PSC Agenda Master 04 September 2013 final...2013/09/04 · PSC considered the proposal on 3 July 2013 and resolved to: “Defer the application to next appropriate Planning Services

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

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

Wednesday, 4 September 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.

Philip St John DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 30 August 2013

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS Mr Murray Slavin, of Slavin Architects, will make a presentation on 11 Cliff Street. Fremantle. Item PSC 1309-127 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 21 August 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1309-122 SOUTH ST, NO. 2/398 (LOT 152) O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 STOREY SHORT STAY DWELLING BUILDING (27 UNITS), SHOP, OFFICE, TAVERN AND SHOWROOM (NMG DA0095/13) 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 6

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) 6

PSC1309-124 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 162 (LOT 42) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0235/13) 13

PSC1309-125 NANNINE AVENUE, NO. 16A (LOT 67), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0060/13) 19

PSC1309-126 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 84A (LOT 205), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0194/13) 27

PSC1309-127 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - CLIFF STREET, NO. 11 (LOT 101 & 102), FREMANTLE - REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND 4 STOREY NEW OFFICE ANNEX ON EXISTING CARPARK - (AA DAP80003/13) 35

PSC1309-128 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 48

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 49

PSC1309-129 PROPOSED AMENDMENT 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO 4 - REQUEST TO REZONE NO 69 SOUTH STREET AND NO 146 HAMPTON ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 49

PSC1309-130 CASH PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF ONSITE CAR PARKING WITHIN THE FREMANTLE ACTIVITY CENTRE BOUNDARY - PROPOSED POLICY POSITION 58

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 65

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1309-122 SOUTH ST, NO. 2/398 (LOT 152) O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 STOREY SHORT STAY DWELLING BUILDING (27 UNITS), SHOP, OFFICE, TAVERN AND SHOWROOM (NMG DA0095/13) 3

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) 45

PSC1309-124 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 162 (LOT 42) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0235/13) 57

PSC1309-125 NANNINE AVENUE, NO. 16A (LOT 67), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0060/13) 74

PSC1309-126 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 84A (LOT 205), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0194/13) 81

PSC1309-128 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 92

PSC1309-129 PROPOSED AMENDMENT 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO 4 - REQUEST TO REZONE NO 69 SOUTH STREET AND NO 146 HAMPTON ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 95

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 4 September 2013

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PSC1309-122 SOUTH ST, NO. 2/398 (LOT 152) O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF

EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 STOREY SHORT STAY DWELLING BUILDING (27 UNITS), SHOP, OFFICE, TAVERN AND SHOWROOM (NMG DA0095/13)

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 Number/s: PSC1307-95 (3 July 2013) Attachments: 1. Amended Development Plans (dated 7 August 2013)

and 2. Applicant’s Justification for amended plans 3. Report for PSC1307-95 (3 July 2013)

Owner Name: Icie Pty Ltd Submitted by: West Coast Plan Scheme: Local Centre Zone Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Restaurant & Fast Food Outlet Use Class: Short Stay Dwellings, Shop, Showroom and Tavern Use Permissibility: A, D, P & A


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered a proposal for a 4 storey short stay dwelling building and a 3 storey tavern on 3 July 2013 and resolved to defer the application in order for landscaping of the residential component to be developed further. The applicant has submitted amended plans that increases landscaping, increases the vehicle clearance height over the vehicle carriageway and changes the majority of the corner building from Tavern to Showroom (the third floor is still proposed to be a Tavern). The amended plan reduces the car parking discretion sought. On this basis the proposal is recommended to be supported. BACKGROUND

PSC considered the proposal on 3 July 2013 and resolved to: “Defer the application to next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for conditions relating to the landscaping of the residential component of the development to be further developed.” A meeting with Planning staff and Chair of the Planning Services Committee was held on 11 July 2013 to clarify the specific details of the deferral recommendation. In response to this meeting the applicant has provided amended plans on 7 August 2013 that incorporates the following changes:

1. Footpath extended toward the front of the residential building to link with the adjoining western lot (Baskin and Robbins) to provide a pedestrian connection;

2. The cantilevered section of the corner building over the vehicle carriageway being moved from the second to the third (upper) level to increase the vehicle clearance height from approximately 4.0 to 6.5m;

3. Increasing the width of the vehicle carriageway to allow for an increased turning circle;

4. Increased landscaped strip between the car parking rows in front of the residential building;

5. Cellar, ground and first levels changing use from tavern to showroom; 6. The third (upper level) remaining as a tavern with a modified layout;

See Attachment 3 for more background information relating to the site.


Page 3

DETAIL

Planning Approval is sought for the following development:

1. Demolition of all existing structures on site; 2. Construction of a four storey building consisting of 27 short stay dwellings and

under croft (parking and storage); 3. Construction of a Manager’s Office (Unit 1); 4. Construction of a Shop (Unit 2); 5. Construction of a three storey Showroom/Tavern building with Cellar below; and 6. A total of 54 car bays.

CONSULTATION

The amended plans were not required to be advertised. See Attachment 3 for further information relating to the advertising process associated with the original proposal that was considered by PSC.

PLANNING COMMENT

The proposal that was previously considered by PSC on 3 July 2013 incorporated discretions relating to car parking and land use (tavern and short stay dwelling) and were generally supported by PSC.

Car Parking

The amended plans that change a large proportion of the corner building from tavern to showroom significantly reduces the car parking discretion from 97 to 40 car bays (reduction of 57 bays). As the original 97 car parking shortfall was previously supported, the reduced 40 car bay discretion can also be supported.

Discretionary Use

While the previously proposed uses of Short Stay Dwelling, Shop, Office and Tavern still remain, a Showroom use has been introduced to the cellar and first two levels of the corner building. Clause 4.3.3 states that; A “D” use – means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. An “A” use – means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 93.4. As Showroom is a more preferred use in the Local Centre Zone (‘D’ use) compared to a Tavern (‘A’ use), the proposal is considered to be more consistent with the objectives of the Local Centre zone and can therefore be supported.


Page 4

CONCLUSION The amended plans are considered to be an improvement on the previous proposal that was last considered by PSC as it increases the amount of landscaping as required by the 3 July 2013 PSC deferral, has introduced a Showroom use that is more consistent with the objectives of the Local Centre zone and significantly reduces the car parking discretion sought. On this basis it is recommended that the proposal be supported. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a Four Storey (27 Short Stay Dwellings) Building, Office, Showroom and Tavern at No. 2/398 (Lot 152) South Street, O’Connor, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 7 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. Once vacated, digital photographs of the existing building are to be documented and forwarded to the City of Fremantle for approval before the commencement of any works.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit details to City’s Technical Services Department regarding following to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle:

• Pedestrian movement; • Loading area/s; • Traffic calming; and • Garbage collection

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit details to the City’s Environmental Health Department regarding the following to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle:

• A construction management plan; • Emergency escapes; • Mechanical services and plant equipment location/s; • Undercroft ventilation; • An acoustic report; that shows how the proposed tavern in close

proximity to existing and proposed residential uses will be able to comply with noise regulations

• Garbage collection; • Kitchen layout; and • Delivery area/s

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a submission a detailed schedule of external materials, colour swatches and textures is required to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee.

6. Prior to occupation this noise sensitive development adjacent to an existing major transport corridor must implement measures to ameliorate the impact of transport noise. The development is to comply with the WAPC State


Page 5

Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and Implement Noise Insulation “Deemed to Comply” packages for this residential development.

7. Prior to occupation, a total of twelve (12) bicycle racks are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. No earthworks shall encroach onto the South Street reserve. 9. All stormwater drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site (no

discharged onto the South Street reserve). 10. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing vegetation with

the South Street reservation. 11. All vehicle access shall be restricted to the existing driveway. 12. The ground levels on the South Street boundary are to be maintained as

existing. 13. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

constructed in paving block/concrete/bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the site plan (SK1) or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to occupation, all boundary walls shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to occupation, the car parking, vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of visitor parking, shall be constructed, drained and line marked to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

17. Prior to occupation, all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 6

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register 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 7

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 8

• 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:


Page 9

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; 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;


Page 10

• 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; • 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.


Page 11

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 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

Required Provided Discretion 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 discretion is supported for the following reasons:

• 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


Page 12

(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. 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

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.


Page 13

PSC1309-124 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 162 (LOT 42) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0235/13)

Data Works 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 Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 –Development Plans

Attachment 2- Site Photographs Attachment 3- Heritage Comments Attachment 4 – Additional Information from Applicant Date Received: 22 May 2013 Owner Name: Sue McCracken Submitted by: Peter Kernot Scheme: Residential (R30) Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 162 Marine Terrace, South Fremantle. The application seeks variations to the requirements of Local Planning Policies, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS 4). The discretionary decisions sought are against variations to buildings on boundary, vehicle sightlines, visual privacy and primary street fencing. The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee due to these discretions and an objection received. The application has been assessed against the discretionary criteria of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to comply with these requirements. As such, the application is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ and is allocated a density coding of R30 under the City’s LPS 4. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and is listed as Level 3 on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. Additionally the subject site is within the South Fremantle Heritage Area and Sub Area 4.3.2 of the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. It is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Marine Terrace and Sheedy Street, South Fremantle. A Water Corporation pumping station abuts the property to the south and a single storey, single house abuts the property to the east. There is no relevant planning history for the site on the City’s property file. DETAIL

The City received an application for alterations and two storey rear additions on 22 May 2013. Amended plans detailing the proposed deck are dated 14 August 2013.The application proposes the following:

• Internal alterations (removal of non-original elements) to the existing house; • External alterations to the existing house;

o Removal of non-original elements; o Reinstatement of front verandah; o Replacement of tiled verandah with corrugated metal; o Reinstatement of chimneys; o Replacement of windows on northern elevation.

• Two storey (plus basement) rear additions; • Street fencing; • Courtyard; • Single car garage; and • Store.


Page 15

Refer to attachment 1 for development plans. Site photographs are also included as attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS 4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development includes the following discretions sought against deemed-to-comply provisions:

• Buildings on boundary; • Vehicle sight lines; • Visual privacy; and • Primary street fencing.

CONSULTATION

Heritage Heritage comment has been provided by the City’s Heritage Department. Initial comments regarding the addition are as follows:

• The proposed addition to the heritage building is acceptable except for the proposed deck. The long term consequences of the proposal are considered to be benign: firstly, the proposal is sympathetic to the heritage building and will therefore have little or no impact on its cultural significance and, secondly, it has been designed to have minimal impact on the fabric of the building.

• The proposed deck is not adequately explained on the drawings and consequently it is not possible to assess its impact on the cultural significance of the heritage house. The proposal is therefore not acceptable.

Further information was provided in correspondence with the applicant and amended plans have been reviewed by Heritage and are considered to be acceptable. The application is therefore supported on Heritage grounds. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application was not compliant with deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 12 June 2013, the City had received one (1) submission. The following issues were raised:

• Objection to garage/store being built up to boundary;

• Existing carport blocks out light and new wall would also;

• Blank wall on eastern elevation – window suggested to “break up its ugliness”.


Page 16

The applicant has provided the following comments in response-

• The existing window of the adjoining property that is referred to in the objection has a setback from the boundary of nominally 100mm. This would not comply with past or current building codes. The adjoining property should not have any requirement to have continued access to light via this non compliant window. A sky light could be used to replace the current access to daylight.

PLANNING COMMENT

Buildings on Boundary

Required Provided Discretion Sought 0- 750mm 0mm 750mm

In accordance with LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development, Council may allow walls built to up to or within 750mm of the boundary. The following boundary walls are proposed as part of the development:

• 7.8m long x 3.5m high boundary wall on the eastern boundary; • 4m long x 3.5m on the southern boundary; and • 3.6m long x 3.5m high boundary wall on the southern boundary.

The property to the south is a Water Corporation water pumping station and as it is not a residential property, is therefore supported. An objection has been received in relation to the proposed boundary wall on the eastern boundary, however an existing carport is built up to the boundary (refer to Attachment 2 – Site Photographs). The boundary wall for the garage portion of the wall on the eastern boundary is supported as it is:

• Not considered to impact further on access to daylight or ventilation to major openings or outdoor living areas of the adjoining property;

• Does not create additional building bulk as it is single storey and replacing a structure of similar dimensions;

• Does not affect existing trees or vegetation; and • Does not interrupt access to views of significance as it is considered the existing

structures on site already restrict any potential views. The boundary wall for the store on the eastern boundary is not supported however, as it is able to be setback from the boundary to reduce restriction of light to the existing opening at No. 1 Sheedy Street. A setback on this portion of wall will still allow a reasonable area for storage. A condition has been recommended for this portion of the wall to be setback to reduce the impact of the boundary wall on the adjoining property owner.


Page 17

Vehicle sightlines

Required Provided Discretion Sought Walls no higher than 0.75m

within 1.5m or truncated No truncation, 1.8m high

solid fence Does not comply

The proposal includes solid fencing on the eastern boundary within the primary street setback. As the plans are unclear as to what is proposed on this boundary, clarification is provided by the applicant and included in this report as attachment 4. A solid fence is not considered to be appropriate as vehicle sightlines will be obstructed reducing safety for pedestrians and vehicles on Sheedy Street. A truncation is not considered to be appropriate in this circumstance and as such, a condition has been recommended for visually permeable fencing in the primary street setback. Visual Privacy (upper floor balcony)

Required Provided Discretion sought 7.5m 4.5m 3m

The proposed upper floor balcony will overlook the roof and primary street setback area of the property to the east (No. 1 Sheedy Street). The primary street setback area is not considered to be an active outdoor living space. No objections were received in relation to visual privacy. The discretion is supported for the following reasons:

• No active habitable spaces or outdoor living area will be overlooked; and • Existing vegetation and verandahs of the adjoining property aid in screening any

overlooking of the primary street setback area. Primary street fencing

Required Provided Discretion Sought Max height of 1.8m

Solid fence to 2.6m 0.8m

Visually permeable above 1.2m

1.4m

Sheedy Street is nominated as the primary street as both pedestrian and vehicle entrances are located on this elevation. The fencing proposed is solid to a height of 2.6m for 10.6m of the frontage. The solid fencing is supported with a condition to reduce the height to 1.8m in accordance with LPP 2.8 Fences Policy, as it is intended to protect an outdoor living area. It is considered that the front setback is the most appropriate place for an outdoor living area. This ensures the two storey additions are setback from the primary street behind the existing setback line of the dwelling which reduces the impact of the dwelling on the streetscape. The portion of fencing within the street setback on the eastern boundary is also conditioned to be visually permeable above 1.2m to allow for vehicle sightlines as detailed above.


Page 18

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Additions to Existing Single House at No. 162 (Lot 42) Marine Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 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. Prior to occupation, the eastern boundary fencing within the Primary Street

setback area shall be visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level as per clause 5.2.4 C4 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the primary street fencing (Sheedy Street) shall be a

maximum height of 1.8m above natural ground level to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall

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

5. The store boundary wall on the eastern elevation shall be set back a

minimum of 750mm from the eastern boundary to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

7. The works herby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

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


Page 19

PSC1309-125 NANNINE AVENUE, NO. 16A (LOT 67), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0060/13) 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 Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans (dated 25 July 2013)

2 – Site Photos Date Received: 15 February 2013 Owner Name: T & T Vinci Submitted by: Big Ben Homes Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Not Heritage Listed Existing Landuse: N/A - Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House at No. 16A Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley. The application seeks discretionary decisions relating to the setback of buildings, boundary walls, building height, the width of the proposed garage door as well as to site works and retaining. The majority of discretionary decisions are supported with the exception of that relating to the upper floor setback of buildings to the street. The application proposes lesser setbacks 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 setback is considered to be complimentary to the surrounding street and is therefore supported. The upper floor setback is, on balance, not supported as there is a clear pattern of single storey development in the street and surrounding locality, notwithstanding the existence of a two storey dwelling adjoining the subject site. The upper floor should be setback in accordance with the stated requirements of LPP2.9 so as to protect the single storey character of the prevailing streetscape. On balance the application is recommended for refusal, however an alternative recommendation for approval is also provided should the Council form a different view. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at No. 16A (Lot 1) Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley and is zoned ‘Residential’ and coded R20/25 pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists on the eastern side of Nannine Avenue opposite the eastern entry to Mulberry Farm Lane and the adjoining park. The subject site is currently vacant of improvements apart for an outbuilding at the rear of the site. The subject site is contained within the street block bound by Tapper Street to the east, Watkins Street to the north and Samson Street to the south (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos for images of the subject site and surrounding area). On 30 April 2008, the City recommended conditional approval for the side by side subdivision of the subject land into two lots (WAPC137400); which now form No. 16 & 16A Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley. On 12 April 2010 the WAPC endorsed there relevant deposited plan thereby creating the subject site.


Page 21

DETAIL

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

• A ground floor containing bedroom and service areas as well as a theatre room and double garage;

• An upper floor continuing the main living areas, balcony area and an additional bedroom;

• Rear landscaping and retaining as well as the provision of grey-water re-use and water storage facilities; and,

• A widened crossover and driveway to Nannine Avenue. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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; • Boundary Walls (North & South); • Garage Door Width; • Excavation & Fill; • Setback of Retaining Walls; and • Visual Privacy

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

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 12 August 2013, the City had received 1 objection. The issues raised are summarised as follows;

• The proposal is bulky and will interrupt a significant amount of northern light; • The height and location of parapet walls is not supported. The scale of

boundary walls proposed will impact light to outdoor areas and openings to internal rooms. It is suggested that a 1.5m setback be provided;

• Openings that overlook adjoining outdoor areas should be screened or frosted; and,

• Storm water from the existing rear shed is not being retained on-site. This should be rectified.

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


Page 22

PLANNING COMMENT

Primary Street Setback

Element Required Provided Discretion Ground 7m 6.6m 0.4m Upper 12m 10.2m 1.8m

The discretionary decision relating to the Ground Floor is supported as the lesser setback is consistent with the setback of adjoining buildings at No. 18, 14 and 12 Nannine Avenue and is consistent with the setback of the ground floor portion of the existing dwelling at No. 16 Nannine Avenue. The discretionary decision relating to the Upper Floor is, on balance, not supported as the lesser setback is inconsistent with the single storey character of the prevailing streetscape. While No. 16 Nannine Avenue contains an existing two storey dwelling of similar setback to the upper floor, the prevailing character of the street is single storey. The upper floor element as a whole is supported but the proposal should be setback in accordance with the requirements of the LPP2.9 to ensure that the single storey character of the surrounding area is protected.

Should the Council take a different view an alternative recommendation is provided.

Buildings on the Boundary

Required Provided Discretion • Southern garage wall (6.7m long x 3.1m high) – 1.5m • Northern games room and bedroom 3 wall (7.8m long x

2.75m high) – 1.5m

Nil

Nil

See comments.

The discretionary decision relating on both the northern and southern boundary walls are supported for the following reasons:

• The northern boundary wall, owing to its orientation does not impact on access to light. A separation of approximately 1.8m between the wall and the existing dwelling at No. 16 Nannine Avenue also means there is no impact on ventilation; and

• While the wall on the southern boundary adjoins an existing dwelling, there is still considered to be sufficient separation (3.2m between the proposed boundary wall and the residence on the adjoining southern lot) so as to allow for reasonable access to light and ventilation. It is acknowledged that the shadow cast by the proposal will impact on openings to the adjoining dwellings, however this shadow is cast by the upper floor element only and not the ground floor boundary wall and the proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements of the R Codes.


Page 23

Maximum External Wall Height

Permitted Provided Discretion Sought 6.0m 4.8m – 6.2m Nil -1.8m

The discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons:

• The external wall height of the dwelling only exceeds the stated requirement at the two gable ends facing the street. The external walls facing the two side boundaries largely meet the stated requirement except for portions towards the front the property that have a height of 6.2m;

• The height of walls is consistent with the existing dwelling on the northern adjoining site at No. 16 Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley;

• There being no impact on views of significance; • There being an impact on the availability of light to major openings to the

adjoining dwelling at No. 14 Nannine Avenue, but to the extent that this causes an adverse impact on the amenity of this property;

• The total height of the development to the top of the roof pitch is also 7.8m, well below the stated 9.0m roof pitch maximum; and,

• The proposal meets the other requirements of the R-Codes relating to overshadowing.

Garage Door Width

Permitted Provided Discretion Up to 50% of the frontage (5.0 m) 63% (6.3 m) +13% (0.7 m)

The discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons:

• If the upper level balcony was widened 0.2m and moved directly over the garage, the garage door is permitted to be 60%;

• The entry to the dwelling remains highly visible and prominent when viewed from Nannine Avenue; and,

• The main living areas of the dwelling will still maintain views over the public street from the upper floor balcony and openings to living, dining and kitchen areas.

Visual privacy

Element Required Provided Discretion Sought

Upper Floor – Balcony – Affecting the northern boundary

7.5m 1.7m 5.8m

Upper Floor – Balcony – Affecting the southern boundary

7.5m 2.1m 5.4m

Ground Floor – Theatre – Affecting the southern boundary

4.5m 1.5m 3.0m


Page 24

The discretionary decision affecting the northern boundary is supported for the following reasons:

• The outlook from the proposed balcony is largely towards Nannine Avenue and views towards the northern adjoining property overlook (largely) the front setback and parking area of the dwelling;

• The primary outdoor living area for the adjoining dwelling is located at the rear of the land; and,

• There are no major openings considered to be adverse impacted by the cone-of-vision from the balcony on the northern elevation.

The discretionary decisions relating to the southern boundary are, on balance, supported for the following reasons;

• The area affected by the balcony cone-of-vision is (largely) the front setback area and a small side setback area. These areas are not considered to be the primary outdoor living area of the dwelling; and,

• While a window to the adjoining dwelling is affected by the cone-of-vision of the balcony, the predominate outlook of the balcony is towards the street and there is considered to be only limited likelihood that the privacy of this opening will be affected.

Energy Efficiency Schedule

The application proposes the following variations to Part B (Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule) contained in Local Planning Policy 2.2 – Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule;

• The external side walls of the dwelling should have a minimum setback of 4 metres from the northern boundary; and,

• Eaves with a minimum horizontal distance from the walls of 500mm. Clause 3.3 of LPP2.2 provides that where the requirements of the Part B are not met, an alternative can be provided that meets the same objectives of the requirement. The development plans include depiction of photovoltaic panels on the upper floor roof, north facing roof section of the new dwelling. Given the variations sought relate to the energy consumption and efficiency of the new dwelling, a system of a minimum capacity of 3.0kw would be considered an acceptable alternative to the variations proposed. Should the Council take the view to approve the proposal, a condition of approval requiring the aforementioned is recommended.

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;


Page 25

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 16A (Lot 67) Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 25 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. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern and southern

boundaries 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 the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed

in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan and Plant Schedule dated (25 July 2013) and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation, insulation (minimum R4 roof insulation and minimum R2.5 wall insulation) shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation, ventilators in the roof void (above the insulation layer) shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Ventilators shall be capable of being closed during winter conditions.

8. Prior to occupation the installation of water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A rated taps, toilets and showerheads shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation, the colour scheme of the dwelling shall consist of no black or dark grey coloured roofs or dark coloured eastern and western external walls and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to occupation, installation of rainwater tanks that hold a total water capacity of 3000 litres shall be installed and plumbed to the toilets or washing machine and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to occupation, installation of solar photovoltaic system with a minimum capacity of 3.0kw shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.’


Page 26

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 16A (Lot 67) Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed front setback of the upper floor element is inconsistent with

the prescribed setbacks of Table 1 of Local Planning Policy 2.9. 2. The lesser setback proposed is considered to be inconsistent with the

prevailing streetscape which is predominately single storey and of limited building bulk.


Page 27

PSC1309-126 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 84A (LOT 205), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0194/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 September 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Development Plans (as amended) 2. Site photos 3. Western Power referral comments Date Received: 30 April 2013 8 July 2013 (amended plans) Owner Name: Jacobus Wilhelmus Lemmens & Marla Ruth Bell Submitted by: Ryanarc Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed; North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 28

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 two storey Single House at No. 84A (Lot 205) Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The applicant is pursuing the following discretionary decisions: • Lot boundary setback; • Boundary walls; • Visual privacy; • Overshadowing; • side and rear boundary fence height; • outdoor living area provision. 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 ‘Mixed Use’ under the LPS4 with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA 3) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Christina Parade to the north, Lime Street to the west, Thompson Road to the east and Craig Street to the south. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 273m2 and is located on the western side of Thompson Road, North Fremantle with an east-west orientation. The topography on site is relatively flat as the site has been graded and levelled through subdivision. The subject site is currently vacant. The subject site forms part of the subdivision of the parent lot No. 86 (Lots 6-10, 99, 102, 103 & 500) Thompson Road, approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on the 12 May 2005 (refer DA127617; WAPC127617). The applicant was awarded a density bonus for the removal of a non conforming use. As a result the subdivision of No. 86 Thompson Road was approved with undersized lots inconsistent with R-Coding applicable to the site. As mentioned above, the subject site has an area of approximately 273m², which is 47m² less than the required 320m² minimum area requirements for a subdivision at an R25 density. Accordingly the subject site is considered more consistent with an R30 density which prescribes a minimum lot size of 270m². Furthermore, the subject site is considerably constrained by an Electricity Transmission easement which projects approximately 6.10 metres westwards from the lots’ frontage to Thompson Road. This


Page 29

easement accounts for an area of approximately 80m2 (or 29.3%) of the total site area, affording an effective lot area of 193m2, which is more consistent with an R50 density code. DETAIL

On 30 April 2013 the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for construction of a two storey Single House at No. 84A (Lot 205) Thompson Road, North Fremantle. On 3 July 2013, the City received amended plans from the applicant. Amendments included clarification that the northernmost area above the garage would not be used for the purposes of a balcony, as well as the introduction of hi-lite windows to the upper level study as contained on the southern elevation. 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 the City’s LPP 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals, as a Single House is an ‘A’ land use within the Mixed Use zone. Furthermore the applicant is proposing a number of discretionary decisions. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 31 May 2013, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal. Western Power On 5 August 2013, the City received referral comments from Western Power as the proposal seeks to incur into the Western Power electricity easement and is in close proximity to 66,000 volt (66kv) transmission lines. Western Power has reviewed the proposal in its current form and has advised that it is satisfied that necessary safety clearances can be achieved. A copy of Western Powers referral comments are contained as ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) The subject site has been either reported as a known or suspected contaminated site under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. A review of the DEC’s ‘Basic Summary of Records Search Response’ (BSRSR) the site’s classification is ‘remediated for restricted use’ with the nature and extent of contamination being as follows:

“Asbestos in the form of cemented asbestos containing material fragments are present in soils below 500mm of clean fill and a geosynthetic marker. Metals were present in soil and groundwater at the Site.”


Page 30

The BSRSR outlines that “the Site is suitable for medium to high density residential use as long as soils below the geosynthetic marker layer are not disturbed.” Whilst the application did not require a formal referral from the City to the DEC, it is recommended that an advice note be imposed on any planning approval issued for this application advising the applicant of this restriction. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Required

Lot boundary setback

Proposed Discretion Western (rear) boundary - ground floor (dining) required setback of 1.50m

1.25m 0.25m

Western (rear) boundary – upper floor (bed 4, bed 3) required setback of 1.50m

1.25m 0.25m

Northern (side) boundary – ground floor (living, alfresco) required setback of 1.50m

1.207m 0.293m

Northern (side) boundary – upper floor (balcony, bed 1, ensuite, bed 3) required setback of 3.50m

1.206m 2.294m

Southern (side) boundary – ground floor (theatre, powder room, kitchen, dining) required setback of 1.50m

1.245m 0.255m

Southern (side) boundary – upper floor (bed 2, bath, home office, bed 4) required setback of 3.50m

1.245m 2.255m

The above discretionary decisions are supported for the following reasons: • It is not considered to present any significant impacts by way of excessive building

bulk upon the adjoining properties as its relative mass is broken up by large minor openings on the upper floor and major openings on the ground floor as well as alternating render finishes;

• It is considered that it will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on site and to adjoining properties;

• In relation to the western elevation of the proposed dwelling, in terms of visual privacy, the proposal is compliant as the upper level windows are all hi-lite windows;

• In relation to the northern discretions, as will be detailed later in this report, in terms of visual privacy, as the balcony is considered to overlook major openings to habitable rooms of the northern adjoining property, it will be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the northern elevation of that balcony be screened appropriately so as to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes pertaining to visual privacy;

• As will be discussed later in this report, it is considered that the proposal should be supported on balance in relation to the discretionary decision pertaining to overshadowing, largely as a result of site constraints and what levels of discretion


Page 31

Council has previously exercised previously for development in the immediate locality;

• In relation to the southern elevation of the proposed dwelling, in terms of visual privacy, the proposal is compliant as the upper level windows are all hi-lite windows

Required Setback Boundary walls

Proposed Discretion Northern boundary (garage) – 1.00m 0.00m (nil) 1.00m Western boundary (patio/alfresco) – 1.00m 0.415m 0.585m These discretionary decisions are supported for the following reasons: • It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site given the

relatively small size of the site, being 273m2 (effectively 193m2 minus electrical transmission easement area);

• In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the walls are not considered to significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk upon the northern or western adjoining properties;

• Overall the proposed northern and western boundary walls are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the northern or western adjoining properties, in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity;

• Therefore this proposed variation is supported as it is considered to address the relevant ‘design principles’ of Design Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and the additional criteria stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.

Required Visual privacy

Proposed Discretion 4.50m setback for bedrooms and studies (first floor ‘bed 1’, northern elevation)

Upper floor ‘bed 1’ as contained on northern elevation setback 1.206m*

3.294m

7.50m setback for balconies with floor level above 0.50m above NGL (first floor balcony, northern elevation)

Upper floor ‘balcony’ as contained on northern elevation setback 1.206m

6.294m

*Whilst subject window is ‘obscured’ it is not specified on the plans whether it is to be ‘fixed’ and therefore must be considered as a ‘major opening’ These discretions are not supported for the following reasons: • Overlooking of major openings to habitable rooms of the northern adjoining property

will occur, however the outdoor living area of that dwelling will not be directly overlooked due to its location in the north-west corner of that site;

• Therefore, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring compliance with ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes.

Permitted

Overshadowing

Proposed Discretion 25% (68.25m2) 34.89% (95.25m2) 9.89% (27.00m2)


Page 32

In considering supporting the proposal against the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes, Council should consider the context of existing development along Thompson Road within the immediate vicinity of the subject site, specifically the two properties to the north and the two properties to the south of the subject site. Of these four properties, apart from the subject site, only the No. 84C (Lot 207) and No. 1/82 (Lot 203) Thompson Road remain vacant. The other two properties are improved by two storey Single Houses. The table below breaks down the extent to which each of the three existing dwellings overshadow their respective properties’ to the south, as well as what is being proposed by this application.

Development Overshadows Permitted Actual Discretion ( + / - )

No. 84C (Lot 207) Thompson Road

No. 84B (Lot 206) Thompson Road

25% (67.75m2)

39.08% (105.90m2)

+14.08% (38.15m2)

No. 84B (Lot 206) Thompson Road

No. 84A (Lot 205) Thompson Road

25% (68.25m2)

34.82% (95.06m2)

+9.82% (26.81m2)

No. 2/82 (Lot 203) Thompson Road


25% (67.75m2)

43.31% (117.39m2)

+18.31% (49.64m2)


No. 2 (Lot 201) Lime Street

25% (78.00m2)

45.50% (142.00m2)

+20.50% (64.00m2)

Average 40.68% (115.09m2)

+15.68% (44.65m2)

It is clear from the table above that Council has previously exercised its discretion to support discretionary decisions relating overshadowing in the past for properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Further, the proposed discretion of 9.89% (27.00m2) is considerably less than the majority of other discretions pertaining to overshadowing which have been supported by Council for the two properties to both the north and south of the subject site previously. On this basis Council should have regard to the context of the existing dwellings in consideration of the discretionary decision sought pertaining to overshadowing.

Shadow cast affecting existing dwelling on No. 2/82 (Lot 203) Thompson Road Major openings to habitable rooms /

outdoor living area Extent of overshadowing

‘Kitchen/Dining’ Approximately half overshadowed ‘Alfresco’ (northern side of site) Approximately half overshadowed

‘Outdoor living area’ (eastern side of site) Completely overshadowed So whilst the proposal will completely overshadow the southern adjoining properties main outdoor living area and partially overshadow major openings to habitable rooms on the ground floor, the site constraints associated with the subject site and locality should not be disregarded when considering the developable area of the subject site, being 193m2. This, along with the narrow lot width of the southern adjoining property lends itself to a conflict that could be considered unreasonable in making any development on the subject site comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ or ‘design principles’ pertaining to overshadowing.


Page 33

As such, it is considered that the proposal is designed in a way which it can best protect solar access for the adjoining southern property given the restrictions and limitations presented by the orientation and dimensional characteristics of the subject site. Accordingly, it is recommended that this discretion be supported on balance.

Required

Outdoor living area

Proposed Discretion 24m2 of outdoor living area 19.50m2 4.50m2 This discretion is considered to be supportable for the following reasons: • The proposed outdoor living area is capable of use with a habitable room of the

dwelling (‘living’, ‘dining’); • It is open to winter sun and ventilation; and • Due to its location in the north-western corner of the site, it is considered to optimise

use of the northern aspect of the site.

Required

Fences

Proposed Discretion Side and/or rear boundary fencing up to 1.80m in height

Up to 2.10m in height along rear (western and northern boundaries)

0.30m

These discretionary decisions should be supported for the following reason: • The proposed fencing is not considered to have any significant impact upon either the

western or northern properties by way of overshadowing, solar access or loss of views.

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey Single House at No. 84A (Lot 205) Thompson Road, North 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 lot boundary setback; boundary walls; visual privacy, solar access, fence height and outdoor living area provision. On balance, the application is recommended for approval.


Page 34


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 84A (Lot 205) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 8 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 upper floor ‘balcony’ and window to ‘bed 1’ 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 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern boundary shall

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

4. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. Advice Note: i. The applicant is advised that the subject site has been either reported as a

known or suspected contaminated site under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. The City understands that the nature and extent of contamination is asbestos in the form of cemented asbestos containing material fragments are present in soils below 500mm of clean fill and a geosynthetic marker. Metals were present in soil and groundwater at the Site. As such, soils below the geosynthetic marker layer are not to be disturbed.


Page 35

PSC1309-127 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - CLIFF STREET, NO. 11 (LOT

101 & 102), FREMANTLE - REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND 4 STOREY NEW OFFICE ANNEX ON EXISTING CARPARK - (AA DAP80003/13)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Application Details: Refurbishment of existing office building and 4 storey new office annex on existing carpark

Property Location: No. 11 (Lot 101 & 102) Cliff Street, Fremantle.

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP Applicant: Slavin Architects Owner: Mediterranean Shipping Company (Aust)

Pty Ltd LG Reference: DAP80003/13 Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle Authorising Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Department of Planning File No: DP/13/00554 Report Date: 12 September 2013 Application Receipt Date: 27 June 2013 Application Process Days: 77 days Attachment(s): 1: Location Plan

2: Development Plans dated 27 June 2013 (SK200, SK201, SK202, SK203, SK204, SK205, SK206, SK207, SK462, SK300, SK301, SK302, SK303, SK304, 12003SK900 & 12003SK901) 3: Schedule of submissions; 4: Heritage comments; 5: Advice of Fremantle Port Authority; 6: Cross-section of floor levels & openings; 7: Site Photos; 8: Consultants Report 9: Response to DAC Comments


Page 36

Recommendation: That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DP/13/00554 and accompanying plans dated 27 June 2013, SK200, SK201, SK202, SK203, SK204, SK205, SK206, SK207, SK462, SK300, SK301, SK302, SK303, SK304, 12003SK900 & 12003SK901 in accordance with Clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 27 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. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant providing additional

details regarding the following matters to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle on advice of the Design Advisory Committee:

An alternative facade design to the proposed new building that has greater regard to the architectural cues of the existing building on site and the adjoining heritage buildings;

The area around the entry corridor and lift area to the proposed new building being increased in size.

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

star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle when a green star rating tool is not available. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle;

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

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

b. a copy of agreed equivalent documentation for instance where there is no

green star rating tool available certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

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

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


Page 37

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the north-western and south-eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. All storm water discharge from the new annex structure shall be contained

and disposed of on-site. 7. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s),

and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation, the west facing, third floor openings to the new annex

addition on the wester 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. screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive

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

Fremantle. 9. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

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

10. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit to

the City details of the following, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle;

a. Details of internal works proposed for the provision of internal plumbing,

electrical and safety services and how the impact on the heritage fabric of the existing place will be minimised; and,

b. The details of any treatments to internal surfaces, materials, finishes or

replacement of existing fabric that may be necessary for the provision of other services that may impact on the heritage fabric of the place but are necessary for the achievement of other conditions included in this approval.

11. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development of the new

building portions shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development


Page 38

Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a. Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of

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

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

points and associated procedures for emergency use; and

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

Advice Note(s)

i. In relation to condition 3, the applicant is advised that the City is will to accept (and recommends) that the refurbished building and new addition be rated under the relevant GCBA tool independently. The City is willing to accept a higher rating for the new addition to offset a lower than 4 star rating for the existing Elders Building.

ii. In relation to condition 6, this refers to all stormwater generated from the site excluding that incapable of retention on-site without damage to the existing cultural heritage significance of existing building(s).

Background: Property Address: No. 11 (Lot 101 & 102) Cliff Street,

Fremantle. Zoning MRS: Central City Area LPS: City Centre Use Class: P - Office Strategy Policy: Sub Area 1.3.1 – West End (City Centre

LPA) Development Scheme: City of Fremantle – Local Planning Scheme

No. 4 Lot Size: Lot 101: 1080m2, Lot 102: 404m2 Existing Land Use: Office Value of Development: $7,080,000 The subject site consists of two lots; Lot 101 and 102 Cliff Street, Fremantle (‘the site’) (see Attachment 1 – Location Plan). Lot 101 is 1080m2 and contains an existing two storey Office building and Lot 102, being 404m2 and contains an area of hardstand vehicle parking comprising 15 vehicle bays. The subject site is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area – Sub Area 1.3.1 (West End) pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) and exists in the portion of Cliff Street bound by High Street to the South and Phillimore Street to the north.


Page 39

The subject site also;

• Contains features listed on the City’s Heritage List, being identified as the ‘Elders Building’ and given a listing of ‘Level 1A’. The feature is also listed on the State Heritage List. The site is also contained within the following Heritage Areas;

o West End Cultural Heritage Area; o Fremantle – Arthur Head Aboriginal Heritage Area; and o Fremantle – Majaree Aboriginal Heritage Area.

• Is located within the Fremantle Port Buffer Referral Area 2. • Adjoins other sites contained under the City’s Heritage List including;

o No. 1 Phillimore Street, being identified as the ‘Former Dalgety Bond Store’ and given a listing of ‘Level 1B’;

o No. 4 High Street, being identified as the ‘Former Union Bank of Australia’ building and given a listing of ‘Level 1B’;

o No. 7-11 Phillimore Street, being identified as ‘Phillimore Chambers’ and given a listing of ‘Level 1B’; and,

o No. 6 High Street, being identified as ‘Hotel Fremantle & Residence (at rear)’ and given a listing of ‘Level 1B’.

• Contains an easement on its title relating to right of carriageway over a driveway contained at the rear of Lot 101.

A summary of the relevant planning history relating to the site is as follows;

• On 25 July 2006, the City granted planning approval for ‘Internal Fit Out and Signage to Existing Building’ (DA0283/06);

• On 27 October 2008, the Western Australian Planning Commission (‘WAPC’) granted conditional approval for a two (2) lot subdivision of the site (WAPC135866);

• On 3 May 2013, the WAPC granted conditional approval for a two (2) lot amalgamation of existing Lots 101 & 102 Cliff Street (WAPC147667);

• On 10 June 2013, the City granted planning approval for ‘Repair, Maintenance and Restoration Works to Existing Building’, being the identified ‘Elders Building’ contained on Lot 101 (DA0245/13);

• The works approved pursuant to DA0245/13 are shown to be existing development on the plans submitted as part of the current application.

Details: outline of development application The application seeks planning approval for a ‘Four Storey Addition & Refurbishment of Existing Office Building’ (‘the proposed development’) (see Attachment 2 – Development Plans dated 27 Jun 2013) at the site including;

• A four (4) storey ‘annex’ Office addition contained on Lot 102 Cliff Street, comprising 1,099.2m2 (of which 567.7m2 is identified as being for ‘shared use’) of office and service space, as well as approximately 103.5m2 of accessible roof terrace/deck with access from the fourth floor;

• Retention of 9 vehicle bays accessible from Phillimore Street and the development of new external bin storage areas and bicycle parking facilities;

• Refurbishment to the existing Elders Building contained on Lot 101, to provide 958.1m2 of office and service space, including but not limited to;


Page 40

o The removal of an existing, non-original glazed entry way internal to corner of Phillimore Street and Cliff Street;

o The removal of several non original bulkheads, existing doors and frames, internal limestone walls and non original stairs to the external areas of the building;

o Refurbishment of the existing, internal courtyard; o Refurbishment of most existing wet and service areas; o Other alterations to the internal layout of the existing Elders Building.

• A ‘sky deck’ addition to the existing Elders Building on Lot 101 that includes the removal of an existing roof section to provide for stairwell access; and,

• A new, fire rated platform for the storage of water tanks suspended above the ground, located on level 1.

The total gross letable area (‘GLA’) of the development as defined by LPS4 is 1,489.6m2.

Legislation & policy: The application has been assessed against the following legislative documents:

• City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) – application for development on the site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 10 of the Scheme.

Legislation

The following provisions of LPS4 are considered relevant in the assessment of the planning application;

• Clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements); • Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking Requirements; • Clause 5.8 – Variations to site and development standards and requirements

(clause 5.8.1 – Variations to height requirements); • Clause 8.2(s) – Permitted Development; and, • Clause 10.2 – Matters to be considered by the Council.

State Government Policies

There are no State Government policies relevant to the assessment of the application. Local Policies The proposed development is subject to the following Local Planning Policies, adopted under LPS4;

• City of Fremantle (Design Guidelines – Fremantle) D.G.F14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy (‘DGF14’);

• City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works (‘LPP2.19’);

• City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (‘LPP2.3’);


Page 41

• City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.5 – External Treatment of Buildings (‘LPP2.5’); and,

• City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (‘LPP2.13’)

Consultation:

Public Consultation

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. In accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposal, the application was advertised as a ‘Significant Application’. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 2 August 2013, the City had received 33 submissions, including 5 objections (see Attachment 3 – Schedule of Submissions). The issues raised are summarised as follows;

• Overshadowing; The proposal causes overshadowing to atrium and living areas of the adjoining properties at No. 1 Little High Street (identified as the Samson Bond Store Apartments);

• Vehicle Parking; There is a lack of parking in the surrounding locality and the variation to the required parking standards should not be supported. The lack of parking provided on-site will be detrimental to local traders and businesses;

• Addition parking should be provided on-site; • Setback to rear boundary; The building proposed is located too close to its rear

boundary adjoining the Samson Bond Store Apartments; • Height and scale; The forth storey of the development should be removed or

modified to allow for greater light penetration to the adjoining apartments; • The proposed annex is, generally, too bulky and the west elevation facing the

apartments is not supported as it is considered to be visually unattractive; • Service areas; The proposed bin storage area will cause an impact on adjoining

properties by way of increased noise and odour emissions; and, • Visual privacy; There will be an impact on visual privacy as a result of the small

separation between the existing apartment and the proposed office extension.

Consideration of the matters raised is discussed further in the Planning Assessment section of this report. State Heritage Office

(External Referral)

The application was referred to the State Heritage Office. At the time of writing this report, comments have not yet been received from the State Heritage Office. Heritage

(Internal Referral)

The application was referred to the Heritage department who supported the application as follows:

• The Elders Building (also known as Wilhelmsen House) 11 Cliff Street, is included on the State Register of Heritage Places and should therefore be conserved in accordance with the articles of the ICOMOS Burra Charter;


Page 42

• The significance of the Elders Building derives in part from the high level of intactness of the interior of the building;

• In complex building projects, such as this, successful outcomes are dependent on aesthetic, heritage, constructional and functional considerations, such as environmental services and fire escape provisions;

• The works proposed to the Elders Building are generally considered to be unobtrusive and assist in revealing concealed significant fabric;

• The central recommendation is that the proposal is acceptable but that the success of the project is highly dependent on the detail; and,

• A condition of approval requiring details of the finer grain changes to the building being provided to the City as they become available is therefore recommended.

Refer to Attachment 4 – Heritage Comments. Sustainability

(Internal Referral)

The application was referred to the City’s Sustainability officer who made the following comments;

• The proposal should conform to the 4 Star Green Star requirement provided pursuant to LPP2.13;

• Achievement of a higher rating for the new annex structure could offset a lesser rating for the Elders Building;

• The Green Star rating system includes a range of bespoke rating tools which can be tailored to non-standard buildings with complex assessments. It is recommended the Applicant contact the Green Building Council of Australia prior to commencement of the development; and

• There is precedent for heritage buildings being assessed under the Green Star rating tool(s), including the Perth General Post Office building which achieved a 4 star rating.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC)

(Internal referral)

The proposal was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee at its meeting of 29 October 2012 prior to a formal planning application being lodged. The following recommendations were made;

‘(1) Written documentation supporting the concept design is comprehensive however further rationale relating to the proposed façade is needed to understand the design philosophy of the façade and how this fits within the context of the site. (2) The general concept of the proposed façade transparency, modulation and 600mm setback is supported. (3) The façade fin wall to the adjoining southern heritage building needs to be further considered.’


Page 43

Following lodgement of the application, the proposal was present to the DAC for a second time at its meeting 12 August 2013. The following recommendations were made;

‘The proposal is supported subject to prior to the issue of a building permit the applicant providing additional details regarding the following matters to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle on advice of the Design Advisory Committee: (1) An alternative facade design to the proposed new building that has greater regard to the architectural cues of the existing building on site and the adjoining heritage buildings;

(2) The area around the entry corridor and lift area to the proposed new building being increased in size.’

Having regard to the advice of the DAC, a condition of approval requiring the facade element of the proposal be re-visited prior though the submission of amended plans is therefore recommended.

Fremantle Port Authority (External referral)

The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority as the subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. Conditions of planning approval consistent with the advice of the Fremantle Port Authority are recommended. Refer to Attachment 5 – Advice of Fremantle Port Authority Planning assessment: External Wall Height Element Required Proposed Discretion

Sought Top of External Wall

11m up to 14m where upper level being sufficient setback from the street so as not be

visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site.

11.4m visible from the street, up to 14.0m

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

subject site.

0.4m visible from the street.

The proposal includes a variation of 0.4m to the scheme requirements relating to height. This variation occurs in the forward portion of the new annex addition fronting Phillimore Street and occurs as a result of a terrace planter box proposed. Clause 5.8.1.1 states that;

‘Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following –


Page 44

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, (b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’

The additional height is considered to meet the criteria set out in clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 in the following ways;

• The height is consistent with the height of the adjoining forward facing parapets and architectural elements of the Elders Building and the southern adjoining Notre Dame University building at No. 4 High Street, Fremantle;

• The additional height does not cause any impact on surrounding properties by way of overshadowing, visual privacy and excessive bulk or scale by reason of the additional height being located in the forward portion of the building. The proposal is therefore considered consistent with clause 5.8.1.1(a) of LPS4;

• The proposal is consistent with the graduation in height between the adjoining parapets and between the Samson Bond Store building and those on the opposite side of Cliff Street as is therefore considered consistent with clause 5.8.1.1(b) of LPS4.

• The proposed facade height reflects the facade heights of adjoining buildings thereby relating positively to the conservation of these buildings (pursuant to clause 5.8.1.1(c)

• The additional height does not result in any other salient impact on amenity or policy requirements of the City (pursuant to clause 5.8.1.1(d).

Vehicle Parking

Element Required Proposed Discretion Sought

Vehicle 1:30m2 GLA (37 bays)

9 28

Delivery 1:500m2 (3 bays) 0 3 Bicycle 1:200m2 (6 bays) 6 Nil

Clause 8.2(s) of LPS4 provides that a change of use to an Office land use where contained within an existing building in the City Centre zone does not require planning approval. Therefore, the proposed use of the Elders Building for the purpose of an Office is not included in the calculation of vehicle parking in the table contained above. The calculations of parking are based on the GLA of the new annex only. Lot 101 containing the Elders Building was until recently separate from Lot 102, meaning there was no on-site vehicle parking provided to the existing office building.


Page 45

The discretionary decisions relating to vehicle parking are supported for the following reasons;

• The proposal includes the restoration of a heritage building located on a site with no practical means of providing vehicle parking. Requiring all 44 vehicle and delivery bays to be provided on-site may be detrimental preservation of the heritage building, consistent with clause 5.7.3.1(a)(vi) of LPS4;

• The subject site is approximately 420m from the Fremantle Railway Station and Bus Station. These high frequency public transport facilities are considered to provide a significant offset to the demand for vehicle parking as a result of the proposal, consistent with clause 5.7.3.1(a)(ii) of LPS4; and,

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

Visual Privacy The proposal includes openings to Office space facing the rear boundary of the subject site. This boundary adjoins residential apartments at the Samson Bond Store building. The separation between the openings to the Office area and residential apartment openings is approximately 7.1m. Additional information provided by the Applicant (see Attachment 6 – Cross section of floor levels & openings) demonstrates that the line of sight between the two developments will be limited by the position of openings in the existing parapet wall to the Samson Bond Store building (see also Attachment 7 – Site Photos). Notwithstanding this, a line-of-sight will be apparent from Level 3 of the Office building. The separation distance between the openings is not considered satisfactory to protect the visual privacy of the adjoining residential properties. Moreover, the impact of the visual privacy interaction is two-fold; while the proposal will not impact on direct overshadowing to the adjoining apartments, the visual privacy interaction could cause residents to screen openings, thereby reducing the availability (albeit limited) of light afforded to these dwellings. A condition of approval requiring screening, in obscured glazing materials, is therefore recommended. Sustainable Building Design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia (‘GCBA’) rating tool pursuant to LPP2.13. Under the heading ‘Application’, LPP2.13 states that;

‘The requirements of this policy apply to all development with the exception of:

(c) Any development with a Gross Letable Area (GLA) of less than 1000m2 GLA;


Page 46

(d) Refurbishments of existing buildings over 1,000m2 GLA not involving substantial structural or internal alterations and all refurbishments to buildings under 1000m2 GLA.’

In the Consultants Report (see Attachment 8 – Consultants Report) provided with the application, the Applicant requests that the rating required by LPP2.13 ought to be waived for the following reasons;

• The gross letable area (‘GLA’) of both the Elders building and the new annex are individually below the minimum 1,000m2 required for the policy to apply;

• Retrofitting the Elders Building to meet the Green Star requirements would detrimentally affect the heritage values of the building;

• That the proponents will apply the NABERS rating scheme to the development.

The application was referred to the City’s Sustainability Officer for comment; which were provided as follows;

• There are a number of bespoke Green Star rating tools tailored for non-standard buildings like this proposal that have been applied elsewhere in Western Australia. There is no reason why a Green Star rating tool cannot be applied in this instance; and,

• A 5 star rating could be applied to the new building component to offset a lesser rating achieved in the heritage building.

Inclusive of the advice provided by the City’s Sustainability officer, it is recommended that proposal meet the requirements of LPP2.13 for the following reasons;

• The building is capable of being rated under a relevant GBCA rating tool; and, • The new annex addition and the refurbishment of the Elders building are both

‘development’ as defined by the Planning & Development Act 2005 and are not exclusive proposals. Therefore the proposed development is not a type of development excluded from the provisions of LPP2.13 as its floor level exceeds the 1,000m2 limitation;

The proposal should therefore meet the Green Star rating required under LPP2.13 subject to the alterations supported by the City’s Sustainability Officer. A condition of approval is recommended allow the proposed annex and existing Elders Building to be assessed under independent GCBA rating tools is recommended. The condition of approval recommended allows for flexibility in the application of the GCBA rating tool. As per the advice of the City’s Sustainability officer, a higher rating for the new annex structure which off-sets a lower than 4 star rating for the Elders building would be considered to meet the requirements as well as the purpose and intent of LPP2.13. Contribution for Public Art The proposed development is subject to the requirement to make a public art and/or heritage works contribution equal or greater than one per cent (1%) of the total cost of the development in accordance with LPP2.19.


Page 47

In the Consultants Report (see Attachment 8 – Consultants Report) provided with the application, the Applicant provides that the contribution required by LPP2.19 ought to be waived for the following reasons;

• The development of the MSC House and the refurbishment of the Elders Building provide less than 1000m2 GLA and is therefore exempt from the requirements of LPP2.19 as per clause 1 of the policy; and,

• The development involves conservation of the Elders Building, which is included on the Municipal Heritage List and the State Register. The proponent has committed well over 1% of the total project cost to be spent on conservation works, including restoration and reconstruction of significant building fabric.

As described earlier in this report, the gross letable area of the development is greater than the 1,000m2 limitation of LPP2.19; the application is therefore subject to the requirements of LPP2.19. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered to meet the requirements of LPP2.19 in the following ways;

• The proposal includes heritage (preservation) works with a value in excess of 1% of the total cost of development; and,

• As per the advice of the City’s Heritage Coordinator, the heritage works are considered to make a considerable contribution to the surrounding public realm.

Conclusion: The application seeks planning approval for the development of a four storey Office building and restoration of the existing Elders Building at the subject site. The proposal is recommended for conditional approval, having regard to the following conclusions;

• The proposal is considered satisfactory to the City’s Design Advisory Committee and Heritage Coordinator; subject to the application of a condition requiring the facade to be re-visited;

• Proposed variations to the planning framework relating to building height and vehicle parking are considered acceptable;

• The heritage works proposed to the Elders Building are accepted subject the provision of additional design details after determination of the planning application;

• A condition of approval is recommended to protect the visual privacy and/or access to light (where applicable) to the adjoining Samson Bond Store apartments;

• As per the City’s policy, the proposal a condition of approval requiring the proposal to meet the 4 Star Green Star rating is recommended; and,

• The public art contribution requisite under the City’s policy is considered to be met by the proposed heritage restoration works.

The proposal is therefore recommended for conditional approval.


Page 48

PSC1309-128 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY (3.61.21) Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the information is noted.


Page 49

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1309-129 PROPOSED AMENDMENT 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO 4 -

REQUEST TO REZONE NO 69 SOUTH STREET AND NO 146 HAMPTON ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 218/059 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 4 September 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Application for Scheme Amendment Date Received: 20 July 2013 Owner Name: Estate of Domenico Pangiarella and Vittoria Pangiarella Submitted by: Dynamic Planning and Developments on behalf of Lui

Pangiarella


Page 50

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dynamic Planning and Development, on the behalf of the landowners, have requested that the City of Fremantle initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) to rezone the properties addressed as No. 69 (Lots 17 & 18) South Street and No. 146 (Lot 16) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (subject site) from Residential to Mixed Use. The building on the subject site was built in 1892 as a residence with shops attached. Until relatively recently the subject site has been used for a residence and some form of retail or commercial use in the shop tenancies, however at present the buildings are vacant. The requested amendment to LPS4 to rezone the subject site to Mixed Use is recommended to be supported by the City as:

- The Mixed Use zoning will enable additional land uses consistent with the property’s historical use and complementary to the surrounding land uses to be capable of being approved in an appropriate location along two main public transport routes;

- The Mixed Use zoning will enable a mixed use development of the subject site with greater residential density however within a similar built form to what is presently allowable;

- The existing provisions of LPS4 and the Residential Design Codes provide sufficient control to ensure the protection of the amenity of the surrounding residential properties; and

- Additional land uses and development under the Mixed Use zoning can be undertaken in a manner that conserves the heritage significance of the buildings on site.

It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to initiate proposed Amendment 53 to LPS4 for public advertising, in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and local planning policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals. BACKGROUND

Site description

This proposed amendment relates to the properties addressed as No. 69 (Lots 17 & 18 on Plan 286) South Street and No. 146 (Lot 16 on Plan 286) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (subject site). The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of South Street and Hampton Road and occupies a total site area of 614sqm (No. 69 South Street – 359sqm, No. 146 Hampton Rd – 255sqm). The subject site slopes upwards from the Hampton Road frontage to the rear by approximately two metres. The subject site is improved by single storey former residence and shop, constructed in 1892. These buildings are connected and are contained on Lots 17 and 18 (No. 69 South Street). The shop was originally built as two shops with entrances from the corner


Page 51

intersection and Hampton Road, however has since been combined to one tenancy. The residence fronts South Street. Vehicle access is obtained from South Street via a right of way (ROW 96, Lot 20 on Plan 286), and also from Hampton Road (refer to Figure 1). Lot 16 (No. 146 Hampton Road) is currently vacant and is used for vehicle parking and access.

Figure 1: Aerial photograph of subject site (January 2013)

History of land uses

Land use history based on the Western Australian Post Office Directories and provided by the applicant show that the Shops were used for variety of shop-type uses from date of construction through to at least 1949, and the residence was usually occupied by the operators of the Shop. The City’s property records for the subject site date from 1976 and also show that the shop continued to be used for retail/shop purposes and the residence for residential use. The following notable information is taken from the property files: 23 June 1976 – Council refused to convert the subject site’s non-conforming use rights from Shop to Car Sales Yard due to the site being zoned ‘Single Residential’ under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2). 23 March 1977 – Council refused a request to rezone the subject site from ‘Single Residential’ to ‘Retail Shopping’ on the basis that the ‘existing residential use occupies the major portion of the site, and therefore it is considered your property should remain zoned for that purpose.’ 16 May 1977 – Council reaffirmed its previous refusal of a request to rezone the property.

Vehicle access

Shop

Residence South Street

Hampton Road


Page 52

1 September 1987 – Letter from the City of Fremantle to the landowner advising of the gazettal of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3), the zoning of the subject site as ‘Residence’ under TPS3 and of the non-conforming land use rights that exist for the Shop use of the subject site.

Current planning framework

The subject site is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Residential under the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The residential density applicable to the subject site is R25. The subject site has not been included on the State Register of Heritage Places, however is listed on the City’s Heritage List under LPS4 and the Municipal Heritage Inventory as a management category level 3. The subject site is situated within the South Fremantle Heritage Area under LPS4. The last approved land use for the subject site was for a Shop and Residence, however as it is evident the Shop use ceased operations more than six months ago, the subject site no longer benefits from the non-conforming land use provisions of LPS4.

Subject site in context

The properties on the other three corners of the South Street / Hampton Road intersection are zoned either Local Centre or Mixed Use and are used for a variety of retail/commercial/service type uses. The properties to the east and south of the subject site are used primarily for residential purposes. Figure 2 below shows the current land uses surrounding the subject site.

Figure 2: Current land uses and zoning of properties surrounding the subject site

Hairdresser/beautician

Lodging house

Picture framers

Service station

Auto electrician

Residence/former shop

Subject site

Surrounding residential properties


Page 53

South Street and Hampton Road are both classed as ‘Distributer A’ roads under the Main Roads WA road hierarchy and are both considered ‘high frequency bus routes’ as defined in State Planning Policies 3.1 Residential Design Codes and 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (i.e. services operate within 15 minute intervals during weekday peak periods 7-9am and 5-7pm). DETAIL

Dynamic Planning and Development, on the behalf of the landowners, have requested that the City initiate an amendment to LPS4 to rezone the properties addressed as No. 69 (Lots 17 & 18) South Street and No. 146 (Lot 16) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield from Residential to Mixed Use (Refer to Attachment 1 for the submitted documentation). CONSULTATION

Should Council resolve to initiate Amendment 53 and following assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority, public comment will be sought for a period of no less than 42 days in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and local planning policy LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. Submissions on the amendment will be assessed and reported to Council following this period. PLANNING COMMENT

Amendment 53 proposes to rezone the subject site from Residential to Mixed Use. Officers consider that the primary issues for Council’s deliberation in relation to this proposal are: 1. What additional land uses will be permissible under a Mixed Use zoning? 2. Is a Mixed Use zoning compatible with the surrounding locality, in particular any residential areas? 3. Is a Mixed Use zoning appropriate for the heritage significance of the subject site? 4. Are there different development standards under a Mixed Use zoning? 1. What additional land uses will be permissible under a Mixed Use zoning? A Mixed Use zone allows for a wider range of land uses than those permissible within a Residential zone. Generally these additional permissible land uses include commercial type uses (e.g. Shop, Office, Showroom), some entertainment uses (eg. Restaurant, Small Bar, Tourist Accommodation) and light or service industry uses. It is important to note that whilst these additional land uses are permissible in a Mixed Use zone, most of the mentioned land uses are not permitted unless Council has granted approval after assessment of the proposal – i.e. are classed as either ‘D’ or ‘A’ uses under LPS4. 2. Is a Mixed Use zoning compatible with the surrounding locality, in particular any residential areas? The proposed Mixed Use zoning is considered by officers to be consistent with the existing Mixed Use or Local Centre zoned properties to the north and west of the subject site on the remaining three corners of the same major intersection. The additional retail/commercial land uses permissible under the Mixed Use zone are considered compatible with the existing uses present in the area.


Page 54

The proposed Mixed Use zoning is considered compatible with the adjoining residential properties to the east and south of the subject site. Potential non-residential land uses on the subject site will likely be moderate in nature due to the site’s size (614sqm) and there are numerous amenity related factors under LPS4 that Council is required to consider in determining any application for development or use of the site. In particular, a specific objective for the Mixed Use zone is to ‘ensure that development (including land use) is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality,’ (clause 4.2.1(e)(iii)). These existing provisions of LPS4 are considered sufficient to ensure that any future land uses will be assessed appropriately with regard to their impact on the surrounding properties. 3. Is a Mixed Use zoning appropriate for the heritage significance of the subject site? The applicant submitted a heritage assessment for the proposed rezoning by a registered heritage architect that supports the proposed rezoning, stating that ‘the application to change the current zoning back to Mixed Use … is both correct and appropriate; such change of zoning will have no adverse impact on the property and will be of no detriment to any heritage significance …’ The City’s Heritage Coordinator has also provided support for the proposed rezoning, stating there is a ‘heritage’ precedent for this proposal. ‘Historically the site had been ‘mixed-use’: consisting of a shop on the street frontage and with an attached residence at the rear. It is noted that this arrangement is typical of many shops in vicinity.’ Any future land use and/or development application will be assessed under the existing LPS4 provisions that have a strong emphasis on protecting and conserving places of heritage significance. Whilst it is noted the submitted heritage assessment contains comments indicating support for demolition of the existing building, it is important to note that these comments will not in any way prejudice any assessment of a future development application on the subject site. The heritage considerations at this stage are limited to a general assessment as to whether the additional land uses and development options possible under a Mixed Use zoning could be accommodated within the existing building. In this regard, both the submitted heritage assessment and comments from the City’s Heritage Coordinator are in agreement. 4. Are there different development standards under a Mixed Use zoning? There are different development standards under a Mixed Use zoning, as demonstrated in Table 1 below. Table 1: Comparison of the notable current and proposed development standards for the subject site Residential zone –

development standards Mixed Use zone – development standards

Height R-Codes ‘deemed to comply’ standards for a category B building: Maximum external wall height of 6m for ‘roof above’ or 7m for a ‘concealed roof’. Maximum roof height of 9m.

Maximum external wall height of 7m (Schedule 12 of LPS4).


Page 55

Residential density

R25 density coding R25 density coding. Maybe increased up to R60 at Council’s discretion where part of a ‘mixed used development’.

Design Requirements (including side setbacks for residential development)

As per the single house or grouped dwelling requirements of the R-Codes

As per the single house, grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling requirements of the R-Codes and Schedule 12 of LPS4

Vehicle parking

As per the R-Codes (1 bay per dwelling)

As per the R-Codes for residential development and LPS4 for non-residential development

Open space Minimum of 50% as per R-Codes

Minimum of 50% for R25 as per R-Codes. Minimum of 45% and maximum plot ratio of 0.7 for R60 as per R-Codes

The built form development provisions remain generally the same, particularly the permitted maximum building height of two storeys and the minimum open space requirement. The most notable difference between the two zones is the ability for the residential density of the subject site to be increased up to R60, at Council’s discretion, where part of a ‘mixed use development’, pursuant to clause 5.2.5 of LPS4. The phrase ‘mixed use development’ is defined in LPS4 and means that the development must comprise of a residential use and any other non-residential land use and that each use must comprise at least 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development. Whilst this provision enables the residential development yield to be increased from what presently is possible under the Residential zoning, such development would be subject to similar built form requirements to what currently apply. CONCLUSION The requested amendment to LPS4 to rezone the subject site to Mixed Use is considered to be supportable by the City as:

- The Mixed Use zoning will enable additional land uses consistent with the property’s historical use and complementary to the surrounding land uses, as well as being appropriately located along two main public transport routes;

- The Mixed Use zoning will enable a mixed use development of the property with greater residential density however within a similar built form to what is presently allowable;

- The existing provisions of LPS4 and the R-Codes provide sufficient control to ensure the protection of the amenity of the surrounding residential properties; and

- Land use and redevelopment under the Mixed Use zoning can be undertaken in a manner that conserves the heritage significance of the buildings on site.

It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to initiate proposed Amendment 53 to publically advertise.


Page 56


1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 map by replacing the ‘Residential’ zone that applies to Lots 17 & 18 on Plan 286 (No. 69 South Street, Beaconsfield and Lot 16 on Plan 286 (No. 146 Hampton Road, Beaconsfield) with a ‘Mixed Use’ zone, shown as follows:


Page 57

2. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.

3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Department for Environment and Conservation requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

5. That upon receipt of the environmental assessment from the Department for Environment and Conservation, the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days in a local circulating newspaper.


Page 58

PSC1309-130 CASH PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF ONSITE CAR PARKING WITHIN THE

FREMANTLE ACTIVITY CENTRE BOUNDARY - PROPOSED POLICY POSITION

DataWorks Reference: 165/033, 165/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 September 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Nil

Figure 1: Fremantle Activity Centre boundary


Page 59

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present a proposed policy position regarding the application of cash payments in lieu of onsite car parking for new development within the Fremantle Activity Centre (‘Centre’) boundary. Recent amendments to the City of Fremantle (‘City’) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) have waived the requirement for on-site car parking for particular land uses within the Centre, such as Office above ground level and car parking associated with changes in land use for the most common Centre land uses. However LPS4 still requires onsite car parking for a number of land uses, notably within new development. Where development is unable to provide the car parking required by LPS4 on the development site, there is the option for Council to take cash payment in lieu of the onsite parking. The cash in lieu payment can then be used by Council to provide for public parking and/or public transport infrastructure within the Centre. If Council were to require cash in lieu payments over the next development phase of the city, it would potentially generate a reasonably significant amount for public parking and/or transport infrastructure expenditure. However the costs of development within Fremantle are relatively high compared to other metropolitan centres due to high land values, a high groundwater table and the built up nature of the city. There is some concern that by either requiring land on development sites to be used for car parking or by requiring developments to make an equivalent cash payment in lieu of onsite parking, that this could present a considerable disincentive to developing in the Centre. The Centre is well served by existing public transport and public parking, with a recent survey of public parking showing that on average, approximately 20% of all available parking spaces are vacant at any time, even in periods of peak demand. It is therefore considered there is capacity within the Centre’s existing public parking facilities to cater for more demand in the near term as major redevelopments occur. However in the medium to long term, this capacity would need to be reviewed depending on the take-up of new development and with the redevelopment of the Point Street car park. This report recommends that Council consider temporarily suspending the application of cash in lieu payments for ‘preferred’ land uses within the Centre in recognition of the existing public transport and parking services and to act as an incentive to attract new development. Preferred land uses are those that align with Council’s strategic objectives for the revitalisation of the Centre, such as Office, retail/shops that contribute to active street frontages, Hotel, Small Bar and similar. This policy position would then be reviewed in twelve months depending on the take-up of new development within the Centre.


Page 60

BACKGROUND

The following points are relevant background to the discussion of this report: • Amendment 49 to LPS4 waived the requirement for on-site car parking associated

with Office land use above ground level in new development for the Amendment 49 sites.

• Amendment 52 to LPS4 waived the requirement for on-site car parking for the most

common changes in land use within the City Centre zone, including Shop, Office, Restaurant, Small bar and Consulting Rooms.

• It is assumed that new residential development will most likely provide car parking

on-site, or will seek a reduction or waiving in the required on-site parking under the existing discretionary provisions in LPS4.

• On-site car parking for other land uses in new development within the Centre (e.g.

ground floor Office, Shop, Restaurant, Hotel, Small Bar, Tourist Accommodation) is currently still required to be provided as per the LPS4 parking standards, or the proponent may offer a cash payment in lieu of any shortfall in on-site car parking.

• There are nearly 6,000 public parking spaces within the Centre, with approximately 20% of these provided on-street and 80% provided off-street. There are four multi-level off-street car parks within the Centre which collectively provide 1,800 bays.

• A survey commissioned by the City during 2012 found that overall the provision of public parking within the Centre exceeds current demand. On average, approximately 20% of all available parking spaces are vacant at any time, even in periods of peak demand. Even the individual car parks subject to highest demand only experience 100% occupancy for relatively short periods at particular times.

• The reasons for current supply generally exceeding current demand are not entirely clear, but are likely to involve a combination of the relatively low intensity of development and building occupancy in Fremantle, an under-performing retail sector and a reasonably good level of accessibility by public transport by comparison with some other major centres in the metropolitan area.

• Although this relationship of parking supply to demand is unlikely to change significantly in the immediate future (i.e. 0-3 years), an increase in parking demand could occur relatively rapidly if there is an uptake of intensive development opportunities provided for in recent changes to the City’s Local Planning Scheme (as some of the sites are currently used for public parking) and other planning


Page 61

initiatives (e.g Victoria Quay commercial precinct), particularly if development coincides with an upturn in general economic activity.

• The provision of multiple separate private car parking facilities is generally regarded as an inefficient use of land within a city environment as valuable space is used for parking that could otherwise be used for activity generating uses, and the parking spaces can be vacant for large portions of time due to the operating time and nature of the businesses they serve. Furthermore such an approach encourages private vehicle use and travel into parts of the city where excessive traffic should be avoided.

PLANNING COMMENT The gazettal of Amendments 38 and 49 have provided significant development opportunity within Fremantle. These opportunities are beginning to be taken up with several development applications recently submitted or expected to be submitted in the near future. As the city enters this next development phase it is considered necessary for Council to clarify its position on the application of cash in lieu payments for parking shortfalls associated with new development, to provide clarity and certainty for all parties regarding the handling of this issue in the assessment and determination of applications. The requirement for cash payments in lieu of parking shortfalls is based on an established planning principle that a new development will generate a certain demand for parking but if the development is unable to provide that parking, a cash in lieu payment could be taken by the local authority so that the local authority could instead provided the equivalent parking required by the development as public parking. Public parking within city environments is generally regarded as the more efficient and practical method of providing parking as the facilities can be strategically located and are available to a wide range of users. Construction costs in Fremantle generally are high compared to other metropolitan centres due to the built up nature of the centre and the relatively high ground water table, which make the provision of on-site parking in new development, particularly subterranean parking, a major expense. Furthermore the public transport services offered by the railway station and numerous high frequency bus routes are commonly cited reasons by applicants for not providing on-site car parking as part of new development. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that much of the new development anticipated over the next development phase will seek that Council waive the on-site parking required by LPS4. LPS4 enables Council, at its discretion, to accept a cash payment in lieu of providing on-site parking for new developments or changes in land use. Under the current local planning policy that deals with cash in lieu payments, D.B.M7 Cash-in-lieu of Car Parking Policy (last amended Oct 2000), the rate payable per bay is approximately $8,500, in today’s money. Generally this rate is lower than that charged by other metropolitan local governments as the rate considers only construction of an at-grade bay and does not take into consideration the cost of land.


Page 62

Council’s adopted Economic Development Strategy aims for net floor space increases of 20,000sqm for retail uses and 70,000sqm for office uses and these target figures were used in the formulation of the Amendment 49 development requirements for the twelve identified strategic sites. As an incentive to encourage Office land use development on the Amendment 49 sites, the requirement for onsite car parking has been waived for Office uses above ground level. However as this incentivised provision applies only to the Amendment 49 sites and only to Office land uses, there is an inconsistency in the planning approach to Centre parking in this regard with many uses still requiring onsite parking, and Office uses on non-Amendment 49 sites also requiring onsite parking. Based on achievement of the target floorspace figures from the Economic Development Strategy, as well as net floorspace increases in other non-retail land uses and assuming that developments elect not to provide on-site car parking, there is potential for up to approximately $10 million to be generated from cash in lieu payments for car parking shortfalls during the next development phase of the city (assumed to be over approximately 20 years). However it must be acknowledged that this figure is an estimate only as there are many unknown variables such as the land use composition of development, whether development will provide on-site parking and the rate of take-up of development generally. Whilst the potential to generate up to approximately $10 million in cash in lieu payments is significant, even this amount would not be sufficient to entirely fund the construction of a new public parking facility of appropriate capacity. For example, construction of a 300 bay multi deck above ground car park would cost in the vicinity of $15-20 million in today’s money including the costs of land (note that the Point St car park capacity is 308 bays). It is important to also note that the existing provisions of LPS4 allow for cash in lieu payments to be spent not only on public car parking stations, but also on the provision of ‘transport infrastructure’ (including infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport). A key point in considering cash in lieu payments for parking shortfalls is the potential disincentive effect that requiring cash in lieu payments for a car parking shortfall would have on development. Based on the current parking requirements of LPS4 and the rate payable as per local planning policy DBM7, a cash payment in lieu of providing on-site parking can represent a significant amount when presented as an additional proportionate cost to a development’s overall construction cost, with some estimates based on recent development concepts indicating that a cash payment in lieu would add approximately 5% to the cost of construction Another point to consider is that there are other tools at Council’s disposal that can generate funds to provide for future public parking that may not present as a disincentive to new development. For example, on the new development sites Council could adopt a rates management policy or budgetary position that effectively quarantines a portion of the rates revenue gained from the new development to provide for a public parking facility in the future. A similar approach that effectively sets aside a proportion of revenue has already been adopted by the Council in its establishment of the Sustainability Reserve.


Page 63

Options for Council’s consideration In light of the above discussion, it is considered there are two options for Council to consider as to how it can deal with cash in lieu payments within the Centre: 1. Require cash payments in lieu of car parking shortfalls Council may elect to require cash payments in lieu of car parking shortfalls as provided for in LPS4. If Council were to adopt this position, it would be recommended that the cash in lieu policy be reviewed to update the rate payable (to include land values and multi deck construction costs) and to clarify where and how Council will apply the policy, including clear criteria for exercising discretion not to require a cash payment in lieu of parking. 2. Temporarily suspend the requirement for cash payments in lieu of car

parking shortfalls for ‘preferred’ land uses within the Centre (recommended) Council has embarked on a clear path to revitalise the Centre by attracting new employment generating uses and more intensive residential development. Whilst Council has reviewed the built form development standards that apply to the Centre to enable development of a scale to meet these goals, the possible requirement for cash payments in lieu of onsite car parking is a factor that may amount to a significant disincentive to develop in Fremantle. Furthermore there is a demonstrated unused capacity of public parking in the Centre with approximately 20% of all available parking spaces being vacant at any time, as mentioned previously. In light of this, officers consider there is strategic merit in temporarily suspending the requirement for cash payments in lieu of onsite parking for ‘preferred’ land uses as a stimulant and attraction for new development and in recognition of the current unused capacity of public parking. ‘Preferred’ land uses would be those that are consistent with the Council’s strategic objectives for the Centre and could include Office, retail/Shop uses with active frontages to the public domain, Tourist Accommodation, Hotel and Small bar. In effect, by adopting this position Council would be suspending the requirement for any car parking for these ‘preferred uses’ within the Centre. It is proposed that this position would be reviewed in twelve months time to examine the operation and impact of this policy position. In addition it is proposed that officers present options for Council’s consideration regarding a review of the cash payments in lieu provisions and parking standards of LPS4 at that time. Identifying and planning for future public car parking There will be a need in the future for the City to provide additional public parking in the Centre as new development eventuates and with the loss of existing public parking facilities (Point Street car park, Spicer site car park etc). The identification and further planning for future public car parking will be considered and dealt with in the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan which is currently under preparation.


Page 64

CONCLUSION

This report presents a recommended policy position for Council’s consideration to temporarily suspend for 12 months the application of the cash in lieu for parking provisions of the planning framework for ‘preferred’ land uses as a clear incentive for new development and in recognition of the currently underused public parking capacity within the Centre. It is further recommended that officers monitor and report back to Council on the operation of this policy position at the end of the twelve month period, including a report presenting options for a review of the cash in lieu provisions and parking standards overall. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolves to: 1. Temporarily suspend for a period of twelve months the application of cash

payments in lieu of onsite car parking as provided for by clause 5.7.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and local planning policy, D.B.M7 Cash in lieu of Car Parking Policy, for development applications within the Fremantle Activity Centre for the following land uses:

- Office; - Retail/Shop with active frontages to the adjacent public realm; - Hotel; - Restaurant; - Small Bar; and - Tourist Accommodation. 2. Continue to apply the planning provision regarding cash payments in lieu of

onsite car parking as provided for by clause 5.7.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and local planning policy, D.B.M7 Cash in lieu of Car Parking Policy, within the Fremantle Activity Centre for all other land uses not listed in Part 1 of this resolution.

3. Instruct officers to provide a report to Council within twelve months of this

resolution that examines the operation of Parts 1 and 2 of this resolution and provides options for the review of the local planning policy, D.B.M7 Cash in lieu of Car Parking Policy, and the onsite parking standards of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 65

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil.


Page 66

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 67


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 68


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 69

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 70


Page 71

Documents

PSC Agenda Master 04 September 2013 final...2013/09/04 · PSC considered the proposal on 3 July 2013 and resolved to: “Defer the application to next appropriate Planning Services