changes in the topography of the subject site as detailed in the ‘Background’ section of this report, the proposed height variation is exacerbated on the southern portion of the proposal; however it is generally reflective of the drop of 1.00m in topography towards the southern boundary of the site;

As detailed earlier in this report, whilst the proposal is considered to constitute a second storey addition, it presents generally as a loft, which typically embodies a higher roof pitch to a more traditional second storey. Therefore, it is considered that this may be reflective of the overall building height sought by this proposal;

In light of the above points, it is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to the topography of the site in a manner that seeks to minimise its impact on adjoining properties and as it is viewed from the street;

It is not considered that the proposal will detrimentally impact the amenity of adjoining properties by way of access to views of significance;

It is considered that it will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on site and to the southern adjoining property. The City has reviewed the approved development plans for the southern adjoining property and upon a site inspection by City Officers’ the northern elevation of that dwelling contains no major openings to habitable rooms (refer ‘Attachment 2’ of this report), and that its outdoor living area is located in the south-eastern corner of that dwelling. As such, the extent of the shadow cast by the proposal will not directly impact major openings to habitable rooms and/or the outdoor living area of the dwelling on the southern adjoining property.



Page 45

Visual privacy

Required Proposed Design Principles Assessment

7.50m setback for upper floor ‘balcony’ (northern elevation) to northern adjoining property

7.3 – 8.4m 0-0.2m

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

Overlooking of the property on the northern side of the driveway, being No. 89 (Lot 11) Watkins Street, is restricted by a large boundary wall (refer photos contained as part of ‘Attachment 2’ of this report).

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey additions and alterations to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 2 (Lot 1) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley 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 ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; building height; and visual privacy. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be supportable on balance under the provisions of Council’s LPP2.9. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on balance, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 2 (Lot 1) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 17 September 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 46

C1310-3 STEVENS STREET NO 6A (LOT 112) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0423/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 30 August 2013 Owner Name: Anthony Brun & Lynette Brun Submitted by: CODA Architects Scheme: Residential (R30) Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’



Page 47

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as discretion has been sought from L.P.P2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy which does not directly meet the discretionary criteria of the policy. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House with roof terrace at No. 6A (Lot 112) Stevens 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 the following elements require either Council’s discretion or assessment against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes:

Primary street setback;

Lot boundary setback (west);

Boundary walls (west and east);

Site works;

Retaining walls (north and west); and

Visual privacy. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes and has been recommended to comply with the deemed-to-comply requirements through conditions of approval in relation to visual privacy. Further, on balance, discretion has been supported from Council’s L.P.P2.9 in relation to the primary street setback of the dwelling. Accordingly, on balance, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 6A Stevens Street, Fremantle (subject site) is 276m2 and zoned Residential with a density coding of R30 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area – Sub Area 4.3.3. The subject site is located on the northern side of Stevens Street and currently comprises a vacant lot which is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List. Further, the subject site is not contained within a heritage area designated under LPS4. The subject site is located within the street block bound by Stevens Street, Hampton Road, Alma Street and Attfield Street. The subject site was created in the recent subdivision of the original parent lot at No. 6 Stevens Street, Fremantle which was endorsed by the WAPC on 28 February 2013 (refer WAPC144040). DETAIL

On 30 August 2013 the City received an application seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 6A Stevens Street, Fremantle. The dwelling is proposed to comprise the following: Ground level



Page 48

Bed (x3);

Play;

Bath;

Passage;

Courtyard;

Drying court;

Entry; and

Multi-purpose space. Upper level

Bed (x2);

Ensuite;

Study;

Balcony;

Kitchen; and

Living. Further, the development proposes a green wall in front of the facade of the dwelling that is to comprise vegetated trellis and a roof terrace above the second level roof. 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 September 2013, the City had received one (1) submission. The following issues were raised:

Visual privacy concerns from upper level study and rooftop terrace; and

Boundary wall (east) and eastern adjoining property’s capability of developing an adjoining boundary wall.


The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions or R Code design principle assessments sought in this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Primary Street Setback


Building with an external wall height of no greater than 4m: 5m requirement.

3m. 2m.

Building with an external wall height of greater than 4m: 7m requirement.

3m. 4m.



Page 49

The prevailing streetscape comprises one dwelling at No. 8 Stevens Street, Fremantle that has its primary street to Stevens Street which is two lots east of the subject site and identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s heritage list and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a management category level 3 property. This property is setback at a distance of 8m from Stevens Street and on this basis the proposed 3m setback is inconsistent with the primary street setback of buildings within the prevailing streetscape. Further, in Council approving this setback discretion, precedent may be set for development to occur with a similar setback upon the eastern adjoining vacant lot at No. 6B Stevens Street, Fremantle, which in turn could lead to a streetscape that detracts from the visual amenity of the heritage listed property at No. 8 Stevens Street, Fremantle. Alternatively, on balance, Council may wish to support the discretion as the nature of the prevailing streetscape may not be considered to comprise an established streetscape and as such, the discretion may be considered to have no significant detrimental impact for the following reasons:

The streetscape context for the subject site currently comprises a property with its secondary street setback at 1m from Stevens Street at the Stevens Street and Hampton Road intersection (No. 41 Hampton Road, Fremantle), a property with its primary street setback at 8m from Stevens Street (No. 8 Stevens Street, Fremantle), two vacant lots (one of which comprises the subject site and the other its eastern adjoining property) and a property which comprises an Educational Establishment (Fremantle pre-primary school at No. 28 Attfield Street, Fremantle) with a building setback at 1m from Stevens Street. On this basis, this portion of Stevens Street is not considered to comprise any consistent residential streetscape pattern of which the proposed discretion may significantly detract;

The proposed setback can be considered to graduate from the 1m setback of the Educational Establishment building associated with the western adjoining property; and

Council may consider the 2m primary street setbacks associated with the two storey dwellings at No. 1/13 and 6/13 Stevens Street, Fremantle on the opposite side of the road to reduce the impact of the discretion upon the streetscape and be in keeping with the form of development in the locality.

Lot Boundary Setback

Element Deemed-to-comply requirement

Provided

Upper level west. 4.4m. 2.6m.

The development is considered to comply with the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The western adjoining property is not used for residential purposes and comprises open space associated with the Educational Establishment land use. On this basis, the proposed setback is not considered to have any significant impact upon this adjoining property by means of building bulk or privacy; and



Page 50

Further, setback at 2.6m from the western boundary, the development is not considered to result in any significant impact upon the amenity of the adjoining site’s use as an Educational Establishment in the restriction of sunlight.

Boundary Walls


Boundary walls to:




Eastern boundary wall associated with northern portion of dwelling proposed between 5.4m and 5.8m in height and at 9.4m in length.

Boundary walls abut existing residential use;

Do not abut existing boundary walls of similar or greater dimension; and

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

Eastern boundary wall associated with southern portion of the dwelling proposed between 6.2m and 7.5m in height and at 7m in length.

The discretions are on balance supported for the following reasons:

Located on the eastern boundary the boundary walls will result in the restriction of some afternoon sunlight to the eastern adjoining property at No. 6B Stevens Street, Fremantle. The eastern adjoining property currently comprises a vacant lot and the nature of its solar access in relation to the proposed boundary walls is not considered to significantly restrain its development potential with regard to adequate solar access to appurtenant areas;

The prevalence of two boundary walls can be considered to have the potential to significantly impact upon the eastern adjoining property by means of excessive building bulk which may contribute to a sense of confinement for this adjoining property. Despite this, given the narrow widths of both the subject site and eastern adjoining property (both at 10.11m in width) and the fact that the adjoining property is vacant, the adjoining property is considered capable of being developed without any significant amenity or design constraints either partially or entirely against the proposed boundary walls;

Taking into consideration the narrow width of the subject lot, the boundary walls make effective use of space onsite; and

The eastern adjoining property owner’s submission did not object to the proposed boundary walls and requested that a similar concession be granted in the development of No. 6B Stevens Street. If Council approves the proposed development, the development of boundary walls which abut those proposed in this application will be permitted at No. 6B Stevens Street in an application for planning approval in accordance with L.P.P2.4 provided they are of similar or lesser dimension. Any other boundary wall proposed at No. 6B Stevens Street will be assessed on its merits against the requirements of the R-Codes and L.P.P2.4 just as the boundary walls have been assessed in this application.

Site Works



Page 51

Deemed-to-comply requirement Provided

Filling within 1m of a lot boundary not to exceed 500mm above natural ground level.

Up to 900mm of fill proposed within 1m of western boundary (associated with Courtyard).

Up to 650mm of fill proposed within 1m of northern boundary.


The subject site comprises uneven topography and proposes a balance of both fill and excavation. The fill proposed in the northern and western portions of the site are considered to be in response to this topography;

The fill to the west is contained behind a proposed retaining wall and is not considered to have any detrimental impact upon the use of the western adjoining property as an Educational Establishment but rather is considered to help delineate the boundary between the two properties; and

The northern fill is considered minor and limited to 150mm in excess of the deemed-to-comply requirements for a two metre length of the boundary. The fill is considered to be in response to the natural ground levels onsite and not result in any significant impact for the northern adjoining property.

Retaining Walls

Element Deemed-to-comply requirement Provided

Northern retaining wall 1m setback from northern boundary. 0m.

Western retaining wall 1m setback from western boundary. 0m.


The retaining walls are considered to effectively result in the more effective use of open space onsite;

The western retaining wall is not considered to impact upon the amenity of the use of the western adjoining property and also aid in the delineation of the subject site from this adjoining property; and

The increased height from the deemed-to-comply requirements of the northern retaining wall pertains to 150mm of retaining wall along a 2m length of the northern boundary. On this basis, the impact of the retaining wall upon the northern adjoining property is considered be minimal.

Visual Privacy


Bedrooms and studies required to be setback at a minimum distance of 4.5m from adjoining residential properties.

Ground level Bed 4 setback at 2.8m from northern boundary.

Upper level Bed 1 setback at 2.4m from northern boundary.



Page 52

Upper level Study setback at 0.4m from eastern boundary.

Outdoor living areas required to be setback at a minimum distance of 7.5m from adjoining residential properties.

Rooftop Terrace setback at 2m from eastern boundary.

Rooftop Terrace setback at 4.55m from northern boundary.

The ground level outdoor active habitable space accessed through the play room and located outside Bed 4 in the northern portion of the site has a proposed ground level in excess of 500mm and it setback at 0m from the northern boundary.

The proposed setbacks for Bed 4, Bed 1, Study and the ground level outdoor active habitable space located outside Bed 4 are not considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and may compromise privacy for adjoining properties. Conditions of approval have been recommended to bring the development into compliance. The rooftop terrace setbacks are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and are regarded as having minimal impact upon adjoining properties in relation to privacy for the following reasons:

Given the location, height and 1.2m high screening provided along the eastern elevation of the rooftop terrace, the impact of overlooking upon eastern adjoining properties is limited to view of the vehicle access leg associated with properties two lots east of the subject site at Nos. 8 & 8A Stevens Street, Fremantle from a distance of 24m; and

Given the location, height and 1.2m high screening provided along the northern elevation of the rooftop terrace, the impact of overlooking to the north is limited to view of the property two lots to the north of the subject site at No. 13A Crandon Street, Fremantle, from a distance of 30m.

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed against the City’s LPS4 and the Residential Design Codes and is considered to comply with all relevant Design principles with exception to certain elements of visual privacy which have been brought into compliance through conditions of approval. The proposal varies from the primary street setback requirements of L.P.P2.9 which, on balance, Council may support on the basis of Stevens Street not comprising an established streetscape and the discretion not resulting in a significant detrimental impact. Further, on balance, the development is considered to comply with L.P.P2.4 in relation to the proposed boundary walls. Accordingly, on balance, the application is recommended for conditional approval. Should Council consider that the proposed primary setback discretion from L.P.P2.9 described above to be of significant detriment to the streetscape of Stevens Street and/or the boundary walls to be of significance detriment to the eastern adjoining property the following alternative recommendation is recommended:



Page 53

That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 6A (Lot 112) Stevens Street, Fremantle, for the following reason:

1. The proposed primary street setback is inconsistent with the requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy; and/or

2. The eastern boundary walls are inconsistent with the requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development and the Design principles of the R-Codes.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 6A (Lot 112) Stevens Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 30 August 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.


3. Prior to occupation, the Bed 4, Bed 1, and the study windows and the outdoor active habitable space accessed through the play room and located outside Bed 4 in the northern portion of the site on the northern 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,

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.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the eastern and western

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 54

C1310-4 FORREST STREET NO 156A (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0429/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 4 September 2013 Owner Name: Margaret Harwood Submitted by: 101 Residential Scheme: Residential (R30) Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Vacant Lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’



Page 55

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council as discretion has been sought from L.P.P2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy which does not directly meet the discretionary criteria of the policy. Further, an objection was received in relation to the reduced primary street setback. On balance, it is recommended that Council support the discretion as the street to which it abuts is not considered to comprise an established streetscape and the discretion is not considered to result in a significantly detrimental impact. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 156A (Lot 2) Forrest 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 the following elements require either Council’s discretion or assessment against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes:

Primary street setback;

Lot boundary setback (west);

Boundary walls (east); and

Garage width. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes and requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.4. Further, on balance, discretion has been supported from Council’s L.P.P2.9 in relation to the primary street setback of the dwelling. Accordingly, on balance, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 156A Forrest Street, Fremantle is zoned residential with a density coding of R30 and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site pertains to a rear lot resulting from the subdivision of the original parent lot at No. 156 Forrest Street, Fremantle which was endorsed by the WAPC on 4 July 2013 (refer WAPC990-11). The subject site has its frontage to Sue Lane and a pedestrian access to Forrest Street. The subject site is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s heritage list or Municipal Heritage Inventory and is not is located within a designated heritage area under LPS4. The subject site is located within the street block bound by Forrest Street, Coode Street, Carrington Street and Marmion Street. DETAIL

The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 156A (Lot 2) Forrest Street, Fremantle. The dwelling is to comprise the following: Ground Level

Double garage;

Entry;



Page 56

Porch;

Store;

Laundry;

Kitchen;

Dining;

Living;

Alfresco;

Master Suite; and

Ensuite. Upper Level

Bed (x2);

Living;

Bath; and

WC. 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 23 September 2013, the City had received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, raising the following planning concern:

Primary street setback.


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. PLANNING COMMENT

Primary street setback


Ground level required to be setback at 5m from primary street; and Upper level required to be setback at 7m from primary street.

1.5m; 2.7m.

3.5m; 4.3m.

On balance, the discretion is supported for the following reasons:

The subject site comprises two storey grouped dwellings to its east (No. 2 & 3/158 Forrest Street, Fremantle) which have their upper levels setback (rear lot boundary setback) at 3m from Sue Lane. The western adjoining property at No. 156B Forrest



Page 57

Street, Fremantle comprises a single storey dwelling which has a 1.8m solid fence that runs along the Sue Lane boundary of the property and a garage that is setback 1m from Sue Lane. On this basis, the western adjoining property comprises single storey development that is consistent with the setback of the proposal’s ground level.

Further, on balance, the setback of the upper level of the building is considered to be relatively consistent with the 3m setback of the Grouped Dwellings to the east of the subject site, and on this basis, not result in a projecting element into Sue Lane.

The Sue Lane streetscape mostly comprises solid 1.8m fences and garages that abut or are closely setback from Sue Lane. On this basis, Sue land is not considered to comprise an established streetscape of which the discretion may be of detriment to.

Boundary Wall (East)


Boundary walls to:




Eastern boundary wall at 2.4m to 2.45m in height and 8.15m in length.

Boundary walls abut existing residential use;

Do not abut existing boundary walls of similar or greater dimension; and

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


Located on the eastern boundary and being single storey in nature the boundary wall is not considered to significantly constrain development upon the eastern adjoining property at No. 156B Forrest Street, Fremantle, which comprises a vacant lot;

Further, the boundary wall is not considered to significantly constrain development upon the eastern adjoining property by its impact of building bulk and given the dimension of the wall in the R30 density coded area, this impact is not considered to be significant;

The boundary wall will not result in the restriction of any views of significance; and

The boundary wall is considered to make effective use of space onsite; and

The boundary wall will not contribute to additional overshadowing as measured by the R Codes.

Lot Boundary Setback (West)

Deemed-to-comply requirement

Provided Design Principles Assessment

Ground level west: 1.5m. 1.004 – 1.506m. 0 – 0.496m

The setback is considered to comply with the Design Principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:



Page 58

The departure from the Deemed-to-comply requirements is considered minor and pertains to a 4.2m length of wall with the remainder of the western elevation of the building setback in accordance with the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant impact by means of building bulk upon the western adjoining property;

The setback will not contribute to additional overshadowing as measured by the R Codes; and

The setback is considered to permit adequate ventilation for both the proposed dwelling and the western adjoining property.

Garage Width


Garages not to comprise more than 50% (5.84m) of the frontage.

52.6% (6.2m).

The development is considered to comply with the Design Principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape is considered to be maintained between the ground floor entry and porch of the proposed dwelling and Sue Lane; and

As mentioned, Sue Lane is not considered to comprise an established streetscape and is dominated by double garage doors. On this basis, the proposed garage door width is considered to be consistent with the prevailing streetscape.

Street Surveillance


One major opening is to face the street and the pedestrian access.

No major openings face the street and a major opening associated with the master suite faces the pedestrian access.

The development is not considered to satisfy the Design Principles of the R-Codes as surveillance to Sue Lane is considered inadequate. If the upper level Bed 2 highlight window was modified to comprise a major opening on the northern elevation surveillance would be ensured and visual privacy would be ensured. On this basis, a condition of approval has been recommended. CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the City’s LPS4 and the Residential Design Codes and is considered to comply with all relevant requirements, taking into consideration the Design Principle assessments in relation to the boundary wall, lot boundary setback and garage width, and the recommended condition to ensure compliance with the street surveillance requirements of the R-Codes. . Further, the proposal, on balance, has been supported against the discretionary requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.9. Accordingly, on balance, the application is recommended for conditional approval.



Page 59

Should Council consider that the proposed primary setback discretion from L.P.P2.9 described above to be of significant detriment to the streetscape of Sue Lane the following alternative recommendation is recommended: That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 156A (Lot 2) Forrest Street, Fremantle, for the following reason:

1. The proposed primary street setback is inconsistent with the requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 156A (Lot 2) Forrest Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 4 September 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. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern elevation shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


4. Prior to occupation the upper level Bed 2 window on the northern elevation be modified to comprise a major opening as defined by the Residential Design Codes to ensure surveillance of Sue Lane to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 60

C1310-5 TAYLOR STREET NO 21 (LOT 4) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION - (AA DA0391/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Acting Director Planning & Development Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans Date Received: 23 July 2013 Owner Name: AM Plater Submitted by: Right Homes Scheme: Residential (R20/25) Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’



Page 61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Single Storey Single House and Ancillary Dwelling at No. 21 Taylor Street, White Gum Valley. The application seeks discretionary decisions relating to a number of statutory provisions of the planning framework. The majority of decisions where discretionary arises are supported with the exception of that relating to the setback of the building to Taylor Street. The application proposes of primary street setback of 4m, which is less than that prescribed in the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (‘LPP2.9’). The lesser setbacks have been considered against the setback of other buildings within the prevailing streetscape. The prevailing setback contains a pattern of development containing buildings at a setback of between 5-7m. A setback of 5m would therefore meet the requirements of LPP2.9. It is clear that the proposal can be modified to achieve a 5m setback pursuant to LPP2.9. The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval, subject to the plans being modified to achieve a 5m setback to Taylor Street. BACKGROUND

The subject land is located on the western side of Taylor Street and is the first property north of South Street that directly addresses Taylor Street. The subject land is zoned ‘Residential’ and is given a density coding of R20/25. The size of the subject site means that the proposal is to be assessed in accordance with the R20 code. The lot slopes down approximately 3.0m from front (east) to rear (west) A search of the property file revealed that there is no relevant planning history pertinent to this application. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Single Storey Single House and Ancillary Accommodation at the subject site including;

A single storey house including a rear external alfresco area;

A single storey ancillary accommodation unit attached to the rear of the main dwelling;

A primary street fence to a maximum height of 1.8m with 600mm high brick infill portions; and,

Retaining to the southern and northern boundaries to a maximum height of 700mm on the southern boundary and 800mm on the northern boundary.

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.



Page 62


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

Street setback;

Lot boundary setback;

Visual privacy;

Site works & retaining;

Open space;

Garage door width; and,

Street surveillance

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

Parks & Gardens

The application was referred to the City’s Parks & Gardens department for comment as the proposal potentially impacts on an existing street tree. The following response was provided;

‘Parks would support the installation of a new crossover on the southern side of the existing Agonis street tree on the verge at a minimum distance of 2m. The north side of the Agonis street tree would not support the installation of a new crossover due to lack of room. It would require the removal of the street tree which is not supported.’

An advice note advising the applicant of the above is recommended. 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 23 September 2013, the City received 2 submissions including 1 objection. The following issues were raised;

Boundary walls should be of a standard that does not undermine existing retaining walls; and,

Visual privacy variations not accepted. Windows, openings or raised areas should be screened as per the R-Codes.

Consideration of the issues raised is made in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Street setback

Required Provided Merit Based Assessment

7.0m 4.0m 3.0m



Page 63

The proposal does not meet the prescribed setback requirements of LPP2.9 as there are no other buildings in the prevailing streetscape with a setback consistent with that currently proposed. Buildings within the prevailing streetscape have a setback between ~5.0m and ~5.5m with portions of some buildings up to ~7.0m. In carrying out preliminary investigations regarding the acceptability of the proposal, the applicant provided a draft plan that depicted a 5.0m setback to Taylor Street. Verbal discussions with the applicant indicate that this option is not preferred but could be accommodated if acceptable to the City. A proposal with a 5.0m setback is considered to meet the requirements of LPP2.9 in the following ways;

The lesser setback is considered to be consistent with the setback of buildings in the prevailing streetscape in the following ways;

o The building at No. 19 Taylor Street has a setback of ~5.0m-5.5m;

o The building at No. 17 Taylor Street is setback ~5.0m; and,

o The building at No. 15 Taylor Street is setback ~7.0m but has a porch

element setback approximately ~5.5m.

The lesser setback will not represent a ‘projecting element’ into the prevailing streetscape as it will adjoin No. 240 South Street, White Gum Valley. This dwelling is contained in the ‘prevailing streetscape’ as it addresses South Street only. The setback of this dwelling is approximately 500mm to Taylor Street. This closes off the street end between South Street and Taylor Street. The proposal is considered to graduate the setback of this building and other buildings in the prevailing streetscape setback between 5-7m.

A condition of approval requiring the plans being amended to accommodate this 5.0m setback as previously proposed is therefore recommended. Lot boundary setback

Elements Required Provided Merit Based Assessment

South – Main Dwelling

3.7m high x +25m long, with major openings = 5.0m

1.6m 3.4m

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

The significant majority of the south wall face is below 3.5m which attracts a much lower wall setback requirement of 1.5m. Only a small portion of the wall (approximately 2.2m in length) is above the 3.5m high threshold;

The building does not present as being of adverse building bulk having regard to the fact it is a single storey structure only and accommodates for the significant fall in natural ground level across the site; and,

The lesser setback does not result in any design principle decisions relating to visual privacy and solar access.



Page 64

Visual privacy

Element Required Provided Merit Based Assessment

Alfresco – West facing elevation affecting the northern boundary

7.5m 2.6m 4.9m

Master Bedroom – South facing openings affecting the southern boundary

4.5m 1.6m 2.9m

Living & Dining Area – North facing openings affecting the northern boundary.

6.0m 1.0m 5.0m

Guest 2 – North facing affecting the western boundary

4.5m 1.9m 2.6m

The proposal is not considered to meet the relevant design principles as the privacy of adjoining properties would be compromised. On this basis a condition of approval requiring screening to the alfresco area, master bedroom, living and dining area and guest bedroom openings is therefore recommended.

Site Works & Retaining

Elevation Permitted Provided Merit Based Assessment

North – Rear Outdoor Area

Up to 500mm

Up to 700mm fill 200mm

South – Ramp to Garage 800mm 300mm

The site works proposed include the retaining and filling of a rear outdoor portion of the subject site accessible via the proposed alfresco area as well as at the rear of the proposed garage in order to provide pedestrian access along the southern boundary. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The proposed level changes and retaining respond to the natural features of the site. The dwelling steps down across four different level changes to accommodate the slope of the site. The proposed filling assists in providing a useable, open outdoor area and pedestrian access for the subject site;

The level changes and retaining are confined to areas behind the dwelling and will not change the impression of natural ground level when viewed from Taylor Street;

The proposed rear retaining wall on the northern boundary abuts an open area of backyard of the adjoining property. The extent of the retaining proposed is considered to be limited in length. The retaining is not considered to contribute to adverse building bulk or scale owing to its position.

The proposed retaining wall on the northern boundary was discussed in one of the objections received during advertising of the application. No specific objection was raised to the retaining wall but it was noted that the retaining wall should not impact buildings contained on the adjoining site. Open space



Page 65


50% 40.8% 9.2%


The proposed development provides a suitable level of open space for its context by maximising the amount of open space to the northern boundary and sharing space between the main dwelling and ancillary dwelling;

The lesser amount of open space does not contribute a sense of adverse building bulk on the site – supported by the view that the proposal has sufficient setbacks to boundaries (as discussed earlier in this report);

The lesser amount of open space does not erode the ability to provide sufficient landscaping and accommodate for significant vegetation on the site; and,

The lesser open space still provides adequate areas for outdoor living, essential facilities and typical external fixtures.

Garage Door Width

Permitted Provided Merit Based Assessment

Less than 50% of frontage (6.43m)

51.3% (6.6 m) 0.8% (0.17m)


The structure is of no greater planning consequence on the streetscape compared to a structure that would meet the 50% requirement; and,

The discretion is considered minor in nature. Street Surveillance


C3.1 – The street elevation(s) of the dwelling to address the street with

clearly definable entry points visible and access

from the street.

Main pedestrian entry faces the northern side boundary

and is not visible from Taylor Street

See comments


The development includes four openings to the public street, including three major openings to a habitable room. These openings contribute to a sense of street surveillance;

The position of the main entry to the dwelling would be legible to visitors to the site given the lack of side access along the southern boundary; and,



Page 66

Having the main entry to the dwelling face the primary street would not enhance street surveillance as there is no requirement for this opening to be visually permeable.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single Storey Single House and Ancillary Accommodation at No. 21 (Lot 4) Taylor Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 15 August 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. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this approval, prior to the issue of a building

permit, the approved plans being modified so that the walls of the proposed building are setback a minimum of 5.0m from the primary street boundary to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the western elevation of the rear alfresco area, south facing major opening to the Master Bedroom, living and dining areas and guest bedroom openings 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.

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

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 67

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.



Page 68

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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



Page 69


limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.



Page 70


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.



Page 71

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.



Page 72

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 6.00 pm

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council Wednesday 16 October 2013

Page 2

C1310-2 NEWBOLD STREET NO 2 (LOT 1) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0269/13)

ATTACHMENT 1: Development Plans (as amended)


Page 3


Page 4


Page 5

ATTACHMENT 2: Photos from site inspection


Page 6


Page 7


Page 8


Page 9


Page 10


Page 11


Page 12


Page 13

C1310-3 STEVENS STREET NO 6A (LOT 112) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0423/13)

ATTACHMENT 1: DEVELOPMENT PLANS


Page 14


Page 15


Page 16


Page 17


Page 18


Page 19


Page 20


Page 21


Page 22


Page 23


Page 24

ATTACHMENT 2: SITE PHOTOS

View of subject site from Stevens Street (looking north).

View of subject site and eastern adjoining vacant lot (looking north).


Page 25

View of No. 8 Stevens Street, Fremantle (looking north east).

View of subject site and western adjoining property (looking north west).


Page 26

Grouped dwellings on opposite side of Stevens Street (looking south west) from subject site.


Page 27

C1310-4 FORREST STREET NO 156A (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (KS DA0429/13)

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 28


Page 29


Page 30


Page 31


Page 32


Page 33

ATTACHMENT 2: SITE PHOTOS

Two storey dwelling two lots east of the subject site (view from west).

Property on opposite side of Sue Lane from subject site and its garage structure and boundary wall that faces the street.


Page 34

Dominance of garages in Sue Lane (opposite to subject site).

Western adjoining property and its garage and boundary fence that abuts Sue Lane.


Page 35

C1310-5 TAYLOR STREET NO 21 (LOT 4) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION - (AA DA0391/13)

ATTACHMENT 1 – Development Plans


Page 36


Page 37


Page 38


Page 39

Documents

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 16 October 2013 · CITY OF FREMANTLE NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle