AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 10/1/2014 · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 1 October 2014...

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 1 October 2014, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

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

Wednesday, 1 October 2014 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William

Street, Fremantle (access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square)

commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Garbett ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 24 September 2014

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 3 September 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1410-149 DEFERRED ITEM -MARINE TERRACE, NO. 45 (LOT 2046), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING CAFE - (CJ DA0103/14) 1

PSC1410-150 MALCOLM STREET NO.25 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE – DEFERRED ITEM - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0104/14) 6

DEFERRED ITEMS (COUNCIL) 15

PSC1410-151 REVIEW AND MODELLING OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - FINAL ADOPTION 15

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 31

PSC1410-152 NO.29 (LOT 3) LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD, NORTH FREMANTLE FOUR X FIVE STOREY (208 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, & 3 SHOP TENANCIES) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK DEVELOPMENT (JL DAP80003/14) 31

PSC1410-153 BROCKMAN PLACE NO.3 (LOT 44) - RESTAURANT BUILDING ADDITION - (JL DA0304/14) 57

PSC1410-154 HULBERT STREET, NO. 28 (LOT 122), SOUTH FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0359/14) 66

PSC1410-155 FULLSTON WAY, NO. 27 (LOT 74), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0384/14) 72

PSC1410-156 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 124 (LOT 70), NORTH FREMANTLE - SINGLE HOUSE AND OFFICE ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING - (AA DA0260/14) 79

PSC1410-157 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 24/219 (LOT 303), SOUTH FREMANTLE - SIGNAGE - (CJ DA0394/14) 91

PSC1410-158 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 96

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 97

PSC1410-159 REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE STRATA PROPERTY AT 10 DOEPEL STREET, NORTH FREMANTLE (YORK APARTMENTS) PROVIDING A LINK TO THE FORESHORE RESERVE. 97

PSC1410-160 ITEM - HERITAGE LIST AND MHI ANNUAL UPDATE 2014 102

PSC1410-161 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15 FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 107

PSC1410-162 CITY OF FREMANTLE ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 NO.2 121

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 134

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1410-149 DEFERRED ITEM -MARINE TERRACE, NO. 45 (LOT 2046), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING CAFE - (CJ DA0103/14) 4

PSC1410-150 MALCOLM STREET NO.25 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE – DEFERRED ITEM - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0104/14) 25

PSC1410-151 REVIEW AND MODELLING OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - FINAL ADOPTION 57

PSC1410-152 NO.29 (LOT 3) LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD, NORTH FREMANTLE FOUR X FIVE STOREY (208 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, & 3 SHOP TENANCIES) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK DEVELOPMENT (JL DAP80003/14) 200

PSC1410-153 BROCKMAN PLACE NO.3 (LOT 44) - RESTAURANT BUILDING ADDITION - (JL DA0304/14) 242

PSC1410-154 HULBERT STREET, NO. 28 (LOT 122), SOUTH FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0359/14) 259

PSC1410-155 FULLSTON WAY, NO. 27 (LOT 74), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0384/14) 270

PSC1410-156 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 124 (LOT 70), NORTH FREMANTLE - SINGLE HOUSE AND OFFICE ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING - (AA DA0260/14) 280

PSC1410-157 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 24/219 (LOT 303), SOUTH FREMANTLE - SIGNAGE - (CJ DA0394/14) 289

PSC1410-158 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 295

PSC1410-159 REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE STRATA PROPERTY AT 10 DOEPEL STREET, NORTH FREMANTLE (YORK APARTMENTS) PROVIDING A LINK TO THE FORESHORE RESERVE. 295

PSC1410-161 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15 FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 316

PSC1410-162 CITY OF FREMANTLE ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 NO.2 322

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 1 October 2014

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PSC1410-149 DEFERRED ITEM -MARINE TERRACE, NO. 45 (LOT 2046), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING CAFE - (CJ DA0103/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1406-99 (4 June 2014) Attachments: Attachment 1 –Previous item PSC1406-99

Attachment 2 – Amended development plans Date Received: 28 February 2014 Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: Design Theory Scheme: Parks and Recreation Reserve Heritage Listing: Level 1B Existing Landuse: Cafe Use Class: Restaurant Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing Carriage Coffee Shop on the Esplanade Reserve (45 Marine Terrace), Fremantle. The application requires referral to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination, as the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) does not apply for reserved land. The application has previously been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination with a recommendation for approval, however was deferred for amendments to the plans and further advertising. The applicant is considered to have met the requirements for deferral and the application is recommended to be referred to the WAPC with a recommendation for approval. BACKGROUND

The application was previously referred through to PSC for determination on 4 June 2014, with the Committee resolved as follows: CR R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order:

1. To enable the applicant to provide revised plans that show materials, perspectives and the relationship with the youth plaza;

2. To enable wider public advertising to occur including notification to the precinct

groups and adjoining properties on Marine Terrace.

For more detailed background on the site, please refer to the previous report (PSC 1406-99). DETAIL

On 28 February 2014, the City received an application for the additions and alterations to an existing cafe at No. 45 Marine Terrace, Fremantle. The application was presented to PSC on 4 June 2014, who resolved to defer the application to enable amendments to the plans and further advertising. Following a meeting at the City with the applicant, Councillors and City planning and heritage staff on 9 July 2014, amended plans were received on 6 August 2014, with the following amendments:

Reduction in changes to the building fabric and existing openings of the original carriage;

Repainting of the Carriage to be red, as opposed to white; and

Additional information, on site plans and perspectives provided. Further amended plans were received 16 September 2014, amending the finishes diagram. Development plans are included as attachment 2.


Page 3

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to meet requirements. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for full assessment. CONSULTATION

Heritage – Internal

The previous Heritage assessment of the site (see PSC 1406-99), requested the following condition be imposed on the development:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the proposed changes to the carriage are re-designed so that they do not involve the removal of original fabric of the carriage.

Following discussions with City officers, PSC members and the applicant, the plans have been amended to remove the proposed changes to the existing Carriage and repaint it to its former colour. The City’s Heritage Coordinator has reviewed the revised plans and supports the current proposal without conditions.

Other referrals- Internal and External

The application has previously been referred to the City’s Parks and Gardens and Environmental Health Departments and the Fremantle Port Authority. As the proposal has not changed significantly from the previous, they are not required to be referred again. For previous comments from the above departments and agencies, please refer to the previous report (PSC 1406-99).

Community

The application was required to be re-advertised in accordance with Council’s deferral. A sign on site, precinct notification, newspaper notice and notification letters were sent to landowners within a 50m radius of the Esplanade, resulting in approximately 98 letters to landowners and occupiers. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 27 August 2014, the City had received seven (7) submissions, all in favour of the development. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Hard to understand why applicant is being met with opposition;

Extensions and fresh look are perfectly acceptable;

Support Carriage Cafe being retained and enhanced;

Council delay causing public to be concerned about hidden agendas;

Carriage Cafe is part of the enjoyment of the Esplanade;

The proposed covering and weather proofing of existing deck area will be an excellent improvement.


Page 4

PLANNING COMMENT

The application has previously been assessed and was deemed to be supportable against the following:

Esplanade Conservation Plan;

Esplanade Master Plan;

DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy; and

Development Control Policy 5.3 – Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space.

As the current proposal alters internal layout, materials and finishes, and is supported by the City’s Heritage Department without conditions, the assessment is considered to be consistent with the previous report. As such, the application is recommended for referral to the WAPC with a recommendation for conditional planning approval.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed additions and alterations to existing Cafe at No. 45 (Lot 2046) Marine Terrace, Fremantle, for the following reason: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 16 September 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, construction of footings and permanent

structures are to address AS:4970-2009 Protection of Tree in Development Sites, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the extension of the roof top will need to

divert/drain water using an approved system to allow the water to remain available to the tree’s roots to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. The maintenance of the extensions roof, gutter and drainage shall be the

business owner’s responsibility. 5. Prior to commencement of development, a management plan relating to the

increased patronage should be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the extension must address relevant

Australian Standards for trip hazards and pedestrian safety to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 5

Advice notes:

i. Planning approval is separate and independent to any lease related matters relating to the land.

ii. The Management Plan referred to in Condition 5, should address servicing

issues anticipated by increased patronage, for example universal access that accommodates the increased wear in the turf, additional lighting and waste management.

iii. For further information regarding Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, please contact

the City’s Coordinator of Parks and Landscape. iv. For further information regarding Condition 7 and 8, please contact the

City’s Coordinator of Heritage. v. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that

the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

mailto:[email protected]


Page 6

PSC1410-150 MALCOLM STREET NO.25 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE – DEFERRED ITEM - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0104/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 September 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1407-112 (2 July 2014) Attachment 1: Amended Development Plans (21 August 2014) Attachment 2: PSC Report 1407-112 Attachment 3: Contour and Feature Survey (Carlton Surveys) Attachment 4: Site Photo’s of No.27 and 29 Malcolm Street Date Received: 28 February 2014 Owner Name: Jason & Natalie De Silveira Submitted by: Gary Keen Design Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) in accordance with the Committee resolution from its 2 July 2014 meeting. Again, the amended proposal requires Design Principle assessments of the Residential Design Codes in relation to the following:

Building height,

Eastern boundary setback, and

Visual privacy of the western adjoining property. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND The application was presented before the Planning Service Committee (PSC) meeting at its meeting held 2 July 2014 and PSC resolved to:

‘defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Service Committee meeting to allow neighbours to seek further advice from planning staff’.

City staff met with the adjoining landowners at adjoining properties on two occasions being 25th July and 26th August 2014. Furthermore, adjoining neighbours have also met with the City’s Director of Planning & Development Service and City Officers to discuss original and amended plans relating to the proposal. Additionally, Planning Staff have met on a further two occasions since receipt of amended plans, once with the adjoining eastern land owner and another with this neighbours planning consultant to discuss amended plans and additional concerns to these plans. Additionally since PSC’s deferral of this item, the applicant has met with adjoining landowners to discuss the proposal. Resulting from this meeting the applicant lodged amended plans for the application, essentially making one change with reducing the overall wall height by 300mm. See ‘Attachment 2’ below for previous background information relating to this site and application. DETAIL See ‘Attachment 2’ below for details relating to the original planning application plans and site information. The applicant submitted amended plans on 21 August 2014, proposing a 300mm reduction in building height of the development in order to address some of the concerns relating to loss of views of significance, building bulk and loss of direct solar access and ventilation to adjoining and nearby residential properties. See ‘Attachment 1‘below for a copy of amended plans.


Page 8

CONSULTATION Community The original proposed development was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy. At the conclusion of the original advertising period, being 2 April 2014, the City had received two submissions with one supporting the original proposal. A summary of the original concerns raised are as follows:

Overshadowing,

Building height,

Loss of views of significance,

Loss of direct sunlight

Demolition issues – Asbestos and Noise,

Visual privacy from roof top terrace, and

Impact to the heritage significance of Malcolm Street. See previous planning report in ‘Attachment 2’ for detailed discussions relating to these matters. As a result of PSC resolution for this item, the application underwent additional community consultation process. At the conclusion of the second advertising period, being 13 August 2014, the City had received one new submission and a revised submission from an original submitter. A summary of the additional and revised concerns raised are as follows:

Impact the proposal will have to the streetscape of Malcolm Street,

Impact the proposal has to the two heritage listed eastern adjacent properties (No.27 and No.29 Malcolm Street),

Impact on existing views of significance captured from both No.27 and No.29 Malcolm Street properties and respective dwellings,

the impact of both reduced ventilation and light on the existing master bedroom and upper loft floor area on the western side of the dwelling located at No.27 Malcolm Street, and

Impact of reduced light via existing loft windows also continues with reduced natural light on kitchen and dining room downstairs of the dwelling located at No.27 Malcolm Street.

Concerns with the indicated floor level differences between No.25 and 27 Malcolm Street as it is believed the floor level difference is in fact 1.41m not the proposed 1.71m as per amened plans,

Exterior cladding material of the proposed upper floor additions and its detrimental impact in terms of reflectivity on neighbour.

With regards to the above mentioned concerns relating to loss of direct solar access, ventilation, building bulk or loss of views of significance further discussion regarding these new or modified concerns is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. In terms of the new concerns raised relation to difference in existing floor levels of the existing development at No.25 and 29 Malcolm Street, please see ‘Attachment 3A and B’ below of a copy of a ‘Contour and Feature Survey’ prepared by Carlton Surveys


Page 9

(Attachment 3A) and provided by the applicant after City Officer contacted the applicant regarding the concern raised. This indicates a 1.71m difference between the existing floor levels of the dwellings located on No.25 and No.27 and as per the City’s previous assessment. In response to this the neighbouring property has also provided a ‘Contour and Feature Survey’ prepared by Property People Surveys (Attachment 3B) which indicates a 1.41m difference between the existing floor levels of the dwellings located on No.25 and No.27. As there is dispute over the existing differences between existing FFL’s of both properties, worst case scenario of 1.4m will be used in terms of the City’s assessment for loss of solar access, ventilation, building bulk and Views of significance discussions below. Ultimately given the applicant is proposing to reduce the overall building height by 300mm, the City’s previous assessment remains the same as the disputed 300mm FFL difference is mitigated by the proposed amended reduction of 300mm of building height for the proposal. With respect to the concerns raised in relation to the upper floor addition and the external cladding’s ability for reflection, the City doesn’t have a specific planning policy limiting the types of external cladding for development within this area of Fremantle. Whilst noted as a concern this isn’t considered to be a matter that can be dealt with via the relevant statutory planning legislation. Fremantle Port Authority See ‘Attachment 2’ below for copy of previous referral comments. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT In considering this amended proposal, again the following key issues must be addressed. Whilst a reduction of 300mm is now proposed for the overall building height of the development the applicant is still requesting several R-Codes Design Principle assessments and Council policy discretionary assessments in relation to certain aspects of the proposal. Again, as stated in the previous planning report these matters should be considered in the context of the relevant ‘Design Principle’ criteria of the relevant Design Element of the R-Codes and discretionary criteria of relevant Council local planning policies, as outlined below in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 10

PLANNING COMMENT Building Height - External Wall Height Amended Building Height Assessment

Permitted Proposed Upper floor Design Principle Assessment

Max. 7m external wall height (Concealed roof)

East – 6m south east corner – 6.5m north east corner

Complies

West- 7m south west corner - 8.6m north west corner

Up to 1.6m

North- 6.5m north east corner – 7.8m north west corner

Up to 0.8m

South -6m south east corner– 7m south west corner

Complies

See previous report in ‘Attachment 2’ for discussion relating to this matter. Eastern and western Reduced Boundary setbacks Original Setback Assessment

Elevation Required provision

Proposed Design Principle Assessment

East Ground floor wall (25m long x 6m high wall with major opening)*

5.7m 612mm

5.58m

West Ground floor wall (11m long x 8m high wall with major opening)”

4.2m 2.6m 1.6m

Rooftop terrace screen wall (25m long x 8.5m high with no major opening)

3.3m 2.6m 0.7m

*the majority of these ground floor walls are existing and only an additional 700mm in length is being added. The previous assessed setback requirement remains the same even with the reduction in wall height and changes to FFL’s of the development. For the same reasons outlined in the previous report, the proposed reduced setbacks are considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes, for the same reasons outlined in the City’s previous report (see Attachment 2 below).


Page 11

Visual Privacy Again, the proposal isn’t considered to meet the Design Principle criteria of the R-Codes pertaining to Visual Privacy and for identical reasons outlined in the previous planning report this merit based assessment isn’t supported. On this basis condition of approval are recommended to require screening which would make the development meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes relating to privacy. Again see previous report in ‘Attachment 2’ for discussion relating to this matter. Additional Community Concerns Upon completion of the second period of community consultation, a summary of the new or modified concerns regarding the amended proposal are as follows:

Impact the proposal will have to the streetscape of Malcolm Street,

Impact the proposal has to the two heritage listed eastern adjacent properties (No.27 and No.29 Malcolm Street),

Impact on existing views of significance captured from both No.27 and No.29 Malcolm Street properties and respective dwellings,

the impact of both reduced ventilation and light on the existing master bedroom and upper loft floor area on the western side of the dwelling located at No.27 Malcolm Street, and

Impact of reduced light via existing loft windows also continues with reduced natural light on kitchen and dining room downstairs of the dwelling located at No.27 Malcolm Street.

Again, City Officers clearly acknowledge that the proposed development will have a higher level of amenity impact in terms of all of the above concerns raised compared to the existing built form on site today. However the level of significance of the impact is the point of subjectivity, particularly when assessing loss of solar access, loss of ventilation and loss of views of significance. As outlined in the previous report, Council could be of the opinion that any change to existing built form in terms of eastern boundary setbacks and/or external wall height would have a significant detrimental impact on the eastern adjoining properties and for these reasons refuse the proposal in its current form. However, for the reasons outlined in the previous report the level of amenity impact isn’t considered to result in a significantly detrimental impact particular when referring to loss of solar access and loss of ventilation. In terms of loss of views of significance, again it is noted that both No.29 and No.27 Malcolm Street properties currently capture significant views of Rottnest Island, the Fremantle Port and landscape north of Fremantle. See ‘Attachment 4’ below for several site photos of views of significance captured over both No.27 and 29 Malcolm Street properties and respective dwellings. It’s also acknowledged that the proposal will have an impact on some of these views currently captured from various advantage points of these two properties and the respective dwellings and habitable internal spaces.


Page 12

However, whilst an impact is anticipated to some of these views of significance, taking into consideration:

that the eastern external wall height of the development complies with the deemed to comply 7m building height provision,

The majority of the upper floor addition incorporates an unroofed deck area rather than a high pitched roof;

that the upper floor addition is limited to 90m2 footprint and is centrally located onsite, preserving significant view corridors to the rear and front of the subject property for both immediate eastern adjoining properties, and

that the upper floor eastern lot boundary setback complies with the R-Code setback requirement,

the level of access and impact to these advantage view points is again considered reasonable and supportable. Notwithstanding the above, if Council was of the opinion that the proposed development would significantly impact the neighboring properties in terms of loss of direct solar access, ventilation, building bulk and views of significance and is therefore not supported, the following recommendation would be applicable: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey addition and alterations to existing Single House at No. 25 (Lot 3) Malcolm Street, Fremantle, for the following reason(s):

1. The proposal doesn’t meet the Design Principle criteria of the Residential Design Codes in respect to the Design Element 5.1.3 (P3.1) Lot boundary setbacks and Design Element 5.1.6 (P6) - Building height.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is again considered that the proposed development adheres to the majority of the relevant R-Codes ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions. Where the proposed development does not meet the relevant criteria, it has been outlined above and in the previous report that it is considered to either satisfy the relevant ‘Design Principle’ criteria or planning conditions have been imposed as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’ bringing the development into compliance. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey addition and alterations to existing Single House at No. 25 (Lot 3) Malcolm Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 21 August 2014. It does not relate to any other development on


Page 13

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 ground floor front verandah addition and pool terrace

on the western elevation, as marked in red on approved plans dated 21 August 2014, 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,

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

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

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

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

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

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

5. Prior to occupation, any new or modified crossover and/or tree removal

associated with the hereby approved development must receive separate approval from the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Parks Department.

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

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

Advice Note(s): i) The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on

the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;


Page 14

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

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

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

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

iii) In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City

of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

iv) Any building work involving the removal or alterations to asbestos products

should be carried out with extreme caution. The disposal of asbestos products to be in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Please contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856.


Page 15

DEFERRED ITEMS (COUNCIL)

PSC1410-151 REVIEW AND MODELLING OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 117/034 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 1 October 2014; Council 22 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Acting Director Planning and Development Services Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: 24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107;

27 November 2013 PSC1311-183; 26 February 2014 PSC1402-32; 26 March 2014 PSC1403-51; 23 July 2014 PSC1407-124

Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions 2. 3D Modelling 3. Scenic Spectrums view photomontages 4. Previous Council Minutes 23 July 2014


Page 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A report on modified heights and the submissions received on the reviewed Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle - Height of New Buildings (LPP3.11) was presented to Planning Services Committee and Council on 16 July 2014 and 23 July 2014 respectively. The modified LPP3.11 as recommended by officers proposed limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height, at Council’s discretion, of up to 33m in the newly defined location of zone H2 (to the rear of the former Matilda Bay Brewery/Ford factory heritage building) and 25m in height in zone D2 (the south west portion of 9-11 McCabe Street fronting McCabe Street), subject to meeting specific design criteria. The other modifications proposed were general updates to the wording and an additional control over height on the eastern part of the former Matilda Bay brewery site adjacent to McCabe Street. At the Planning Services Committee meeting the Committee resolved to recommend to Council that the building height limit in zone D2 be increased from the 25m height limit recommended by officers to 29m and the building height limit in zone H2 be increased from the recommended 33m to 42m. Council then resolved to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow for the development of modelling of the impact of a building height of 42 metres in area H2. This modelling of increased building heights in zone H2 and also in zone D2 and the potential outlook from specific viewpoints of indicative buildings in the policy area has been undertaken. The results of the modelling is discussed in this report and presented in attachment 2 and 3. The officer’s recommendation previously presented to Council has been amended to include an additional policy provision that would allow Council a discretionary authority to consider additional height up to 42m in zone H2, but only in circumstances where a structure plan has been submitted and includes satisfactory design details and justification for a building of this height; with this exception the officer recommendation in respect of maximum building heights is unchanged. The differing maximum heights previously resolved by the Planning Services Committee are also reproduced in the report should the Committee consider the previous committee recommendation to be more appropriate. BACKGROUND

Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle - Height of New Buildings (LPP3.11) was adopted in 2009. Since this time the state government has provided strategic direction for Perth’s future population growth in the document Directions 2031 and beyond. The intent of the height policy review is therefore to increase the capacity for comprehensive development in the development area in line with state government’s strategic direction whilst at the same time limiting the impact of new built form on the established view corridors in the area.


Page 17

Figure 1. Proposed modification to the building heights in LPP3.11 on the former Matilda Bay Brewery and Tasker’s site – as advertised for public comment

The modified LPP3.11 as advertised for comment proposed limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height, at Council’s discretion, of up to 33m in the newly defined location of zone H2 (to the rear of the former Matilda Bay Brewery/Ford factory heritage building) and up to 29m in zone D2 (the south west portion of 9-11 McCabe Street fronting McCabe Street) (refer to figure 1 above), subject to meeting specific design criteria. This criteria includes the requirement for development to consider the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (where applicable), be 5 star Green Star rating in design, conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building, be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, not encroach on view corridors as defined in the McCabe Street Height Study and be limited in building footprint (in zone H2). The other modifications proposed were general updates to the wording and an additional control over height on the eastern part of the former Matilda Bay brewery site adjacent to McCabe Street.


Page 18

Figure 2. Proposed modification to the building heights in LPP3.11 on the former Matilda Bay Brewery and Tasker’s site – Officer’s recommendation

Following the public comment period officers reported back to Planning Services Committee and the Ordinary Meeting of Council on the 16 July 2014 and 23 July 2014 respectively, with a summary of the submissions received and proposed the following three further modifications to the reviewed LPP3.11 (refer to figure 2 above):

1. Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in a portion of zone H2 from 33m to 25m and rename this portion zone H3. Zone H2 (directly behind the Matilda Bay building) would remain a discretionary building height of 33m;

2. Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in zone D2 from 29m to 25m; and

3. Amend the wording of the discretionary height building criteria relating to environmentally sustainable design.

At the Planning Services Committee meeting amendments to the officer’s recommendation were carried as follows: (a) the height limit in zone D2 be increased from 25m to 29m; and (b) the height limit in zone H2 be increased from 33m to 42m. The Committee then further resolved that final consideration of the matter be deferred to allow for the development of modelling of the impact of a building height of 42 metres in area H2. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council the Committee recommendations were carried by Council, thereby deferring the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow for the modelling of building heights to be undertaken. The modelling has now been completed and is discussed in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 19

For further background including information on the submissions received and previous discussion on the issues please refer to the schedule of submissions in attachment 1 and the previous Ordinary Meeting of Council minutes (23 July 2014) in attachment 4. CONSULTATION

The consultation previously undertaken and the submissions received are detailed in attachments 1 and 4. For the full summary of submissions please refer to attachment 1. For the report back to Council on the submissions please refer to the Ordinary meeting of Council Minutes 23 July 2014 (PSC1407-124) in attachment 4. PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of LPP3.11 is to identify limitations on the maximum height of new buildings that Council will apply in assessing structure plans and subsequent planning applications for the development of land zoned development zone (development area 18) in McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance. Following Council’s deferral of this item, the City commissioned modelling of the current heights allowable under the policy (including the 25m discretionary building height on 140 Stirling Highway on the corner of Stirling Highway and McCabe Street), and the following two different height scenarios on the Matilda Bay and Tasker sites using indicative building footprints:

Officer’s recommended discretionary height of up to 25m (56m AHD) in zone D2, 25m (42m AHD) in zone H3 and 33m (51m AHD) in zone H2; and

PSC’s resolution to consider additional discretionary height of up to 29m (60m AHD) in zone D2, 25m in zone H3 (42m AHD) and 42m (60m AHD) in zone H2.

CODA provided the City with a 3D ‘SketchUp’ (3D modelling program) model of the area. This model takes into account the topography of the area, provides indicative buildings on site to the heights provided in LPP3.11 and the height scenarios above, and represents existing surrounding building stock as block models to roof height. Screenshots of this 3D modelling from different vantage points have been provided in attachment 2. Scenic Spectrums (landscape impact consultants) prepared six photo montages for the two different building height scenarios based on the same views as represented in previous work undertaken in May 2008 by the same consultant for the McCabe Street Height Study which informed the original content of LPP3.11. These photomontages have been provided in attachment 3.


Page 20

Discussion on modelling Overshadowing Overshadowing was one of the main concerns expressed in submissions on the review of LPP3.11. The Residential Design Codes (R-codes) assesses the overshadowing impact of proposed development on adjoining sites by calculating the shadow that would be cast by a proposed development at midday on the 21st of June (the winter solstice). The “deemed to comply” requirement of how much shadow a proposed development can cast on adjoining properties depends on the adjoining properties’ density coding. For example, under the R-codes where a multiple dwelling adjoins R25 coded properties (e.g. the Rocky Bay area to the south of the LPP3.11 policy area) the development would satisfy the “deemed to comply” criteria if the shadow cast by the proposed development on any adjoining property does not exceed 25 per cent. The ‘deemed to comply’ provisions for Solar access for adjoining sites (clauses 5.1.2 C2.1 and C2.2, 6.4.2 C2.1) under the R-codes are not clauses that can be amended or replaced by a local planning policy. Accordingly, overshadowing will be assessed as part of any development application received in the area, once structure plans have been established. Nonetheless, to help with decision-making officers have provided screenshots from the 3D modelling of shadowing of indicative buildings in the area in figures 3 and 4 below to assist Council in visualising where the shadow from buildings of maximum height in this area would be cast. A completely realistic portrayal of overshadowing of future development on adjoining properties, and whether development meets the R-code requirements, cannot be undertaken without development plans. Instead the figures are indicative block models that give an indication of where shadowing could occur, and can be considered a “worst case scenario” representation. Figure 3 below depicts the shadowing at midday on 21 June from the indicative buildings at the maximum discretionary building height proposed in the officer’s recommendation, i.e. 25m in zone D2, 33m in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3.


Page 21

Figure 3. Shadowing of maximum discretionary building heights proposed in the review of the policy including 25m in zone D2, 33m in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3 - Officers Recommendation

Figure 4, similar to figure 3, depicts the shadowing at midday on 21 June from the indicative buildings at the maximum discretionary building height proposed in the Committee’s recommendation, i.e. 29m in zone D2, 42m in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3

Figure 4. Shadowing of maximum discretionary building heights proposed in the review of the policy including 29m in zone D2, 42m in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3 – Committee recommendation

From the modelling presented in figures 3 and 4 it can be seen that shadowing from development in zone D2 at midday on 21st of June would occur on McCabe Street and the adjoining Public Open Space in the Minim Cove area. The shadowing of a building up to 25m or 29m in height in zone D2 would therefore have little effect on resident housing and would meet the “deemed to comply” criteria of the R-codes. Similarly, the indicative buildings in the modelling also show that the discretionary height of up to 25m in zone H3 would likely meet the “deemed to comply” criteria of the R-codes overshadowing requirements. The modelling of building height up to 42m in zone H2 however shows that shadowing would probably not meet the “deemed to comply” criteria of the R-codes if development occurred as per the indicative building modelled. On the contrary, the modelling of the height up to 33m in zone H2 shows the shadowing to be of similar impact to the shadowing that currently occurs from the existing building on site abutting the northern side of Coventry Parade. The property on the corner of Coventry Parade and Thompson Road (106 Thompson Road) has a density coding of R25, meaning for development in the H2 zone to meet the “deemed to comply” criteria of the R-codes the shadow cast at midday on the 21st of June is to be 25 per cent of the adjoining property’s site area or less. Any development proposed on site would be assessed on this requirement of the R-codes and limiting overshadowing of adjoining property could be achieved through design of the development e.g. a stepping down in height to this side. Nonetheless, if zone H2 is to have a discretionary building height of up to 42m, very careful design


Page 22

would be required to mitigate the impact of shadowing on adjoining properties to acceptable levels. Visual Impact of Building Height Zone H2 (former Matilda Bay site) In the previous report to Council (23 July 2014) officers recommended zone H2 be limited to a discretionary building height of 33m. The reason for this recommendation was:

a. Due to topography of the area the 33m building height in zone H2 would be of similar height to the 25m discretionary height already allowed in the policy for the One Steel (140 Stirling Highway) and 25m discretionary height proposed in the officer’s recommendation for zone D2 on the Taskers (15 McCabe Street) site.

b. Zone H2 is centrally located in the policy area directly behind the former Matilda Bay Brewery heritage building well away from existing residential properties and Stirling Highway. The central location of a taller building in the area limits the impact of future development in zone H2 on view corridors and streetscape.

The modelling and indicative views provided in attachment 2 and 3 illustrate, from different vantage points, what an indicative building of up to 33m or alternatively 42m in height in zone H2 could look like. Based on the indicative building modelled, officers consider the additional discretionary height of up to 42m in zone H2 to have no materially greater impact on view corridors and streetscape than a building of 33m. The additional nine metres (up to 42m) of height would however (as discussed above) cast a greater shadow and be taller overall than the building heights allowed on the One Steel site (corner McCabe Street and Stirling Highway) and proposed on the Tasker’s site. However, officers acknowledge that there is potential scope to allow for a building height of up to 42m in zone H2 where overshadowing is kept to a minimum, and has been demonstrated to do so through submission of satisfactory design details. Accordingly while officers recommend that generally within the policy the discretionary building height in zone H2 should be maintained at 33m (where the proposed criteria can be met), an additional policy provision is further recommended that would allow Council further discretionary authority to consider supporting additional height of up to 42m; but only in circumstances where a structure plan has formally been submitted and includes satisfactory design details and justification for a building of this height as part of comprehensive planning proposals for the former Matilda Bay Brewery site as a whole. Because a structure plan would be subject to further public consultation in its own right prior to determination by Council, any decision to approve a building of up to 42m in height would only be made after the local community had been able to consider such a proposal with the benefit of additional details of general building form and design and had opportunity to submit comments on the merits of such a proposal for Council’s consideration. This additional proposed policy provision is outlined below. Proposed new paragraph 4.2.5 in the last section of the policy under “Specific Requirements Additional to General Policy Provisions”


Page 23

Height Zone H2 – Notwithstanding the general maximum building height and discretionary additional height provisions contained in other parts of this policy, at the time of determination of a structure plan relating to the whole of the former Matilda Bay Brewery site Council may at its discretion support development up to 42m above ground level, in this zone only, where the information provided as part of the structure plan includes sufficient details of the design of the proposed building(s) in this zone to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that:

(1) shadows cast by the building(s) will comply with the applicable “Deemed to Comply” provisions of the Residential Design Codes relating to solar access for adjoining sites; and

(2) all of the provisions applicable to development in zone H2 as stated in paragraphs 4.1.5 and 4.2.2 of this policy are complied with.

Zone D2 (Taskers Site) The modelling and indicative views provided in attachment 2 and 3 illustrate, from different vantage points, what an indicative building of up to 25m (previous officer recommendation) and 29m (previous Committee resolution) in height in zone D2 could look like. The modelling is based on a previous approval given for a building on the Tasker’s site. Officers considered it reasonable to assume that any future building in zone D2 would be of a similar footprint to what was previously approved with a height of up to 25m or 29m. The previously approved building (and subsequently the building modelled) has a long footprint that runs parallel to McCabe Street to take advantage of the river views. The 29m building height limit coupled with the long building footprint and prominent location on McCabe Street results in a quite dominant building in the streetscape. Comparatively, development up to 33 or 42m in zone H2 is less dominant as it has a lower ground level overall and is centrally located on the site behind retained buildings of 15-16m in height. Of course building bulk can be ameliorated through articulation of the façade and other design aspects, however on balance officers consider that the 25m height limit portrayed in the modelling on zone D2 is a sufficient height limit for the site as it allows for a little extra height without being over dominant in the area. Accordingly officers recommend the discretionary building height of zone D2 be limited to 25m. CONCLUSION The purpose of the LPP3.11 McCabe Street Height Policy review is to facilitate the capacity for comprehensive redevelopment in the development area in line with the State government’s strategic direction whilst at the same time limiting the impact of new built form on the established view corridors in the area. In light of the modelling provided, officers consider a modified version of their previous recommendation to be appropriate. This retains the previously recommended discretionary building height limits of up to 25m in zone D2, 25m in zone H3 and 33m in zone H2; however a new policy provision is additionally recommended that would allow Council further discretionary authority to consider supporting additional height of up to 42m in zone H2, but only in circumstances where a structure plan has formally been submitted and includes satisfactory design details and justification for a building of this height as part of comprehensive planning proposals for the former Matilda Bay Brewery


Page 24

site as a whole, and after such a structure plan has been the subject of further community consultation. Alternatively, if Council consider the previous committee recommendation to be more appropriate, the following amendments to the officer’s recommendation would be required:

Clause 4.1.5 to specify a maximum building height of 29 metres instead of 25 metres in zone D2;

Clause 4.1.5 to specify a maximum building height of 42 metres instead of 33 metres in zone H2; and

Delete proposed new paragraph 4.2.5 that would allow for height up to 42m in zone H2 to be considered at the structure plan stage as it would no longer be relevant.


That Council: 1. Notes the submission received as detailed in the previous Officer’s report 23

July 2014 (attachment 4) and schedule of submissions (attachment 1); and 2. Adopts amended local planning policy Local Planning Policy 3. 11 – McCabe

Street Area, North Fremantle - Height of New Buildings, in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11

MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE - HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS

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

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


Page 25

1.2 The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the

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

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

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

2.2 Council will apply the policy in determining applications for planning

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


Page 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.2 Maximum building height will be measured as the vertical distance in metres

from ground level to the highest part of the main building structure, irrespective of whether that part of the structure is a wall, parapet or roof.

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

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

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

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

4.1.5 Council may approve planning proposals involving variations to the

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


Page 27

Minor projections above the highest part of the main building structure may be permitted subject to the criteria in clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4

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

In the part of Zone D that is within 60 metres of the eastern boundary of the Stirling Highway road reserve on the north side of McCabe Street, a building of a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council at its discretion subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent. (b) The development must incorporate non-residential ground floor uses that contribute to the function of the locality as an activity and/or tourist node; (c) The development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (d) The design of the development must perform the urban design function of an ‘entry statement’ into the City of Fremantle, including design qualities that convey a contemporary coastal aesthetic informed by the local context of North Fremantle and the Indian Ocean foreshore; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

In the areas designated zone H2 and zone H3 on the policy map behind the former Matilda Bay brewery building a development with a maximum height of 33 metres in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3 may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent.


Page 28

(b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building; (d)The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle. (f) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height in zones H2 and H3 must not occupy more than 60% of the total combined land area of zone H2 and H3, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area of zone H2 and H3.

In the part designated zone D2 on the policy map fronting McCabe Street at 9 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, a development with a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent. (b) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (c) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

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

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

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

impact upon the Matilda Bay Brewing Company building (former Ford Motor


Page 29

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.5 Height Zone H2 – Notwithstanding the general maximum building height and discretionary additional height provisions contained in other parts of this policy, at the time of determination of a structure plan relating to the whole of the former Matilda Bay Brewery site Council may at its discretion support development up to 42m above ground level, in this zone only, where the information provided as part of the structure plan includes sufficient details of the design of the proposed building(s) in this zone to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that:

(a) shadows cast by the building(s) will comply with the applicable “Deemed to Comply” provisions of the Residential Design Codes relating to solar access for adjoining sites; and

(b) all of the provisions applicable to development in zone H2 as stated in paragraphs 4.1.5 and 4.2.2 of this policy are complied with.


Page 30


Page 31

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

PSC1410-152 NO.29 (LOT 3) LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD, NORTH FREMANTLE FOUR X FIVE STOREY (208 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, & 3 SHOP TENANCIES) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK DEVELOPMENT (JL DAP80003/14)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No.29 (Lot 3) Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle

Application Details: Four x Five (5) Storey (207 Multiple Dwellings & Shop) with Basement Car Park Development

DAP Name: Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: Mirvac Pty Ltd

Owner: City of Fremantle

LG Reference: DAP80003/14

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Statutory Planning

Department of Planning File No: DP/14/00558

Report Date: 09 September 2014

Application Receipt Date: 09 June 2014

Application Process Days: 90 Days (One extension of time granted to 2 October 2014)

Attachment 1: Amended Plans having been received by the City on the 8 September 2014– DA-000 Rev A, DA-001 Rev C, DA-003 Rev A, DA-004 Rev D, DA-005 Rev C, DA-006 Rev B, DA-007- Rev B, DA-008 Rev B, DA-009 Rev B, DA-022 Rev B, DA-023 Rev B, DA-024 Rev A, DA-025 Rev A, DA-026 Rev A, DA-030 Rev A, DA-031 Rev A, DA-032 Rev A, DA – 033 Rev A, DA-040 Rev A, DA-041 Rev A, DA-050 Rev A, DA-051 Rev A, DA-052 Rev A, DA-055 Rev A, DA-056 Rev A, DA-057 Rev A.

Attachment 2: Schedule of Public Submissions

Attachment 3: Design Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting minutes – 13 March 2014 and 7 July 2014

Attachment 4: Site and Immediate locality Photo’s

Attachment 5: External Referral Response A) Fremantle Port Authority, B) Department of Environment and

Regulations, and C) Main Roads Western Australia.


Page 32

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

APPROVE DAP Application reference DP/14/00558 (City of Fremantle reference DAP80003/14), having been received by the City of Fremantle on the 8 September 2014 DA-000 Rev A, DA-001 Rev C, DA-003 Rev A, DA-004 Rev D, DA-005 Rev C, DA-006 Rev B, DA-007- Rev B, DA-008 Rev B, DA-009 Rev B, DA-022 Rev B, DA-023 Rev B, DA-024 Rev A, DA-025 Rev A, DA-026 Rev A, DA-030 Rev A, DA-031 Rev A, DA-032 Rev A, DA – 033 Rev A, DA-040 Rev A, DA-041 Rev A, DA-050 Rev A, DA-051 Rev A, DA-052 Rev A, DA-055 Rev A, DA-056 Rev A, DA-057 Rev A, in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, subject the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green

star standard as per Local Planning Policy L.P.P2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle when a green star rating tool is not available. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing and/or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle: a) A copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia

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

b) A copy of agreed equivalent documentation 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.

5. The applicant shall comply with Australian Standard AS2107-2000 through

the use of appropriate acoustic attenuation measures, such measures to be implemented prior to occupation of the development.


Page 33

6. No earth works shall encroach onto the Curtin Avenue reserve. 7. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation

within the Curtin Avenue reservation. 8. No vehicle access shall be permitted to or from the Curtin Avenue reserve. 9. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant/ owner shall enter into a

legal agreement with the City of Fremantle to ensure active, commercial ground floor land uses are provided on the portion of land marked “Hotel (Subject to separate future development application)” on DA-001 rev C plan dated 8 September 2014, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

documentation demonstrating sufficient access for emergency service vehicles to the basement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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

12. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the Applicant is to undertake a

transport noise assessment in accordance with the guidelines of the WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs in implementing the recommendations of the report.

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

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

a) Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement

for final facade finishes. b) Details of the deep soil planting areas to facilitate the planting of

trees that are able to grow large and provide effective canopies. c) Details of additional openings and/or articulation on the east and

west facing facades of building A, C and D.

14. 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, and maintained on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 34

15. Prior to occupation, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

16. Prior to occupation, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of

Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development prior to occupation advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to existing arterial Primary Regional Road and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with typical residential zoned land.

17. Construction related activates are to meet the requirements of Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites unless otherwise approved by the City.

Advisory note(s):

i. In accordance with Section 400 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous

Provisions) Act 1960, approval may be required from the relevant Minister for certain structures erected on or over the road reserve.

ii. Main Roads WA wishes to advise that the proposed future direct access

from the subject development to Curtin Avenue (Walter Place) via an easement over Lots 5 and 6 is not supported at this time, and will require further investigation by Main Roads WA following the submission and referral of an application for development of these lots.

iii. A dust management plan for the site should be provided to the City’s Environmental Health department prior to development commencing onsite.

iv. In relation to condition 12 that requires an acoustic report, if any of the

proposed commercial developments are to be restaurants or other similarly noisy businesses they should be required to submit further acoustic reports to address the potential for the noise from their activities from impacting residents.

v. All noisy work on a construction site shall be limited to between 7am and

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


Page 35

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

vii. The proponent must make application to the Executive Director Environmental Health WA for any new public aquatic facility under regulation 5 of the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007 for policy and regulation enquiries contact the Environmental Health Directorate by email [email protected] or telephone 9388 4999 or contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9999.

viii.The proponent must make application to establish any food business so

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

ix. The applicant is advised that the City of Fremantle does not have the ability

to collect waste directly from the basement, and it is suggested a caretaker be employed to relocate bins to an external collection point. For further information, please contact City Works at the City of Fremantle.

Background:

Property Address: No. 29 (Lot 3) Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle

Zoning MRS: Urban Zone

LPS: Development Zone Area 5 – Development Area Development Plan 17

Use Class: Shop Multiple Dwelling

Development Scheme: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Lot Size: Lot 3 – 12664m2

Existing Land Use: Vacant Land

Value of Development: $75 million

The development site is located within and subject to Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas of LPS4. Specifically, the site is within North Fremantle Local Planning Area of Schedule 12. Additionally the subject site is zoned Development Area 5, Development Plan 17 under the provisions of LPS4.






Page 36

The subject site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List, but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under LPS4. The existing site is occupied by a sales Office to the north western corner of the property and the remaining area of the site being either vacant or used for temporary storage of construction equipment. The site consists of 12664m2, and is bound by Lot 6 and 5 to the south, Leighton Beach Boulevard to the west, Freeman Loop to the North and Curtin Avenue to the east of site. See ‘Attachment 4’ for site photos. Planning background to this allotment is as follows:

On 21 May 2007 the Western Australian Planning Commission endorsed a deposited plan for the site, resulting in the creation of 6 separate freehold lots (refer DA127244 & DA129703).

On 8 October 2008, the City granted planning approval for a 3 - 5 storey Commercial and residential development on site (refer DA392/08. The development encompassed - 83 Multiple dwellings of various sizes, a hotel consisting of 94 bedrooms and two ground level commercial tenancies. This application was never acted upon and planning approval has since lapsed.

Details: Outline of development application The applicants are seeking approval to construct four (4) x Five (5) Storey Multiple Dwelling buildings which incorporate 4 commercial tenancies to the ground floor at the corner of Leighton Beach Boulevard and Freeman Loop road reserve at No.29 Leighton Beach Boulevard (Lot 3). The most recent submitted amended plans dated 8 September 2014, include the following works: Building A (Building fronting Freeman Loop)

o 67 Multiple Dwellings (30 x Single bedroom and 37 x Two bedroom ) - Two

of the ground floor 1 bedroom Multiple Dwellings being convertible to commercial use,

o 150m2 commercial (Shop) tenancy ground floor North western corner,

o Basement level – 99 car parking bays (inclusive of 50 tandem car bays),

o Nil bicycle bays,

o 67 x 4m2 storerooms, residential bin storage, general plant service rooms,

and

o Basement car park entry of Right of carriageway between lot 5 and lot 3.


Page 37

Building B (Building fronting Leighton Beach Boulevard)

o 42 Multiple Dwellings (29 x Two bedroom and 13 x Three bedroom),

o 332m2 commercial (Shop) tenancies (over three tenancies) ground floor

North western corner),


o 26 bicycle bays,

o 43, x 4m2 storerooms, residential bin storage, general plant service rooms,

and

o Basement car park entry of Right of carriageway between lot 5, 6 and lot 3.

Building C and D (Building fronting Lot 5 and Lot 6)

o 98 Multiple Dwellings (41 x Single bedroom and 57x Two bedroom),


o 28 bicycle bays,

o 98 x 4m2 storerooms, residential bin storage, general plant service rooms,

and

o Basement car park entry of Right of carriageway between lot 5, 6 and lot 3.

Summary of complete development

Demolition of existing buildings;

Construction of four (4) x five (5) Storey Multiple Dwelling buildings with basement car park

o 207 Multiple dwellings (71 - single bedroom, 123 - two bedroom, and 13 -

three bedroom), with 2 ground floor Multiple Dwelling units (Fronting Freeman Loop) being convertible to Commercial tenancies;

o 4 x Commercial tenancies (equating to approx 482m2 Shop and

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

development on the site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 10 & 12 of LPS4.

State Government Policies:

DCP5.4 Road and Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning

State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes)


Page 38

City of Fremantle LPS4 Provisions: The following Scheme provisions are considered the most relevant in the consideration of the planning application:

Table 2 - Zoning;

Table 3 – Vehicle Parking requirements;

Clause 4.2.1(h) - Objectives for the Development Zone;

Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking requirements;

Clause 5.8.2 – Discretionary clause to vary other requirements;

Clause 5.8.4 – Additional criteria that must be taken into consideration by Council in excising its powers under clause 5.8.1.1;

Clause 5.15 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures;

Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee;

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions;

Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area North Fremantle; and

Schedule 14 – Development plan 17 (DP3A and DP3B). Local Planning Policies The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3)

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles Of Design

Local Planning Policy 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3)

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13);

DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines

Consultation: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 28 days with completion of advertising period being 18 July 2014. The advertising within this period included:

Signs on site were erected to the frontage of the existing lot 3 to Leighton Beach Boulevard (west) and Curtin Avenue (to the South and East);

Letter to owners and occupiers within 100m of the site;

Advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website;

the Precinct Groups were informed of the proposal; and

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 24 June 2014 and 1 July 2014.


Page 39

A Community Information session was held on the 01 July 2014 from 5.30pm. Land owners/occupiers within a 100m radius of the site and elected members were invited to attend the Community Information Session. The session was attended by approximately 20 members of the public and three City of Fremantle Councillors. At the conclusion of the community consultation period being 18 July 2014, a total of 18 submissions were received by the City. Specific comments about each submission are included in ‘Attachment 2’. The amended plans received 30 June 2014 and 8 September 2014 were not re advertised as the proposed changes merely related to minor changes to the internal layout of some Multiple Dwelling units. Department of Environment and Conservation (DER) As the subject property has a memorial registered (Remediated for restricted use) against the site, under section 58(a) & (b) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, the application has been forwarded to the Department of Environment and Regulations (DER) for comments. On 11 July 2014, DER provided a response stating they had no objection to the proposal as the development does not extend into the groundwater table (approximately 5.5m below ground level) and the memorial is transferred to the new Certificate of Titles for the proposed lots. An advice note has been added to the recommendation for approval to remind the applicant of their obligation under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. See ‘Attachment 5’ for complete copy of DER referral response. Consultation with Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) The subject land is affected by a Primary Regional Road category 1 road reservation (Curtin Avenue) pursuant to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The application was referred to MRWA for comment who support the application subject to the following conditions and advice: 1) No earthworks shall encroach onto the Curtin Avenue reserve. 2) No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Curtin Avenue reserve. 3) The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within

the Curtin Avenue reservation. 4) No vehicle access shall be permitted to or from the Curtin Avenue reserve. 5) The Applicant is to undertake a transport noise assessment in accordance with the

guidelines of the WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs in implementing the recommendations of the report.

Advice to the Applicant and the City of Fremantle: a) Main Roads WA wishes to advise that the proposed future direct access from the

subject development to Curtin Avenue (Walter Place) via an easement over Lots 5 and 6 is not supported at this time, and will require further investigation by Main Roads WA following the submission and referral of an application for development of these lots.


Page 40

b) With respect to Condition NO.5, special consideration should be given to the additional noise amelioration measures that may be required for multi-storey dwellings.c) The landowner/applicant is advised that Condition No. 4 shall also apply to the development of the lot area annotated on the application plans as a future Hotel site and being subject to a separate development application.

The above conditions and advice have been added to the Officers Recommendation. See ‘Attachment 5’ for complete copy of MRWA referral response. Consultation with Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The site is located within Area 3 of the Fremantle Port buffer area. Whilst its acknowledged that typically property located within Area 3 buffer zone are not normally referred to FPA for consultation, given the site falls into a specific location within this area that known to be impacted from port operations (e.g. through a history of formal complaints), the City has invited FPA to review the proposal and provide comments necessary. FPA advised the City in a letter dated 2 July 2014 that stated the following:

It is suggested that a condition on the approval require a memorial to be placed on the title advising:

Of the proximity of the site to the port, and that the port operates 24 hours, 7 days a week.

That the site is located adjacent to Curtin Avenue which is a primary freight route that services Fremantle Inner Harbour, and carries significant road freight traffic.

It is suggested that the proposal be assessed for compliance with the WAPC’s State Planning Policy: Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations. This policy provides guidance on measures that can be implemented to ameliorate the impacts of transport noise on noise sensitive developments.

See ‘Attachment 5’ for complete copy of FPA referral response. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 3 occasions:

13 March 2014 –Concept Design only;

15 May 2014 – no quorum of members; and

7 July 2014 – Amended Development plans (30 June 2014) The recommendations from these DAC meetings are reproduced below: 13 March 2014

The design is not yet supported however it is acknowledged that the applicant is undertaking further design work prior to the formal lodgement of a planning application.


Page 41

15 May 2014 The application was also presented before the DAC on 15 May 2014, but as a quorum of members wasn’t available with the DAC the following comments were individual’s opinions, rather than DAC’s comments on the proposal:

The Committee remains generally supportive of the proposal, specifically in terms of overall design quality. However, the main concern of the Committee, as previously advised, is the lack of ground floor commercial area as mandated by the design guidelines.

During a previous presentation of this project, the proponents agreed to the Committee’s proposal to build in the capacity to convert ground floor units facing Freeman Loop to commercial tenancies in the future. This involved building a higher ground floor, suitable for commercial tenancy, and inserting a raised floor for residential purposes. At the presentation prior to this meeting, the Committee acknowledged that current conditions may make it commercially unfavourable to provide additional commercial space, but made the suggestion to convert the most western of these units, flanking the walkway into the project’s courtyard, into a commercial unit. This was proposed as a means of providing additional commercial space and also to cue, with an example, the subsequent conversion of additional residential units. It is acknowledged that an extra retail tenancy has been proposed, as an extension to the retail unit already provided to the N-W corner of the project. However, this provision only partially meets the intentions behind the Committee’s proposal. It does not cue subsequent conversion of the ground floor residential units and it does not take advantage of the commercial potential of a unit on the corner of the walkway. It also leads to a poorer architectural outcome, with the closing of the walkway gap at ground level and the reduced definition of the major residential blocks. The Committee urged the adoption of its previous suggestion of provision of commercial space in preference to what had been proposed.

Although the Committee is disappointed in the number of south facing appointments in terms of solar orientation, it is acknowledged that the E/W long axis of the site make this issue difficult to resolve.

The separation of the provision of the hotel from the major development creates a lack of certainly about securing an active commercial frontage. This is a shortcoming in an approach where a significant discretion is being sought in relation to the ground floor mandatory commercial area.

7 July 2014

It is acknowledged that since the DAC last considered the proposal in May 2014, an additional north facing commercial unit has been provided and 2 north facing residential units have been made convertible for commercial use. This change is supported subject to an additional 3 north facing units closest to the proposed hotel site (units A0.06, A0.07 and A1.08) also being made convertible.


Page 42

RECOMMENDATION The design is supported subject to the following condition: Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle having regard to advice of the Design Advisory Committee relating to:

a) Ground floor north facing Units 6, 7 and 8 being converted to “commercial adaptable units” the same as units 2 and 3.

b) additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

c) Details of the deep soil planting areas to facilitate the planting of trees that are able to grow large and provide effective canopies

d) Details of additional openings and/or articulation on the east and west facing facades of building A, C and D.

The above condition of approval has been added to the Officers Recommendation with the exception of point a, as the applicant has proposed an alternative that is considered to satisfy the intent of the condition. For further information, see the land use discussion in the Planning Assessment section of the report. A complete copy of the minutes from these DAC meetings can be viewed in ‘Attachment 4’ of this report. Internal Environmental Health Department Review The City’s Environmental Health Department have reviewed the proposal and advise the following:

A dust management plan for the site should be provided prior to development commencing onsite,

Additionally the acoustic report deals with the potential impact from noise and vibration associated with road, rail, between party walls and some plant and equipment associated with the building. If any of the proposed commercial developments are to be restaurants or other similarly noisy businesses they should be required to submit further acoustic reports to address the potential for the noise from their activities from impacting residents.

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

The proponent must make application during the Building License application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the


Page 43

City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9999.

The proponent must make application to the Executive Director Environmental Health WA for any new public aquatic facility under regulation 5 of the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007 for policy and regulation enquiries contact the Environmental Health Directorate by email [email protected] or telephone 9388 4999 or contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9999.

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

Internal Technical Service’s Department Review The City’s Technical Service Department reviewed the application and supporting documentation and provided the following comments on the proposal:

More information is required about emergency vehicle movements;

Will the access way remain a private road or come to the City?

The additional access onto Walter Pl is undesirable and should be amended ;

No proposal given for storm water treatment, standard condition requested. Internal Parks and Landscapes Department Review The planning application was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscapes department and Parks and Gardens were supportive of all internal landscaping works. Internal City Works Department Review City works were contacted in relation to the proposed onsite waste management (bin storage and rubbish collection) with the proposed development. City works advised of the following:

A condition requiring the submission of a waste management plan prior to the issue of a building permit is requested.

Manoeuvrability issues for waste collection in basement (confined space with high number of cars and people to negotiate), with the City not in possession of a suitable truck for collection in the basement

Suggested that all rubbish must be managed by a caretaker who is to be responsible for all waste bins to a collection point external to the building weekly.






Page 44

The above comments have been included as either conditions of approval or advice notes in the Officers Recommendation. Planning Assessment: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Zone Objectives and Land Use The development site is within Development Area 5 of a Development Zone, in the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. In accordance with Schedule 14 – Development Plan 17 (DP17);

1. Land use and development in accordance with the Leighton Marshalling Yards Planning Guidelines Development Area Structure Plan, December 2003.

2. Investigation potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC.

In addition to the foregoing provision, development shall also be subject to the provisions of Development Plan 17 (DP17) in Schedule 14.

The objectives for DP17 as listed in Schedule 14 of LPS4 are as follows: Environmental

Reduction in household energy demand;

Minimise water use where practicable;

Endeavour to reduce total per capita residential waste going to landfill by encouraging recycling;

Reduce private car use and encourage the use of public transport and pedestrian and bicycle movement;

Provide reduced on-site parking requirements;

Transport initiatives to be integrated into local and regional transport systems;

Develop a comprehensive and accessible direct pedestrian and road system that connect the railway station to the beach;

Minimise potential risks to human health from contaminated land within the development area;

Minimise potential amenity impacts from surrounding industrial land uses and transport infrastructure on future development and occupants; and

Minimise potential risks to public safety from surrounding industrial uses. Economic

Achieve the highest level economic activity and employment opportunities within the development by encouraging commercial and residential uses.

Social

To create a proud and vibrant addition to the existing North Fremantle community. The above objectives are met through the compliance with the requirements outlined in the City’s LPS4, Local Planning Policies and R-Codes as discussed in further detail below.


Page 45

The subject site is located within Precinct DP3A and DP3B, and the preferred and potential land uses provided on site are as follows:

Precinct Preferred Potential

DP3A Multiple Dwelling Shop

Nil

DP3B Multiple Dwelling Shop

Nil (Hotel proposed as part of separate DA)

Other requirements related to land use for the site are listed as follows:

Precinct Other requirements (Sch. 14)

Provided Discretion Sought

DP3A Ground floor commercial frontage mandatory and upper floor commercial uses encouraged within areas shown cross-hatched on Figure 3. Ground floor commercial frontage and upper floor commercial uses encouraged within areas shown hatched on Figure 3.

Proposed Commercial tenancy only occupies approximately 45% of the Western mandatory portion on the ground floor;

No commercial uses are proposed on upper floors;

No Commercial uses proposed in “encouraged area”.

Discretion Sought

DP3B Ground floor commercial frontage mandatory and upper floor commercial uses encouraged within areas shown cross-hatched on Figure 3. Ground floor commercial frontage and upper floor commercial uses encouraged within areas shown hatched on Figure 3.

Commercial tenancies occupy approximately 75% of the mandatory portion of the Northern frontage.

A convertible residential unit and pedestrian access way, make up the remainder of the mandatory portion.

An additional convertible residential unit has been provided in the encouraged portion.

No commercial tenancies are proposed on upper floors.

Discretion Sought

An excerpt from DP17 indicating required mandatory vs encouraged commercial ground floor frontage for DP3A and DP3B areas is detailed below (refer to double hatched area).


Page 46

Note: According to the scale provided for this map in LPS4, the mandatory commercial frontage area for DP3A and DP3B consists of approximately 50m along the western and northern boundaries from the north west corner of site and extends 10m into the subject site (see below diagrams).


Page 47

Commercial Frontage


Page 48

A number of the objectives of the City’s LPS4 and the Leighton Design Guidelines have been listed as:

promote active retail uses at street level within appropriate locations through the development as indicated on the structure plan and detailed are plan (refer figure under ‘Land Use’ section of report); and

promoting commercial activity that will strengthen the connection between the railway station and the beach, and

promoting building design that is flexible enough to accommodate changes in land use over time in response to market demands.

To attempt to address this issue, the proposed development includes some of the:

mandatory required commercial tenancies within the north-western portion of the development and for the entire northern elevation area indicated in Schedule 14;

Limited western elevation commercial frontage, and

As an alternative, the applicant is proposing two ground floor one bedroom units facing the Freeman Loop (north) extending beyond the mandatory area as outlined in Schedule 14 to be adaptable commercial units should the market respond to this land use in the future.

The applicant has advised that they have proposed a development which complies with the intent of the objectives of DP17 of LPS4, but it’s also acknowledged that the extent of commercial ground floor area is at a lesser extent to that shown in Schedule 14. Justification provided by the applicant with their initial submission for the reduction in mandatory commercial ground floor tenancies is as follows (excerpt):

The provision of commercial floor space is considered appropriate in terms of street activation and the development will respond effectively to the key interface with Leighton Beach Boulevard and Freeman Loop This is consistent with the intent of the objective relating to the provision of active street level uses and therefore it is considered that the minor variation to the extent of floor space provided is appropriate, noting that the development standards prescribed in DP17 can be varied where consistent with the stated objectives,

It is also noted that the future hotel development will include ground floor commercial tenancies, which will provide further activation of the streetscape, and that provision of additional commercial floor space as part of this development is not viable. The proposed development achieves an appropriate and compatible mix of land uses that will enhance the Leighton Development Area as a destination for the general public and encourage public enjoyment of the unique coastal location.

Further discussions and agreement with the applicant have resulted in a condition for a legal agreement between the applicant and City of Fremantle, to ensure the proposed Hotel (to be lodged as a separate application), incorporates active Commercial land uses on the ground floor.

Clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 states – 5.8.2.1 The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:


Page 49

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with

the locality generally;

The relocation of some of the mandatory Commercial component to the north eastern corner of the site as part of a future development application will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties, as it will largely abut the rail way line. It is considered, that the future businesses occupying the hotel site will benefit from its proximity to the North Fremantle train station and subsequent foot traffic through to Leighton Beach. Additionally, the Hotel and commercial land uses will increase activation in the area providing additional surveillance to the Train Station and public spaces in the Leighton Beach area. b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and There are no buildings on the site or in the immediate locality that have been assessed to be of heritage significance. c) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. The application has been assessed against the City’s Local Planning Policies and is considered to be supportable with conditions. Overall the proposal is a positive addition to the locality and contributes to the desire to activate the Leighton Beach area.

Building Height The development site is located within DP17 and is subject to the specific building height controls set out in Schedule 14 for precincts 3A and 3B. Application of the height controls is shown below in the Building Height Table:

Maximum Building Height

Area Permitted

Provided

Discretion Sought

AHD

3A 20.5 AHD

20.0 - 23.75 AHD (Building B)

Discretion sought up to 3.75m

3B 26.5AHD 23.75 AHD (Building C &D) 24.05 (Building A)

Complies

Stories 3A 3 5 (Building B)

Discretion sought

3B 5 5 (Building A, C & D)

Complies


Page 50

Accordingly, the proposal is required to be assessed against the provisions of Clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 and objectives of DP17 of LPS4. The proposed built form for DP3A is considered to:

be consistent with the existing Stage 1 development located on the adjacent northern lot,

respond with a vibrant and highly public domain along the western, northern and southern boundaries;

respond with a continuous and active urban wall that defines the principle edge of the precinct onto the street along the southern boundary;

respond in an appropriate manner to the adjacent lot 1 and adjoining Lot 5; and

orientate in a civic and orderly matter along the western southern and northern boundary; and

satisfactory integrate the two precincts within Lot 3 (DP3A and DP3B) with one another.

Ultimately, the proposed built form is considered to satisfactorily address the criteria of cl 5.8.2 and DP17 objectives by simply providing an adequate yet alternative solution. Plot ratio

Precinct Maximum Requirement

Proposed Discretion Sought

DP3A 2:1 1.9:1 Complies

DP3B 3:1 2.1:1 Complies

Car parking Note that the applicant has advised that despite there being an overall car parking surplus, no car bays have been allocated for the proposed Shop use.

Required Total Provided

Discretion Sought

Shop 1: 20m2 nla (410m2 of nla area proposed) = 23 bays

Nil

21

Bicycle Racks – Class 1:1 per 300m2 gla = 2

Nil 2

Multiple dwelling

1 bay per 1 bedroom dwelling =71

333 Complies

1.5 bay per all other dwellings =205.5 (206) (TOTAL 277)

Complies (TOTAL 56 bay surplus)

Relaxation to Onsite parking

Requirements Sought

Onsite Car bays

Bike Racks

21 bays

Nil


Page 51

Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 2, and it is considered that the parking requirements are satisfied against the following clauses -

Council may—

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

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking,

(ii) the availability of public transport in the locality,

(viii) any other relevant considerations.

In summary, the discretion relating to onsite parking provisions is only sought for the proposed Shop tenancies. The development’s proximity to North Fremantle Train Station provides an opportunity to meet the objectives of Development Plan 17, relating to the reduction in private car use, the encouragement of the use of public transport and pedestrian and bicycle movement. Additionally, there are 56 additional bays provided in the basement, which can be allocated to the commercial tenancies, and a public parking area to the west should customers travel by car.

Additionally, LPS4 requires that two (2) Class 1 bicycle parking facilities are required on site for the Shop component of the development. Class 1 bicycle parking facilities are defined as:

High security level – Fully enclosed individual locker. In accordance with Clause 5.7.3.3: Council may waive the class 1 or 2 bicycle rack requirements of Table 2, where in the opinion of the Council, the development application is for a minor change of use. While the application is not strictly for a Change of Use, the applicant has provided 54 Class 3 bicycle racks (rails or racks to which both the bicycle frame and wheels can be locked), which is considered to more than sufficiently compensate for the lack of two fully enclosed lockers. The application is supported against vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. Visual Permeability Clause 5.5 of DP17 states that the building envelope across the entire site must achieve 40-50 percent east-west visual permeability above a three storey building height within DP3B. There is no specific percentage prescribed in DP17 for area DP3A, as the provisions never entertained development to exceed 3 storey’s. The application is proposing a ‘permeability zone’ across the central area of the site, over the three storey elements of the development, with five storey elements on each side. This has been calculated as having a 48 percent visual permeability which is within the


Page 52

envisaged acceptable range. This ‘permeability zone’ plan No.DA-040 is attached as part of ‘Attachment 1’. Environmental Management

Site Consultation With regards to the environmental provisions of DP17 under the City’s Scheme (clause 7.1), the application has been referred to DER, Fremantle Ports, Main Roads WA, the City’s Environmental Health department and Public Transport Authority who have requested conditions of approval and advice notes where relevant to protect future residents against site contamination, odour and noise. The applicant will also be required to address other relevant legislation with the above authorities during the Building Permit and construction phases of the development.

Noise and Vibration Pursuant to clause 7.2 of DP17, the applicant has submitted a noise and vibration report from an appropriate acoustic consultant stating that the development will comply, if not exceed all the requirements set out within all relevant Standards, Codes and Regulations. These reports were reviewed by the City’s Environmental Health Department who have confirmed the submitted reports and the findings are satisfactory, but additional comments were made in relation to the future uses of the convertible ground floor commercial units and that the report hasn’t taken the potential change of uses for these tenancies into account. A condition of approval has been included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’ to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements. Odour Clause 7.3 of DP17 requires that a notification be placed upon the titles of land informing future purchasers of potential odour nuisance due to the property’s proximity to Fremantle Port. A condition of approval has been included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’ to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements. Risk Hazard With regards to the risk hazard element, as outlined in clause 7.4 of DP17, the subject lot falls outside the 300metre radius from fuel storage facilities to the south, with the provisions contained within not being applicable to Lot 3. Road Network As prohibited under clause 8 of DP17 in LPS4, no vehicular access is proposed from Curtin Avenue. Vehicular access to the development is from Leighton Beach Boulevard. The Leighton Design Guidelines go on to identify a preferred access point to be via a


Page 53

shared access constructed between DP3A, DP3B, DP4 and DP5, through reciprocal rights of access, which the application has proposed. However the applicant is indicating vehicle access to Curtin Avenue to the south of site (“future access”), of which neither Main Roads WA or the City’s Technical Services department support. A condition of approval has been included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’ to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements. Residential Design Codes The application has been assessed against and complies with all relevant deemed to comply provision of part 6 of the R-Codes, with the exception of 6.3.1 outdoor living areas. Outdoor Living Area (balcony size) The proposal includes balconies within Building C and D that either do not meet the minimum 10m2 or the 2.4m minimum dimension requirements of the R-Codes. This merit based assessment matter is considered supportable against the Design Principle Criteria of 6.3.1 for the following reasons:

All outdoor living areas are capable of being used in conjunction with a habitable room;

The sizes of the outdoor living areas vary as do the sizes of apartments in the development. Despite some of the outdoor living areas being smaller in size (e.g. 8m2) they are still considered to meet the needs of the residents given the higher density nature of the development which is sought for the area in accordance with the precinct vision of DP17 of LPS4. Further, as the outdoor living areas range in size, the smaller outdoor living areas correspond with the smaller apartment plot ratio sizes; and

Where possible all outdoor living areas have access to winter sun.

Additional Planning Matters raised during the Consultation Process ‘Attachment 2’ contains a Schedule of Submissions (18 submissions received) with 13 raising concerns to the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions are either addressed in the report or are not relevant planning considerations as identified in the Schedule. Local Planning Policies Requirements The following Council Local Planning Policies are relevant to this proposal:

Local Planning Policy 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3)

Relevant conditions as requested by FPA is included as part of the ‘Officer’s Recommendation’.


Page 54

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13)

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.

The proposed development will result in a building with a gross lettable area which exceeds 1000m2 gla and therefore the provision of LPP2.13 are applicable. The applicant as part of the supporting documentation confirms that a 4 Star equivalent Green Star rating will be achieved for the proposal as required under the provisions of LPP2.13. Consequently, a condition of approval is recommended to ensure the proposal will comply with LPP2.13 requirements.

D.G.N14 - Leighton Design Guidelines

The Leighton Design Guidelines are an extension to the requirement of DP17 in Schedule 14. Discretions sought that are not covered by the DP17 discussion above are detailed below: Building performance

Requirement Provided Merit Based Assessment

60% of units capable of cross ventilation

GF -42% L1-L3 – 48%

L4 – 50%

REQUIRED

Less than 10% with south only orientation

GF -24 % L1-3 = 23%

L4 -25%

REQUIRED

Design elements to control summer sun

Louvers provided western elevation

Complies

Draught seals and weather stripping on openings

Not Stated Not provided

No use of rainforest timber None Proposed Complies

Analysis of lifecycle of materials

Provided Complies

3.5 Star NatHERS rating or above (building)

4 Star targeted – Wood and Grieves accredited

Sustainability Consultants

Complies

Motion sensors Not Stated Not provided

High star rated energy efficiency appliances

Not Stated ”

Building Management Manual for residents

Not Stated ”

Water saving devices ie flow regulators

Not Stated ”


Page 55

Rainwater collection and reuse

Not Stated ”

In regards to the requirements relating to cross ventilation and dwelling orientations, the proposed minor variations are considered acceptable as they are not considered to have an undue impact on the environmental performance of the overall development. It is also recognised that due to the lot dimensions and orientation, it would be difficult for any development on the site to achieve less 10% of apartments with a southern orientation. Of the remaining building performance requirements of DGN14, the City’s LPP 2.13 Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements will require the development to reach a 4 Star Green Star status or equivalent, which is considered to supercede the requirements of DGN14. As such, the development is supported against the building performance requirements of DGN14. Boundary setbacks North

Required Provided Merit Based Assessment

DP3A (Building B) GF – L2 - Nil Nil - 1.5m REQUIRED

L3 – No provision stipulated

Nil – 1.2m REQUIRED

L4 – No provision stipulated

1.6 – 2.1m REQUIRED

DP3B (Building A) L3-L4 No provision stipulated GF – L2 - Nil

GF – Nil L1 - L3 - Nil

Nil 1.9m

Complies REQUIRED

L4 – 3m 3m Complies

South


DP3A (Building B)

GF –L2 - 9m L3 -L4 – No Provision

stipulated

9m 9-12m

Complies REQUIRED

DP3B (Building C) GF – L3 - 9m L4 – 12m

9-12m 12m

Complies

DP3B (Building D) GF – L3 - 9m L4 – 12m

9-12m 12m

Complies

East


DP3A N/A N/A N/A

DP3B (Building D) GF – L3 - 3m L4 - 6m to wall of Building

3.6m 6m

Complies Complies


Page 56

West


DP3A (Building B) GF –Nil L1 - L2 Nil

L3 – No Provision stipulated

L4 - No Provision stipulated

Nil – 1.6m 1.6m -2.8m 1.6m – 2m

5.8m

REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED

DP3B N/A

Overall, these proposed setback variations are considered minor in nature and fundamentally the development is considered to be adequately articulated allowing the development to appropriately respond to its coastal environment and adjacent built form of the immediate locality. Conclusion: The application for four (4) five (5) storey Multiple Dwelling with four commercial tenancies development at No.29 (Lot 3) Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of the City’s LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant State and Local Planning Policies. The discretionary matters relating to building height, building performance, boundary setbacks, outdoor living area, car parking provisions and mandatory commercial are all considered supportable for the reasons outlined above in the ‘Planning Assessment’ section of this report. The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval.


Page 57

PSC1410-153 BROCKMAN PLACE NO.3 (LOT 44) - RESTAURANT BUILDING ADDITION - (JL DA0304/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 01 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA0255/13 – meeting 7 August 2013 (PSC) Attachment 1: Amended Development Plans Attachment 2: Applicant’s Letter Justification Letter Date Received: 20 June 2014 Owner Name: Allforrest Holdings Pty Ltd Submitted by: Harry Monaghan Architects Scheme: Mixed Use Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Industry Service & Single House Use Class: Industry Service, Single House & Restaurant Use Permissibility: D, A & A


Page 58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a Restaurant Building addition at No. 3 Brockman Place, South Fremantle. The application is presented before the Planning Service Committee (PSC) as relevant objections have been raised during the community consultation period which raise legitimate planning concerns which cannot be addressed via the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The application seeks Councils discretion in relation to the Restaurant use and a merit based assessment regarding car parking requirements of LSP4. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Mixed Use objectives contained within LPS4 and other relevant provisions of clause 10.2 – Matters to be considered by the Council. Consequently the proposed use is not anticipated to result in any significant amenity impacts on the surrounding area. On balance this application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned Mixed Use and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area as described in Schedule 12 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The site is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or listed on the Heritage List. The subject site is approximately 1473m2 and is located on the northern side of Brockman Place, South Fremantle. The site is improved by one industrial building to the west of site and a converted Industrial building to Single House on the east side of site. The site incorporates 8 onsite car bays for the existing land uses, with two being exclusively used for the Single House use onsite. On 11 March 2008 the City granted planning approval for the subject site for a change of use from Industry General to Industry Service (DA0424/08). The business operating from site supplies, fabricating services and provides retail catering equipment. The business currently operates from 8.00am to 4.00pm, Monday to Friday and from 8.00am to 12.00pm on Saturdays. On 13 August 2013, the City granted planning approval for a partial change of use from Industry Service to Single House and internal alterations to the existing eastern side building located on the property (refer DA0255/13). As part of Council’s determination of this application the approved Single House use is required to cease 5 years from the approval date being 13 August 2013. DETAIL

On 20 June 2014 the City received an application for a two storey restaurant building to be constructed between the existing Industry Service and Single House built form at No.3 (Lot 44) Brockman Place, South Fremantle (the site).


Page 59

The original proposed development incorporated a two storey sea container construction which consisted of approximately 90m2 floor area, with 65m2 dining area and 56 seats capacity. Early September, the applicant met with City Officers to discuss issues associated with the onsite car parking and objections received by the City during the community consultation period for this application On 16 September 2014, the applicant submitted amended plans reducing the overall seating capacity of 56 to 40. The amended plans indicate 13 on site car bays, with 3 of these bays exclusively set aside for the existing Single House use. However, of the proposed 13 onsite car bays only 8 bays meet the Australia & New Zealand standards. The applicant states that a maximum of 6 staff and 40 patrons will be present onsite at any one time. The proposed kitchen opening hours are to be between 6pm to 9pm – Tuesday – Friday and 12pm to 9pm Saturday and Sunday. Refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for a copy of the amended development plans for the proposal. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposed Restaurant use is classified as an ‘A’ use within a Mixed Use zone. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 July 2014, the City had received two (3) submissions. A summary of the planning issues raised are as follows:

Commercial Vehicle movements to and from the Mixed use precinct and safety

issues of the past,

Lack of onsite parking and security, and

Restaurant land use not complimentary to existing industrial land use operating area.

Further discussion relating to these concerns will be addressed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

STATUTORY, POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4. The proposed development includes merit based assessment in relation to on site car parking and land use. Assessment of these elements is included in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 60

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Vehicle Parking – All Classes The existing development onsite provides 7 onsite bays and 1 internal loading bay for the existing Industry service and Single House use of the property. The below Table indicates the additional car parking requirement as per Table 3 of LPS4 for the proposed Restaurant addition.

Use Requirement Additional Proposed bays

Merit Based Assessment

Restaurant

Onsite car bays = 12 5 7

Delivery bay = 1 bay 0 1

Bicycle Racks = Class 3 – 2 racks

6 Complies

The applicant seeks Council’s discretion under clause 5.7.3 of LPS4, for the short fall of 7 on site and 1 loading bay. The merit based assessment regarding the onsite and loading bay provisions are supported for the following reasons:

Due to the differing hours of operation between the existing Industry Service (8.00am to 4.00pm - Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12.00pm on Saturdays) and the proposed Restaurant kitchen opening hours between 6pm to 9pm – Tuesday – Friday and 12pm to 9pm Saturday and Sunday), the site will adequately provide for shared car parking facilities with 8 existing along with the proposed additional 5 onsite car bays and 4 additional onsite bicycle bays are considered to adequately provide for the envisaged car parking and general transportation provisions generated for these uses.

Additionally, whilst the additional loading bay is not specifically marked on the development plans, there is sufficient hardstand space available at the front of site to compensate for an additional loading bay when required.

Zones and the Use of Land LPS4 defines “Restaurant use:

‘Means premises where the predominant use is the sale and consumption of food and drink on the premises and where seating is provided for patrons, and includes a restaurant licensed under the liquor Control Act 1988 but does not include Hotel, Tavern, Small Bar, Licensed Premises-Other or Night Club.”

A Restaurant use is classified as an ‘A’ use within a Mixed Use zone under LPS4. 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 (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4.


Page 61

The objectives for a Mixed Use zone are as follows: (i) provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade

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

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

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

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

Furthermore in considering an ‘A’ use, Council should also have regard to the maters set out in Clause 10.2 of LPS4. In considering this application which includes an ‘A’ use, Council should be satisfied that the application addresses the specific objectives of the relevant zone and matters specified in Clause 10.2 of LPS4. The application was advertised to adjoining land owners in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and at the conclusion of the advertising period the City received three objections relating to the proposed Restaurant land use. Further discussion relating to the individual concerns will be included below. The site is already occupied by a two buildings one being utilised for ‘Industry Service’ use and the eastern building recently being converted to Single House use. The applicant is applying to construct a narrow sea container development for Restaurant use between the existing built forms located onsite. In relation to sub clause (i) above the proposal is considered to meet the requirements of the current objectives for a Mixed Use zone as both restaurant and café uses are activities specifically mentioned to be provided within such zones of LPS4. As mentioned in the City previous report for DA0255/13, the existing land use character of this Mixed Use zone currently consists of a mix of commercial and mainly industrial uses normally consistent with that of an Industrial zoned area of Fremantle. The eastern adjoining property is improved by a Single Storey Showroom/ Warehouse (Reece’s Plumbing Centre) and the western adjoining site is improved by a single storey Industry Service business, known as Total Cater Equipment also owned and operated by the applicant. To the north of site is a vacant premise previously used as a boat sales yard and adjacent to the south of site is an industrial building and storage yard. This mixed use zone consists of a small number of properties (14 in total), with the majority of these sites being developed and used for either commercial or industrial uses. Opposite Hampton Road to the East, this land is zoned Residential and a number of these properties are improved by either Single Houses, or Grouped Dwellings. Whilst it is considered to be an unusual mix of uses at present for a Mixed Use zone, the introduction of an entertainment use class such as Restaurant is generally considered to be a desired and sympathetic use typically found within a Mixed Use zone.


Page 62

In terms of assessing the compatibility of the proposed use with the existing adjoining properties and the associated current uses, it is acknowledged that the proposed entertainment use may not be considered compatible within this particular Mixed Use zone due to the predominate existing surrounding commercial and industrial uses of the area. However, in determining what the existing predominate land use of the immediate locality is, again this is also considered difficult as there appears to be a 50/50 mix of residential and non residential land uses. The immediate locality is considered to include three separate Development Zones (Development Area 2 – Daly, Hollis Street tip site South Fremantle Landfills Sites, Development Area 19 – Clontarf Hill & Development Area 14 – Strang Court Area). This immediate South Fremantle area does include a number of sites to the east and north-east (within the Strang Court Development Area) which has numerous existing residential and commercial land uses onsite today. Additionally, it must also be noted that Restaurant land uses can and do cohesively exist within other Mixed Use zones within Fremantle. Currently the level of amenity of the locality is one typically associated with industrial/ commercial areas. This is typically not a level associated with entertainment land use such as restaurants and cafes, but as mentioned previously this mix of uses can and do cohesively operate together within other Mixed Use zones of Fremantle. Whilst its acknowledged that this is an unusual location for such an entertainment use class and that the predominate existing land use character of this Mixed Use zone is more likely associated with that of an Industry zone, the proposed land use is considered to adhere to the objectives of a Mixed Use zone as prescribed in LPS4. In summary, it’s considered that if approved, this use would not prejudice the amenity of the immediate locality, and as such Council could entertain such an application. Notwithstanding the above, in addition to satisfying the Mixed Use objectives of LPS4, Council is also required to take into considerations matters under clause 10.2 of LPS4 in determining this application. Specifically the most relevant sections of cl10.2 relate to sub clause (a), (b), (i) and (o). These sub clauses of 10.2 read as follows:

(a) the aims, zoning objectives and provisions of this Scheme and any other relevant planning Scheme(s) operating within the Scheme area, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme,

(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any relevant

proposed new local planning Scheme or amendment, or region Scheme or amendment, which has been granted consent for public submissions to be sought,

(i) the compatibility of a use or development within its setting,

(o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality,


Page 63

Sub clause (a), (i) and (o) of 10.2, directly relate to the provisions outlined and discussed above in the Mixed Use objective provisions. Sub clause (b) requires Council in determining an application to consider any Scheme Amendment which has been granted consented for public submission for orderly and proper planning purposes. Specifically relating to this application, Amendment 54 to LPS4 was adopted by Council on 22 May 2013. Proposed Amendment 54 includes amending the objective of the Mixed Use zone, clause 4.2.1(e) (i) to read as follows: ‘Development within the mixed use zone shall –

(i) provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones;

(ii) provide for residential at upper level, and also at ground level providing the residential component is designed to contribute positively to an active public domain;

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

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

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

With regards to proposed sub clause (iii) to (iv) above, these remain the same as currently provided within the Mixed Use objectives of LPS4 and no further discussion is required as these have been discussed above. Sub clause (ii) and (v) are not of relevance to this application as the proposal doesn’t include any new residential development and the subject site, whilst forming part of the South Fremantle Heritage Area, has no individual cultural heritage significance worthy of protection. However, in relation to the proposed Mixed Use objective changes set out in sub clause (i) above, whilst the specific uses of restaurant and café have been removed the intent to provide entertainment use classes within such zones is still stated. Therefore the proposal is considered consistent with the modified wording of the objective should Scheme Amendment No.54 should it be gazetted. Notwithstanding the above, if Council was of the opinion that a Restaurant use for this site would adversely affect the viability existing light industrial/commercial and industrial uses in the area, the following recommendation would be applicable:

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Restaurant building addition at No.3 (Lot 44) Brockman Place, South Fremantle, for the following reason(s):

1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and Clause 4.2.1e ii & iii of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4, particularly in relation to:


Page 64

a. The proposed Restaurant use is not considered to be sympathetic with the existing commercial and industrial land uses within this Mixed Use zone, and

b. The existing commercial and industrial amenity of the Mixed Use zone would be significantly impacted through the introduction of a Restaurant land use.

CONCLUSION Overall, the proposed development for this site is not anticipated to significantly adversely impact the existing amenity of existing industrial and commercial properties within the immediate locality. The proposed use has been assessed against and is considered to adhere to the relevant provisions of cl 4.3.1 (e), cl 5.7.3 and cl 10.2 of LPS4. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Restaurant building addition at No. 3 (Lot 44) Brockman Road, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


2. The restaurant is limited to 40 seats at any given time. 3. The signage hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light

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

4. 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.

5. All car parking, and vehicle access and circulation areas shall be maintained

and available for car parking/loading, and vehicle access and circulation on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 65

Advice Notes:

(i) The applicant is advised that the subject site is located in close proximity to commercial and industrial development and maybe subject to noise and activity not normally associated with residential use.

(ii) The premises must comply with the Food Act 2008, regulations and the

Food Safety Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9999 or via [email protected]. The applicant will need to liaise with the water corporation regarding the requirement for the property to have a grease trap in food premises.



Page 66

PSC1410-154 HULBERT STREET, NO. 28 (LOT 122), SOUTH FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0359/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 23 July 2014 Owner Name: Nola Banasik Submitted by: Broderick Architects Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 28 Hulbert Street, South Fremantle. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination as submissions were received that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval and due to the requirement for merit based assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Primary street setback (garage);

Height ; and

Visual privacy. The above design elements have been assessed against the Design Principles of the R-Codes, LPS4 and LPPs and are considered to be supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hulbert Street, South Fremantle and is located within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The street block is bound by Douro Road to the North, Hulbert Street to the West, Thomas Street to the East and Ocean Road to the South. The development site has a total land area of 455m2 and is currently occupied by a two storey Single House. It is located within the Residential zone and is allocated a density coding of R25. The site is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List. It is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area.

DETAIL

On 23 July 2014, the City received an application for additions and alterations to an existing two storey Single House at No. 28 Hulbert Street, South Fremantle. The application includes the following:

Partial demolition of rear ground and upper floor of existing Single House;

Conversion of carport to garage;

Rear additions:

o Ground floor (bedroom, bathroom, laundry, kitchen/dining, lounge,

alfresco);

o Upper floor (sitting, bedroom, bathroom, balcony).

Development plans are included as attachment 1.


Page 68

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to meet the relevant Design Principles. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for full assessment. CONSULTATION

Heritage – Internal

The City’s Heritage Coordinator has reviewed the proposed partial demolition of the existing Single House and supports the proposal without conditions.

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 13 August 2014, the City had received two (2) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Proposed works remove good work of previous development;

Reduced lot boundary setback will reduce airflow between buildings affecting properties to east and their access to sea breeze;

Allowing building height discretion will exacerbate an existing problem with height;

Visual privacy should not be compromised; and

Concern relating to increased mid-winter shadow.

The applicant subsequently amended plans to reduce the level of non-compliance with Deemed-to-Comply provisions and provided additional justification for the Design Principle assessments sought. The response is summarised as follows:

Height has been lowered by 200mm which reduces overshadowing to southern neighbour allowing further daylight to their outdoor living area;

Reduction in wall height has reduced setback requirement to the south;

Vegetation is proposed to screen to the south;

Proposed addition is sympathetic to the existing dwelling in materials choices and the use of skillion roof and provides a good level street surveillance.

PLANNING COMMENT

Primary street setback – Garage

Required Provided Discretion

Setback in line with or behind front wall of dwelling

In front of dwelling (1m from Primary Street)

Yes


Page 69

LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy requires that Garages are setback in line with or behind the front wall of the dwelling. The proposed development includes the conversion of an existing Carport into a Garage. Clause 2.3 of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy provides Council with the opportunity to approve discretion where:

i. The proposed building is consistent with the character of buildings in the prevailing streetscape.

There are no existing Garages located in front of the dwelling in the prevailing streetscape as defined by LPP 2.9. However, it is considered on balance that the enclosing of the garage can be supported for the following reasons:

The height and bulk of the structure will remain the same (see site photographs), adding a door only to the existing structure;

The single garage door is only 20% of the width of the frontage and does not obscure views to the dwelling;

No. 26 Hulbert Street, the property immediately adjoining the subject site, has a Primary Street setback of approximately 1m; and

The garage door will provide additional security for cars parked on the property, without obscuring street surveillance to or from the dwelling which due to the site topography is significantly raised above street level.

Should the Committee consider that the proposed garage door would significantly detract from the streetscape and should not be supported, the following condition could be included in the approval:

“The proposed penal lift door to the existing carport is deleted and does not form part of this approval.”

Height (External Wall)

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

6m 4.8m - 6.9m 0 - 0.9m

The proposed height is supported for the following reasons:

The wall height issue is a result of the proposed skillion roof design;

The proposed walls meets the deemed to comply requirements relating to side setbacks;

It is not considered that the additional height restricts views as significance, as due to the topography a development that meets the Deemed-To-Comply requirement would obstruct any potential views also.

Visual privacy has been assessed to meet design principles, and/or conditioned where appropriate to comply.


Page 70

Overshadowing is compliant with Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes.

Overall, the application is not considered to present excessive building bulk to neighbouring properties, particularly due to the minor portion of the building that does not meet Deemed-to-Comply provisions.

Visual privacy

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

Balcony (North) – 7.5m 6m 1.5m

Sitting (West) – 6m 4.7m 1.3m

Study (West) – 4.5m 2m 2.5m

Balcony (North) As the proposed Balcony may overlook outdoor living areas of the adjoining property, it recommended to be screened as per 5.4.1 of the R-Codes. Sitting (West) The proposed Sitting room to on the western elevation will overlook the major openings of No 30 Hulbert Street to the south. This opening is also recommended to be screened to protect the neighbouring property owner’s privacy. Study (West) As the proposed window will overlook major openings of the adjoining property, a condition of approval has been recommended to ensure compliance with 5.4.1 of the R-Codes. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 28 (Lot 122) Hulbert Street, South Fremantle subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 5 September 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.


Page 71

3. Prior to occupation the balcony on the northern elevation,the study window

and Sitting room window on the western elevation shall be either:

a. Fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or

b. Fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

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

d. Screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


Page 72

PSC1410-155 FULLSTON WAY, NO. 27 (LOT 74), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0384/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 6 August 2014 Owner Name: K Noad & N Shimada Submitted by: Highbury Homes Scheme: Development Zone (DA14) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House at the northern most property on Fullston Way, Beaconsfield. The proposal is presentd to the Planning Services Committee (‘PSC’) due to the unusual lot/streetscape configuration and resultant merit based decisions. The application seeks merit based assessment in relation to the following elements of the R-Codes;

Street setback;

Boundary walls;

Lot boundary setbacks;

Solar access for adjoining sites; and,

Visual privacy. The proposal is considered to involve the significant exercise of discretion in relation to its street setback, the extent of boundary walls proposed and the extent of shadow cast to the southern adjoining property. The subject site is the northern most property at the end of Fullston Way and is unusually positioned to the road frontage in that it fronts the road in a southerly direction. Given this unusual lot layout, the proposal is considered, on-balance, to be consistent with intent of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes (‘LPP2.9’) to prevent building elements that project into an established streetscape. The proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria in relation to all other elements, largely on the basis of the development being considered consistent with the form of development in the rest of Fullston Way. Conditions of approval requiring a greater setback (1m) to the eastern boundary as well as the application of screening material to certain elevations is also recommended. BACKGROUND

The subject site exists at the northern end of Fullston Way, Beaconsfield and is located within the area zoned Development Area (DA14). The subject site is currently vacant of improvements other than retaining walls. The subject site is split between two levels; one level at the same level as Fullston Way (approximately 10.00m AHD) and a lower level near the rear (western boundary) at approximately 8.85m AHD. The subject site is located in an area of DA14 that was previously subject to a draft structure plan that was not adopted by the City or the Western Australian Planning Commission. The subject site is located in an area affected by a draft scheme amendment to LPS4 (amendment 43); which proposes to zone the subject site Residential and apply a density code of R40. The amendment has not progressed to the stage that it can be considered a ‘seriously entertained’ planning proposal. DETAIL


Page 74

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House including;

A ground floor containing a double garage structure, two bedrooms, lounge and laundry areas;

An upper floor containing living, bathroom and further bedroom areas as well as an outdoor roof terrace above the ground floor garage; and,

Rear (west) facing external deck and balcony areas. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Street setback;

Boundary walls;

Lot boundary setbacks;

Solar access for adjoining sites; and,

Visual privacy; These merit based assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. As specified above, there is no density code applicable to the subject site. For that reason a number of areas of planning assessment such as visual privacy and solar access become difficult to assess given these provisions are inherently related to a density coding. For the purpose of this report, these elements have been assessed in accordance with the R40 code. 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 28 August 2014, the City had not received any submissions. Department of Environmental Regulation The subject site is contained on the Department of Environmental Regulation (‘DER’) as being ‘Remediated for Restricted Uses’. The restriction limits the level of excavation and water abstraction from the subject site. The proposal is consistent with these restrictions.


Page 75

PLANNING COMMENT

Street setback (garage)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

Ground floor - garage

7m 1.2m 5.8m

In relation to the ground floor elements, Table 1 of LPP2.9 establishes the prescribed setbacks for buildings within each local planning area. Clause 1.2(i) & (ii) states that the City has discretion to vary these requirements when;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or (ii)The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or; (iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or (iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or, (v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot, Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.’

The lesser setback is considered to meet the merit based criteria in the following ways;

The subject site is the only lot to front this portion of Fullston Way at this direction. All other adjoining lots front Fullston Way in an easterly direction, while the subject site has frontage to Fullston Way in a southerly direction. For that reason, there is not considered to be a directly comparable prevailing streetscape;

The lesser setback does not result in a projecting element into the streetscape given the orientation of the frontage of the site and on that basis that the proposal effectively closes off the end of Fullston Way to adjoining non-residential land uses; and,

The lesser setback will not set an undesirable precedent for lesser setback to the ground floor owing to the unusual layout circumstances specific to the subject site only.


Page 76

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls)


South In areas coded R30 and higher, wall not higher

than 3.5m with an average of 3m for two-thirds the length of the

balance of the lot boundary behind the

front setback, to one side boundary only.

6.7m long x up to 6.5m high

Up to +3.0m maximum height,

up to +3.5m average height and constructed to three

boundaries.

East 6.0m long x 4.6m high on the

eastern boundary

North 7.1m long x 4.6m high on the

northern boundary

The application includes three boundary walls to three different boundaries. The northern boundary wall abuts a boundary that does not contain residential development. The wall is therefore considered to be of no detrimental impact to light or ventilation access, nor to the perception of adverse building bulk or scale. The proposed boundary wall to the southern boundary is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed boundary wall partially adjoins, but does not directly abut a boundary wall to a similar stairwell structure at No. 25 Fullston Way, Beaconsfield;

The boundary wall abuts a side boundary area and affects only minor openings to an ‘entry gallery’ only, with no impact on major openings to habitable rooms;

The boundary wall is considered consistent with the pattern of development in the streetscape, which is categorised by boundary-to-boundary development with limited side setbacks at the street elevation.

However the proposed boundary wall to the eastern boundary is not considered to satisfy the relevant merit based criteria of LPP2.9 in that it directly abuts openings to the main living area (kitchen) to the adjoining site at No. 6 Kildare Link, Beaconsfield. The proposed boundary wall will impact on this opening in terms of building bulk and scale given the significant external wall height (4.6m high) to this elevation. A condition of approval requiring the wall to be setback from the boundary in accordance with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes is recommended.


Page 77

Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

35% (108m2) 42.6% (121.9m2) 7.6% (13.9m2)

The proposed development results in a shadow cast to the southern adjoining property at No. 25 Fullston Way then specified in the deemed-to-comply criteria. The additional shadow is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

While the shadow does impact on major openings on the southern property, due to the orientation of the subject site, these openings remain clearly open to afternoon light. The proposed dwelling is positioned 10.0m further back from the rear (western) boundary then the adjoining site in order to minimise the extent of shadow onto rear outdoor living areas as much as possible;

The proposal does not result in a loss of light access to an outdoor living area on the adjoining site;

The shadow does not impact on solar collectors on the adjoining site;

The development is consistent with the pattern of development in the rest of Fullston Way which is categorised by two storey development with limited setbacks to southern boundaries. The result of the above is that openings which face side boundaries are affected by shadow from adjoining development while rear outdoor living areas and west facing openings remain open to light access.

Visual privacy


Deck - South 7.5m

1.3m 6.2m

Balcony - South 2.3m 5.2m

The proposal is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes as the raised openings will be afforded views over the alfresco area and openings to the existing living and dining rooms at No. 25 Fullston Way, Beaconsfield. A condition of approval requiring screening of the above stated elevations is therefore recommended. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey single house at No. 27 (Lot 74) Fullston Way, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 6 August 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 78

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the plans hereby approved shall be modified to increase the setback of the boundary wall to the eastern boundary to a minimum of 1.0m, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

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

4. Prior to occupation, the balcony and deck area on the southern 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.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern and northern

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

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


Page 79

PSC1410-156 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 124 (LOT 70), NORTH FREMANTLE - SINGLE HOUSE AND OFFICE ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING - (AA DA0260/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Amended development plans Date Received: 30 May 2014 (amended plans 28 August 2014) Owner Name: Rosetek Holdings Pty Ltd Submitted by: Design Management Group Scheme: Mixed Use Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 80

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a Single House and office addition to existing 2 storey Office building at the subject site. The application seeks merit based assessment relating to the following elements of the City’s planning framework;

Building height (external wall);

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall);

Street setback; and

Visual privacy. The most significant area of discretion sought relates to external wall height. The proposal includes an additional storey being added to an existing two storey office building and proposes a maximum external wall height of 11.9m. Schedule 12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) specifies a maximum external wall height of 7.5m. The proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of LPS4 in relation to its Stirling Highway elevation given the existing of a number of commercial buildings with comparable wall heights in the immediately surrounding area. However the proposal is not considered to satisfy these same criteria in relation to its southern and eastern elevations to Christina Parade. This elevation and immediate context contains single and two storey buildings of significantly lesser wall heights. On that basis, the proposal is recommended for refusal. The proposal was referred to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (‘DAC’) for comment. The DAC has not recommended approval of the application. Given the application is not supported on the basis of height, further presentation to the DAC is considered unnecessary. However should Council seek to approve the proposed development, an alternative recommendation including conditions requiring resolution of the outstanding DAC issues is recommended. BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned Mixed Use and coded R25 pursuant to LPS4. The site is located within the ‘North Fremantle’ local planning area and is also located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Stirling Highway, on the northern corner of Pamment Street and has a site area of approximately 867m2. On 17 July 1978 the City approved an application for the use of the site as a ‘Used Car Sales Yard’ (DA42/93). On 21 December 1999 the City granted approval for the redevelopment of the site as a ‘Commercial/Office Building’ (DA755/99). On 29 June 2012 the City granted planning approval for ‘Signage Additions to Existing Office Building’ (DA0251/12).


Page 81

On 30 May 2014 the City received the current application. Following consideration by the DAC and in response to submissions received during the community consultation period, the applicant submitted amended plans on 28 August 2014 (see Attachment 1). DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for a single storey Single House addition and alterations to an existing Office building contained on-site (total 3 stories above natural ground level). The applicant was originally submitted as a two storey Single House addition to the existing office building (four stories above natural ground level). Following DAC and community consultation comments, the applicant submitted the current amended plans which removed a storey from the proposal (reducing the overall height) and also making a number of other design changes. The proposal now includes the following features;

A ground floor addition to the existing Office building comprising an additions 80m2 of floor space;

Removal of an existing crossover to Stirling Highway;

A single floor Single House addition above the existing two storey Office building comprising three bedrooms, living and services areas as well as an outdoor roof terrace and swimming pool.

Amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Merit based decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Building height (external wall);

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall);

Street setback; and,

Visual privacy. The merit based assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Design Advisory Committee The proposal was referred to the City’s DAC for comment on the basis it proposed development with a wall height greater than 11m. The application was considered by the DAC at its meeting of 7 July 2014, where the following recommendations were made;


Page 82

CHARACTER The proposed architectural expression is generally considered to be an appropriate response to the existing building however some suggestions are made in 2b below that will improve the façade and will also provide protection to west facing areas. The top floor however is considered to be out of character with the immediately surrounding buildings in terms of height. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE The ‘gap’ created in the northern part of the site as demonstrated by the proponent’s streetscape diagram should be reconsidered. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM

The above issue did not arise during the presentation EASE OF MOVEMENT

The northern vehicle access to Stirling Highway is considered a compromised and less safe location for car access, while the existing southern vehicle access off Pamment Street is considered more appropriate. LEGIBILITY The legibility, i.e. separation, of the commercial and residential entries needs to be improved. ADAPTABILITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation DIVERSITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

See suggestions in item 2b below. APPROPRIATNESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES See suggestions in item 2b below. GENERAL COMMENTS

It is understood that, from the planning perspective, the significant height discretion being sought would be difficult to support. On this basis the recommendations made in 2b below may assist in making a case for some height concession.


Page 83

DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

The proposed architectural expression is a positive response to the existing building. HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

In response to the considerable height concession being sought, it was suggested that the top level be deleted and its functions moved to the vacant space to the north of the existing building.

The form and inflection of the roof could be more integrated with the rest of the building. This would be a likely outcome if the current top floor, with its smaller footprint than the lower plans, is deleted.

The proposed pool fencing is domestic in appearance and should be modified to be more integrated with the mixed use building.

Additional consideration should be given to the protection of the ground floor from the high traffic volumes of Stirling Highway.

Provide additional solar protection to west facing openings and habitable areas. Such an additional architectural layer would serve to add architectural interest, link and protect habitable areas.

The legibility of the entry point could be improved to distinguish between commercial and residential lobbies.

Considering the increasing volumes of traffic on Stirling Highway the northern crossover is likely to create safety issues and should be deleted. The existing vehicle entry on Pamment Street is a more satisfactory location.

Test increasing the thickness of the strong horizontal lines to create a better-composed façade.

RECOMMENDATION The design is yet not supported. The amendments suggested in 2b above should be strongly considered by the proponents before the proposal is presented again to the Committee.’

Following the DAC meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans which sought to address the concerns raised above; primarily by way of removal of a storey to the proposal. The application was again presented to the DAC at its meeting of 8 September 2014. The following comments were made; ‘1. CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES a. CHARACTER The suggestions made in 2b below will improve the façade and will also provide protection to west facing areas. While the proposed western awning width is not sufficient to provide appropriate solar protection, moveable louvers would help achieve improved protection. b. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE The above issue did not arise during the presentation


Page 84

c. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM The above issue did not arise during the presentation d. EASE OF MOVEMENT The deletion of the crossover to Stirling Highway that was shown on the previous proposal, improves vehicle safety and is therefore supported. e. LEGIBILITY The legibility of the separation between the residential and commercial components of the development needs strengthening. The physical separation of entrances is not necessarily required however at the moment it is not clear to apartment visitors where to park or gain access. A design element that registers the dual purpose of the building is required. Simple cues that could achieve this may be the location of the entry doors and post boxes. The proposed differential cladding for a small portion of the façade does not adequately achieve this purpose. f. ADAPTABILITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation g. DIVERSITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation h. OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY See comments in 2b below. i. APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES See comments in 2b below. j. GENERAL COMMENTS

i. The DAC was advised that the proposed height is likely to be difficult to support from a planning perspective against clause 5.8.1 of the scheme due to the lack of graduation between the proposed building height and that of adjoining buildings, particularly the adjoining single storey eastern building.

ii. While it is acknowledged that several of the points previously raised by the DAC have been addressed, matters relating to improved solar protection from the western sun and the strengthening of horizontal lines have not been addressed.

2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT

a. WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS i. Deletion of the proposed crossover to Stirling Highway; ii. Deletion of the 4th level and its functions moved to the vacant space to the north of the

existing building; iii. The form and inflection of the roof has been more integrated with the rest of the building; iv. The pool fencing has been modified to be more integrated with the mixed use building


Page 85

b. HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED The previous DAC comments from the July 2014 meeting that have not been adequately addressed are repeated below:

i. Provide additional solar protection to west facing openings and habitable areas. Such an additional architectural layer would serve to add architectural interest, link and protect habitable areas

ii. The legibility of the entry point could be improved to distinguish between commercial and residential lobbies

iii. Test increasing the thickness of the strong horizontal lines to create a better-composed façade

Additional matters include:

iv. How the very long 20m long access corridor to the apartment gains access to natural light. Skylights and a glazed end to the southern sitting room would help to achieve this.

3. RECOMMENDATION The design is yet not supported. The amendments suggested in 2b above should be strongly considered by the proponents before the proposal is presented again to the Committee.”

The recommendation above specifies that the DAC is not in a position to support the proposed design given that a number of concerns still remain outstanding. On that basis, the proposal is not recommended for approval until such time as the DAC issues have been satisfied. Other concerns relating to the planning framework are discussed further in this report and the application is recommended, on-balance, for refusal when assessed against these elements. However should the Council seek to approve the proposed development, an alternative recommendation is provided. A condition included in this alternative recommendation requires that the issues outlined above by the DAC be resolved, prior to the issue of a building permit. 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 26 June 2014, the City had received 5 submissions, including 3 objections. The following issues were raised;

Building height; The proposal is significantly above the height limit for this location. The additional building height will present as a bulky structure when viewed from the east and has potential to block views

Visual privacy; The proposal is insufficiently setback from boundaries, resulting in a loss of visual privacy;

Solar access; The proposal will result in a significant loss of solar access to adjoining sites;

Building setbacks; The proposal does not meet the minimum setback requirements to boundaries; and,

Boundary wall; The proposed boundary wall exceeds maximum requirements.


Page 86

Consideration of relevant matters raised is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. On 28 August 2014 the City received amended plans which reduced the height (and number of storeys) of the proposal. The amended plans were re-advertised to surrounding landowners. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 September 2014, the City had not received any additional comments. Main Roads WA The application was referred to Main Roads WA (‘MRWA’) for comment as it involves development on a site abutting the primary regional road reservation for Stirling Highway. On 23 June 2014 the City received advice from MRWA which raised no objections and recommended a number of conditions, should the application be approved. The alternative officer’s recommendation included in this report includes conditions which reflect this advice. PLANNING COMMENT Building Height


External wall 7.5m 10.0-11.9m 3.5m-5.4m

The proposal does not meet the maximum height requirement specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The exercise of discretion pursuant to clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 is sought in respect to building height. Clause 5.8.1.1 specifies as follows; ‘5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to building that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following –

(a) The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the

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

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; (c) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and, (d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’ The existing Office building measures up to 8.0m high on its southern and eastern elevations. The proposal therefore triggers the initial specification of clause 5.8.1.1.


Page 87

The existing building currently falls away towards its southern and eastern boundary resulting in a greater existing and proposed wall height. The proposal is considered to satisfy clause 5.8.1.1 in relation to its presentation to Stirling Highway in the following ways;

The proposal is not considered, generally to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties pursuant to part (a) above. Areas where the exercise of discretion is sought are considered to satisfy the relevant merit based criteria, or could be dealt with by conditions of approval. The land use proposed is also considered compatible with the mix of land use in the surrounding locality;

The proposal, in relation to the Stirling Highway elevation, is considered to graduate the scale between adjoining buildings in the following ways;

o No. 123 Stirling Highway (to the south) contains a two storey building

with pitched roof to approximately the same height as the that proposed on the subject site;

o No. 126 Stirling Highway (to the north) contains a two storey building

with a high gable and tower element to Stirling Highway; and,

o No. 130 Stirling Highway (being the Matilda Bay Brewery site) with an

external wall height to approximately 17m facing Stirling Highway. The transition of external wall heights between No. 123-130 Stirling Highway depicts a progression of height which the proposed development is considered to satisfy.

The proposal is not considered to impact on a place of cultural heritage significance or raise planning concerns in relation to a planning policy.

However the proposal is not considered to satisfy part (b) above in relation to the Christina Parade elevation in that it is not considered to graduate the scale of buildings to this elevation, as well as the eastern elevation, for the following reasons;

The adjoining building at No. 1 Christina Parade contains a single storey building of a lesser wall height than the 7.5m prescribed requirement;

Properties further removed from the subject site at No. 2-4 and No.3 Pamment Street maintain limited wall heights and are limited to single and two storeys;

The introduction of an additional storey above the prescribed requirement of Schedule 12 will result in building of significantly greater height than within the immediate physical context or as contemplated under LPS4.

The proposal is therefore not supported having regard to Schedule 12 and clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4. Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that external wall height is extenuated by the fall in topography of the subject site and at the adjoining, similarly scaled commercial buildings at No. 123 and 126 Stirling Highway, a higher wall height exists to rear (eastern) elevations. Should the Council consider the proposal to be comparable to these buildings, an alternative recommendation for approval is provided in the Conclusion of this report.


Page 88

Lot boundary setbacks


East ~11.5m (35.6m long x 11.9m high)

4.1m 7.4m

North 5.2m 4.0m-4.5m 0.7-1.2m

A significant setback requirement to the eastern boundary is specified by the R-Codes on the basis of the large, continuous wall length proposed. The lesser setbacks to the eastern and northern elevations are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The lesser setbacks do not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property, given the character or larger commercial type buildings in the surrounding locality;

The affected building at No. 1 Pamment Street, North Fremantle, is used for non-residential purposes. The area which adjoins the proposed wall is utilised for vehicle hardstand;

The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings owing to the location of the walls fronting the eastern and (in particular) northern elevations; and,

The lesser setback does not result in any new merit based decision relating to visual privacy that are not otherwise deemed supportable or capable of being dealt with by conditions of approval.

Street setback


Upper floor 7.0m 2.9m 4.1m

In relation to the new upper floor element, Table 1 of LPP2.9 establishes the prescribed setbacks for buildings within each local planning area. Clause 1.2(i) & (ii) states that the City has discretion to vary these requirements when;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or (ii)The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or; (iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or (iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or,


Page 89

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

The lesser setbacks to upper floor is considered to meet the merit based criteria in the following ways;

The subject site does not contain an adjoining prevailing streetscape as per the policy as no other properties within the street block gain access from Stirling Highway;

The setback is consistent with the setback of the existing two storey office building. In that regard, the lesser setback proposed is not considered to represent a ‘projecting element’; and,

The upper floor element is consistent with the pattern of development contained within the broader streetscape. The adjoining building at No. 123 Stirling Highway maintains a similar setback to that proposed.

Visual privacy


North Outdoor Living – 7.5m 6.0m 1.5m

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

The cone-of-vision does not impact on any primary outdoor living areas of the adjoining site, or major openings. The cone-of-vision overlooks a landscaped area; and,

The predominant outlook from the opening is towards the western elevation, which is the street boundary, not towards the affected boundary.

No merit based assessment is sought in relation to eastern elevation on the basis the adjoining property at No. 1 Pamment Street is not used for residential purposes. CONCLUSION The application seeks planning approval for a Single House and office addition to existing Office building. The most significant area of discretion sought relates to external wall height. The proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of LPS4 in relation to its Stirling Highway elevation but not to its southern and eastern elevations to Christina Parade. This elevation and immediate context contains single and two storey buildings of significantly lesser wall heights. On that basis, the proposal is recommended for refusal. However should Council form an alternative opinion, the following is provided as an alternative recommendation; That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single House and office addition to existing Office building at No. 124 (Lot 70) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions;


Page 90

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

dated 28 August 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially comment within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the plans hereby approved being modified in

the following ways to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Office – City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee;

Provide additional solar protection to west facing openings and habitable areas. Such an additional architectural layer would serve to add architectural interest, link and protect habitable areas;

The legibility of the entry point could be improved to distinguish between commercial and residential lobbies

Test increasing the thickness of the strong horizontal lines to create a better-composed façade

How the very long 20m long access corridor to the apartment gains access to natural light. Skylights and a glazed end to the southern sitting room would help to achieve this.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

4. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Stirling Highway road reservation.

5. Redundant crossovers shall be removed and the verge and vegetation made good at the full expense of the application.

6. Any damage done to the verge and its vegetation, within the Stirling Highway road reservation, shall be made good at the full expense of the applicant.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single House and office addition to existing Office building at No. 124 (Lot 70) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 28 August 2014, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with Schedule 12 (Clause 3.1) of LPS4 and

clause 5.8.1.1 (b) in respect to the proposed external wall height;

2. The proposal is considered inconsistent with the predominant height patterns of adjoining properties when considered from the southern and eastern elevations;


Page 91

PSC1410-157 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 24/219 (LOT 303), SOUTH FREMANTLE - SIGNAGE - (CJ DA0394/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 11 August 2014 Owner Name: Humich and Anilia Submitted by: MGA Town Planners Scheme: Fremantle South LPA Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Liquor Store Use Class: Liquor Store Use Permissibility: A


Page 92

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for Signage at No. 24/219 Hampton Road South Fremantle. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination due to the complex planning history of the site and assessment against Local Planning Policies (LPP’s) and the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The signage has been assessed against LPS4 and LPPs and is considered to be supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the western side of Hampton Road, South Fremantle and is located within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The street block is bound by Douro Road to the North, Daly Street to the West, Hampton Road to the East and Ocean Road to the South. The development site is currently occupied by the South Fremantle Local Centre which includes a number of land uses including Shop, Restaurant and Petrol Filling Station. It is located within the Local Centre zone and is allocated a density coding of R25. The site is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List under LPS4. It is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file has revealed the following planning history relevant to this application:

DA0488/09 - Change of Use to Liquor Store – 10 February 2010

The application was refused by PSC for the following reasons: a) It is for a large scale Liquor Store, whereas the Scheme promotes small scale

shops within this zone. b) The proposed development will service a catchment beyond the local area,

whereas the Scheme promotes uses within this zone which serve the local area.

DA0488/09 – State Administrative Tribunal Matter – Change of Use to Liquor Store – 24 March 2010

The application was subsequently appealed at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), with the previous determination set aside and replaced with an approval citing the following conditions: a) The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the site

plan date stamped 4 March 2010, and revised front elevation date stamped 15 March 2010, incorporating the conditions listed in this approval.

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


Page 93

c) Shelving within the building adjacent to those parts of the southern elevation which are glazed shall be no higher than 1.26 metres (including bottles which may be placed on top of the shelves) and no deeper than 533 millimetres in order to allow the appropriate surveillance of the car park.

d) Goods, materials or waste associated with the development may be stored

external to the building in the rear service access way, but must not be stored external to the building overnight or in a position that prevents use of the rear service access way. No box crushing or other similar activity associated with the development may be carried out external to the building. Waste receptacles placed outside the building on the day of collection must be returned inside the building as soon as practicable following collection.

e) Any advertising signs shall be subject to a separate development application.

ET02/12 – Extension to term of planning approval for DA0488/09 (Change of Use to Liquor Store) – 21 February 2012

DA0078/13 – Partial change of use from Shop to Liquor Store – 13 December 2013

The application proposed to remove the two retail tenancies approved as part of the SAT mediated approval DA0488/09. The application was refused by PSC for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is zoned and Clause 4.2.1c of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as the proposal is not consistent with the previous SAT mediation outcome and will not provide a sufficiently active frontage.

ET01/14 – Extension of term of planning approval DA0488/09 (Change of Use to Liquor Store) – 19 February 2014

The applicant is now seeking to act on DA0488/09, and as per condition e) of the approval, a separate development application for signage has been lodged. DETAIL

On 11 August 2014, the City received an application for Signage to an approved Liquor Store at No. 24/219 Hampton Road, South Fremantle. The Signage includes the following:

Roof signage on the north eastern corner and northern elevation (Sign A, C,I, J, K;

Window signage (solid from floor to ceiling) for a 7.35m portion of the northern elevation (Sign H);

Window signage (solid for 1.2m from floor level) for a 12.9m portion of the northern elevation(Sign F, G);

Clear glazing to remainder of windows (21.2m).


Page 94

DA0488/09, the current Development Approval for the site, did not include any signage, however the current application includes a solid panel on the northern elevation (sign H). Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to meet Design Principles. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for full assessment. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4.

PLANNING COMMENT

DBH6 – Signs and Hoardings The proposed signage is supported against the requirements of DBH6 Signs and Hoardings for the following reasons:

The signage identifies the name and type of business occupying the premises;

The signage does not obscure any existing signage or architectural features;

The signage does not impact on any buildings or structures of heritage significance;

The signage is not proposed to be flashing or moving and therefore will not contribute greatly to driver distraction; and

The signage does not propose significant visual clutter to the locality and is considered to be of an appropriate scale for a Local Centre.

It is considered that as the proposed Signage occupies a limited amount of the frontage, that passive surveillance is achieved from within the store as well as into the store, and that it is sufficiently open to assist in activating this portion of the Local Centre. The Signage is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval.


Page 95


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for Signage at No. 24/219 (Lot 303) Hampton Road, South Fremantle subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


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

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


Page 96

PSC1410-158 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21)

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed.


That the information is noted.


Page 97

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1410-159 REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LOCATED WITHIN THE STRATA PROPERTY AT 10 DOEPEL STREET, NORTH FREMANTLE (YORK APARTMENTS) PROVIDING A LINK TO THE FORESHORE RESERVE.

DataWorks Reference: 158/002, 059/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Acting Director Planning and Development Services Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Applicants letter dated 19 August 2014 Attachment 2: Management Statement - Strata Plan No. 38001 Attachment 3: Foreshore Management Plan – Access to the Foreshore

(Figure 41)

Figure 1 - 10 Doepel Street, North Fremantle outlined with a 2.07 metre wide pedestrian access way linking Doepel Street with Northbank foreshore reserve. Also shown is the marina with 16 boat pens.


Page 98

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle has received a request from the owners of Lot 30 (No. 10) Doepel Street, North Fremantle ‘York Apartments’ (Strata Plan 38001) to give consent to the removal of a Strata By-Law and to amend a relevant Local Planning Policy requiring public access between Doepel Street and the Sorrell Park Foreshore Reserve. The request has been made on the basis of increased security and safety for residents and alleged noise and nuisance behaviour occurring within their property at night time. The public access is a requirement of planning approval and the City’s Northbank Development Guidelines (Policy D.G.N6) and North Fremantle Foreshore Plan (Policy D.G.N7). Officers consider that the public benefits of maintaining rights of public access through this connection in addition to other public access connections to the Swan River foreshore in the Northbank area, consistent with principles of good urban design, outweigh the justification put forward by the owners to support the request for closure to the public. Accordingly officers recommend that Council does not agree to the request to rescind Schedule 1, By-Law clause 31 contained within the Strata Plan 38001 Management Statement (H445866) and amend the City’s Local Planning Policies D.G.N6 and D.G.N7 to remove related references to public access in this location. BACKGROUND

Planning Approval The City granted development approval for multiple dwellings at No.8-10 (Lot 30) Doepel Street on 21 April 1997. The development contained a landscaped public thoroughfare (privately owned) between Doepel Street and Sorrell Park Foreshore Reserve. This was reflected as a condition of the planning approval: “Condition 14 - Public access is maintained through the central open space area by means of an easement over the property for public access.” Property Land Description and Management Plan No. 10 Doepel Street, North Fremantle is described as being Lot 30 on Strata Plan 38001 ('Strata Plan') with the associated Form 8 noting the registration of Management Statement H445866 on 19 May 2000. The Management Statement identifies the subject area of common property as a "Pedestrian Accessway on Annexure "A" (see Attachment 2). This plan is a mark-up plan only with Landgate confirming that no formal Pedestrian Accessway is located on Strata Plan 38001. Therefore the link to a pedestrian accessway with the associated requirements is via the Management Statement only. The Management Statement (Attachment 2) refers to the public access requirement within Schedule 1 - By-Law 31 headed ‘Compliance with City of Fremantle Public Access Requirements’ as follows:


Page 99

“Subject to this by-law the public shall be entitled to pedestrian access over that portion of the common property that is marked as "Pedestrian Accessway" on Annexure "A". This "Pedestrian Accessway" is subject to the following conditions and reservations.

1) The "Pedestrian Accessway" and the rights of the public shall only continue until any redevelopment of the current strata plan.

2) The strata company shall have the right to close the "Pedestrian Accessway" at

least once in every year at such time as the strata company shall designate and if no such time is designated then on Good Friday between the hours of 3.00am and 6.00am.

3) The amendment or repeal of this by-law cannot be effected without the consent of

the City of Fremantle.

4) The strata company shall at all times effect and maintain insurance over the "Pedestrian Accessway" in respect to damage to property, death or bodily injury for which proprietors of lots in the scheme could become liable in damages."

In addition to the ‘Pedestrian Accessway on Annexure “A”’, two ‘right of carriageway’ easements are noted on Form 8 of the Strata Plan. The easements are related to the adjoining portions of the Strata Plan and have no connection to the subject matter of access from Doepel Street through to the North Fremantle Foreshore. Policy Background On 18 August 1987 the City adopted the Northbank Development Guidelines also known as policy D.G.N6. The purpose of the policy is to provide an overview of the planning framework for the Northbank area referencing a number of Council endorsed documents for the area including Development Plan No. 8, Concept Plan and Outline Development Plan. The policy outlines development criteria with clause 4.2 of the policy specifically referencing Lots 28-31 Doepel Street requiring: ‘Developments abutting the foreshore reserve should retain the level of accessibility indicated in the Concept Plan; so as to encourage public visibility and access to the foreshore reserve. Public open space is to provide vistas to the river from the north-south streets and to be retained as an integral part of the foreshore development’. On 17 November 1986 the City adopted the North Fremantle Foreshore Plan also known as policy D.G.N7. The purpose of the policy is to provide guidance on land use through a coordinated planning framework. The planning objectives of the policy highlighted the need to maintain public access and use of the foreshore are as and when development occurred on major sites in North Fremantle (between Queen Victoria Street and eastwards to the boundary of Fremantle and Mosman Park). In September 1994 the City of Fremantle adopted the Northbank Concept Plan and Structure Plan which formed part of the “Northbank – Between the Bridges” document. The Concept Plan identified a central public open space area adjacent to the foreshore approximately where Lot 30 (No.10) Doepel Street public access way now exists. Subsequently, both D.G.N6 and D.G.N7 were amended to reflect these documents.


Page 100

Concurrently with the development of the Concept Plan for Northbank the developer prepared a Northbank Foreshore Management Plan which was adopted by the City in 1997. This document provided greater detail with regard to use, management and indicated up to eight access points along the Sorrell Park Foreshore (see Attachment 3). Subsequently, the City’s D.G.N6 and D.G.N7 policies were updated to specifically refer to Lot 30 Doepel Street: “In addition the access way on lot 30 (York Apartments) is to continue to be an access way for public access between Doepel Street and the foreshore.” On 22 August this year the City received a letter from the owners of York Apartments requesting the City’s consent to repeal of clause 31 of the strata by-laws entitling the public to use the pedestrian access (see Attachment 1). The grounds for the request are that there have been incidents of “noisy, boisterous and belligerent” behaviour by users of the accessway who are not residents (particularly at night time and early morning), and this causes discomfort and a loss of security and amenity to residents of York Apartments. An example of such behaviour given in the letter is motorcycles being ridden from the foreshore through the accessway to Doepel Street. COMMENT

The planning framework for Northbank ‘Between the Bridges’ placed a heavy focus on the implementation of a permeable development area with numerous public access points and view vistas to the foreshore reserve. This objective was successfully implemented with five public access points and view corridors linking to the foreshore reserve via public and private land. The City has no specific data on the level of public use of the access connection through York Apartments, but it is reasonable to assume that it is relatively well utilised, given the request by owners to remove the public access requirement. The references in the owners’ letter to incidents of anti-social behaviour are noted, however the City’s Community Safety business unit has advised that there is no record of any complaints being received by the City regarding such behaviour in this location, and City staff have also checked with the police who have advised that no such incidents have been reported. There currently exists five pedestrian access points over a distance of 400 metres between the Stirling and Queen Victoria Street traffic bridges. If the public access was removed through Lot 30 (No.10) Doepel Street, the closest access points to the foreshore west and east would be approximately 80 metres westwards via Pensioner Guard Road and a similar distance eastwards via Burns Street. Although these alternative connections are in reasonably close proximity, high levels of connectivity and access to public places is a well established principle of good urban design, and the existing planning policy framework that guided the development of the Northbank area and still remains in place has contributed to achieving these outcomes.


Page 101

CONCLUSION

Officers consider that on balance the benefits to the wider community of maintaining rights of public access through this connection in addition to other public access connections to the Swan River foreshore in the Northbank area outweigh the justification put forward by the owners to support the request for closure to the public, particularly bearing in mind the absence of reported incidents of anti-social behaviour to the City or the police. Accordingly officers recommend that Council does not agree to the request to rescind Schedule 1, By-Law clause 31 contained within the Strata Plan 38001 Management Statement (H445866) or to amend the City’s Local Planning Policies D.G.N6 and D.G.N7 to remove related references to public access in this location. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council does not support the request by the owners of York Apartments, 10 Doepel Street, North Fremantle to rescind Schedule 1, By-Law 31 contained within the Strata Plan 38001 Management Statement (H445866) or to amend the City’s Local Planning Policies D.G.N6 and D.G.N7 to remove related references to public access in this location.


Page 102

PSC1410-160 ITEM - HERITAGE LIST AND MHI ANNUAL UPDATE 2014

DataWorks Reference: 215/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Heritage Planner Decision Making Authority: Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the annual review of community nominations for deletion, inclusion or amendment of places on the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for 2014.

Consultation with owners and occupiers, and subsequent assessment of places, has been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policy 2.6. A decision by Council as recommended below is now sought for the following places: Places to be amended on the MHI to a Level 1A due inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places as an Interim Listing:

Christian Brothers College Fremantle (St. Patrick's School, Christian Brothers College (CBC); Edmund Hall), 41-51 Ellen St, Fremantle

Places to be added to the MHI at Level 3:

House, 13 Daly Street South, Fremantle Places to be removed from the Heritage List and retained on the MHI for historic purposes:

Commercial Building, 1 Beach Street, 8 Queen Victoria Street (also known as Fremantle Foundry & Engineering Co), Fremantle House, 2 Chester Street South, Fremantle House, 231 Hampton Rd, South Fremantle Commercial Building, 231a Hampton Road, South Fremantle Factory 10 Stack Street, Fremantle Factory 12 Stack Street, Fremantle Fremantle Malls, 27-45 William Street, Fremantle

Places to be removed from the Heritage List and the MHI:

Limestone Feature (s) 147 South Terrace, Fremantle House, 26 Lilly Street, South Fremantle

BACKGROUND

The Heritage of Western Australia Act, 1990 obliges local governments to develop and maintain a municipal inventory (known as the Municipal Heritage Inventory or MHI) and, once established, to update it annually and review it every 5 years.


Page 103

The City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) obliges Council to establish and maintain a Heritage List to identify those places within the Scheme which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme. The City of Fremantle adopted the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for Fremantle in September 2000. In addition in September 2009 the Council adopted Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory for Fremantle (MHI) and Heritage List which provides the specific procedural and operational guidance for the process. A major review of the Heritage List and MHI concluded in September 2011 with a Council resolution in respect of a comprehensive list of amendments and updates in respect of MHI Level 1 and Level 2 places (previous item PSC1109-167 refers). Subsequently the City has received one nomination request for heritage listing, four recommendations derived from an internal heritage assessment as part of the development approval process and five requests for removal of places from the heritage list. There is also one place that has been added to the State Register of Heritage Places on an Interim basis.

CONSULTATION

In order to add, remove or amend places on the Heritage List, LPS4 (clause 7.1.3) requires that the owners and occupiers are notified and allowed 21 days in which to make a submission on the proposal. This has been undertaken in relation to all of the nominations referred to above. At the conclusion of the advertising period (8 September 2014) the City had received one submission as follows: Fremantle Malls, 27-45 William Street; a submission concluded that the building was in poor condition, provided no stimulus for the public and did not have any heritage value. There was no explicit comment regarding suggested removal from the Heritage List, although it is understood that support for removal was intended.

PLANNING COMMENT

Heritage listing information is crucial for the effective understanding and management of the cultural heritage of Fremantle and is recognised as a valuable community resource. The MHI as defined under the Heritage Act does not have any statutory obligations and is an ongoing heritage survey/inventory of places of cultural heritage significance which continually needs updating and adding to with relevant information. The Heritage List established under the provisions of the LPS4 is a statutory list of places which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under provisions of the scheme. The list comprises only of names and addresses and does not include other data.


Page 104

The Heritage of Western Australia Act of WA, 1990 specifies that the basis for inclusion or removal on the MHI or Heritage List shall be cultural heritage significance as defined by the Burra Charter. The criteria for assessing heritage value of places are identified as being of historic, aesthetic, scientific, spiritual or social values for present and future generations. In determining the places to be included on the Heritage List the provisions of LPS4 state that Council is to: Consider any submissions made and resolve to enter the place on the Heritage List with or without modification or reject the proposal after consideration of the submissions.

While taking into consideration all views, Council should make a decision to include / delete a place from the MHI on the basis of its heritage value alone. Level 3 of significance is defined by the policy (and the MHI Management Strategy) as a threshold for inclusion of a place on the MHI in its own right (for its individual heritage worth).

The nominations/requests for deletions/additions which are the subject of this report and have been the subject of community consultation in accordance with the process prescribed in LPS4 and LPP2.6 have been assessed as follows:

Additions

Place/s to be added onto the MHI: House, 13 Daly Street South Fremantle

A request that included some historic information has been received from the owner of 13 Daly Street, South Fremantle for heritage listing. Following an assessment it was determined that the place is of historic value and is recommended for inclusion on the MHI with a Management Category of Level 3. At this stage it is considered that this place is below threshold to warrant inclusion on the Heritage List.

Place/s to be amended on the MHI to a Level 1A due inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places as an Interim Listing: Christian Brothers College Fremantle (St. Patrick's School, Christian Brothers College (CBC); Edmund Hall), 41-51 Ellen St, Fremantle

The Heritage Council of WA included CBC as an Interim listing on the Register of Heritage Places in December 2012 and then in February amended to an Interim Extension Indefinite which means that management category should be upgraded from a Level 1B to a Level 1A. Therefore it is recommended that the MHI be amended to be consistent with the Heritage Council’s decision.

Removals

Places to be removed from the Heritage List and MHI: Limestone Feature (s) 147 South Terrace:

The owner has requested removal from heritage listing. Following a site inspection it was determined that there was no limestone feature on site extant. Therefore it is recommended that the place be removed from the HL and MHI.


Page 105

House, 26 Lilly Street South Fremantle: Derived from a development application and subsequent heritage assessment it was determined that there was an error in existing records and that this place was the incorrect address for listing.

Places to be removed from the Heritage List and remain on the MHI for historic purposes only: Commercial Building, 1 Beach Street, 8 Queen Victoria Street (also known as Fremantle Foundry & Engineering Co), Fremantle

The buildings have been demolished and an archival report received in accordance with development approval for the site.

House, 2 Chester Street South Fremantle The owner requested removal and the subsequent heritage assessment has determined the place is below threshold to warrant inclusion on the Heritage List.

House, 231 Hampton Rd South Fremantle and Commercial Building, 231a Hampton Road South Fremantle

The owner/manager requested removal and the subsequent assessment determined that there were no buildings of cultural heritage significance on site.

Factory 10 Stack Street Fremantle The owner requested removal and the subsequent assessment determined the place to be below threshold to warrant inclusion on the Heritage List.

Factory 12 Stack Street Fremantle It was determined that this place was also below threshold to warrant inclusion on the Heritage List.

Fremantle Malls, 27-45 William Street Derived from a development application and subsequent assessment it was determined that the buildings were below threshold to warrant inclusion on the Heritage List.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion/amendment/removal of places on the Heritage List and MHI as recommended above would conclude the annual update with due regard to the City’s obligations under the Heritage Act of Western Australia 1990, the City’s Local Planning Scheme 4 and Local Planning Policy 2.6. The process including the community consultation and subsequent heritage assessments and recommendations has been completed for Council determination.


1. That Council resolve, in accordance with Clause 7.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, to amend the Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as follows:

(a) Places to be amended on the MHI to a Level 1A due inclusion on the State

Register of Heritage Places as an Interim Listing: Christian Brothers College Fremantle (St. Patrick's School, Christian Brothers College (CBC); Edmund Hall), 41-51 Ellen St, Fremantle

(b) Places to be added to the MHI as a Level 3:


Page 106

House, 13 Daly Street, South Fremantle (c) Places to be removed from the Heritage List and remain on the MHI for

historic purposes: Commercial Building, 1 Beach Street, 8 Queen Victoria Street (also known as Fremantle Foundry & Engineering Co), Fremantle House, 2 Chester Street, South Fremantle House, 231 Hampton Rd, South Fremantle Commercial Building, 231a Hampton Road, South Fremantle Factory 10 Stack Street, Fremantle Factory 12 Stack Street, Fremantle Fremantle Malls, 27-45 William Street, Fremantle

(d) Places to be removed from the Heritage List and MHI:

Limestone Feature (s) 147 South Terrace, Fremantle House, 26 Lilly Street, South Fremantle


Page 107

PSC1410-161 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15 FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 115/106 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 1 October 2014; Council 22 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Acting Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Applicant justification for proposed policy provisions


Page 108

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On behalf of LandCorp, consultants Urbis drafted Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White Gum Valley (LPP3.15) in consultation with City officers. This LPP applies to the lots within the White Gum Valley Local Structure Plan (LSP) area; the area bounded by Stevens Street, Yalgoo Avenue, Hope Street and Nannine Avenue. The intent of the LPP is to guide residential development outcomes as generally set out within the LSP. The purpose of the proposed LPP is to support residential development that is highly responsive to the site context and promotes energy efficient design that optimises use of the northern aspect. Accordingly, the policy proposes alternative ‘deemed to comply’ assessment criteria to those in the Residential Design Codes for different planning requirements on lots grouped by density coding in the LSP area including:

Lots 4-10 and 12-28 (R35 & R40) Street Setbacks, lot boundary setback, setback of garages and carports, outdoor living areas, open space, visual privacy, solar access and solar access to adjoining sites.

Lots 1-3 and 11 (R60 and R80) Street Setbacks, communal open space, outdoor living areas and building priority zones.

LOT 7 (R40 “Gen – Y” House) Building height and parking.

In summary the LPP proposes reduced street setbacks, open space and visual privacy requirements, prescribed locations for boundary walls and garages, and permits greater overshadowing; but the LPP also promotes higher quality outdoor living areas with guaranteed solar access, communal open space, a strong street presence and a cohesive urban interface. It is recommended that the draft Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White Gum Valley be approved for advertising for public comment in accordance with clause 2.4 of LPS4. BACKGROUND

The proposed Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White Gum Valley (LPP3.15) applies to the former Kim Beazley School Site at Lot 2089 Stevens Street and the adjoining drainage reserve at Lot 2065 Hope Street, White Gum Valley. The site is zoned Development Zone (Development Area 12) under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and on 12 August 2014 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved the White Gum Valley former Kim Beazley school site Local Structure Plan (LSP) over the site for final adoption. A subsequent subdivision approval for 28 lots, including 4 larger freehold lots for the purpose of facilitating future grouped dwellings, was given by the WAPC on 1 September 2014. A Local Planning Policy is a requirement of the LSP and is to be adopted over the site prior to an application for development being approved.


Page 109

The LPP area is approximately 2.29ha in area. It is located approximately 2.5 kilometres east of Fremantle, and positioned between the Royal Fremantle Golf Course/ Booyeembarra Park and existing residential development. The site is vacant of all structures with the exception of Sullivan Hall and the former Fremantle Pigeon Racing Club Hall (Men’s Shed), located on the western portion of the site near Nannine Avenue within a new public open space reserve created under the LSP and suvbdivision. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Part 2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 gives the City a head of power to prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area, and specifies the procedures for making a local planning policy. Clause 5.2.2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) is to conform to the provisions of the R-codes. Part 7 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 states that a Local Planning Policy may contain provisions that amend or replace certain deemed-to-comply provisions. Those deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are as follows:

- 5.1.2 C2.1 – Street setback - 5.1.3 C3.1 – Lot boundary setback - 5.1.4 C4 – Open space - 5.1.6 C6 – Building height - 5.2.1 C1.1-C1.5 – Setback of garages and carports - 5.2.2 C2 – Garage width - 5.3.1 C1.1 and C1.2 – Outdoor living areas - 5.3.5 C5.1 – C5.3 – Vehicular access - 5.4.1 C1.1 – Visual privacy - 5.4.2 C2.1 and C2.2 – Solar access for adjoining sites - 6.3.1 C1 – Outdoor living areas (multiple dwellings) - 6.3.3 C3.1 – Parking (multiple dwellings)

Clause 10.2 of the Scheme empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval. The White Gum Valley Former Kim Beazley School Site Local Structure Plan requires a Local Planning Policy to be adopted for the area prior to an application for development being approved. CONSULTATION

If Council resolves to adopt the draft local planning policy recommended in this report, the policy will be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with the requirements set out in clause 2.4.1 of LPS4 and local planning policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals.


Page 110

PLANNING COMMENT

The proposed LPP seeks to support residential development that is highly responsive to the site and promotes energy efficient dwelling design that optimises use of the northern aspect. Urbis have provided the following statement as to the purpose and design intentions of the policy: The purpose of the Local Planning Policy is to further guide built form for residential development within the White Gum Valley Local Structure Plan area, prior to the preparation and lodgement of development applications to achieve appropriate and site responsive development outcomes. The LPP is to be read in conjunction with the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), however as empowered under Clause 5.2.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4, the LPP has been prepared to replace/amend specific deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. The policy is also to be read in conjunction with the City’s LPS4, the White Gum Valley LSP and any other Local Planning Policies adopted by the City. Where any discrepancies exist between policies, it is intended that the proposed LPP is to prevail. LandCorp’s approach to built form control within the LPP area has been primarily based on achieving high quality street frontages and built form outcomes that are responsive to sustainable design and climatic conditions, with a strong emphasis on achieving solar access to all dwellings within the area. The LPP defines three areas with specific provisions, each employing a range of controls that respond to different site and locational characteristics with specific design intentions for different frontages and lot layouts. The proposed policy provisions can be found in the officer’s recommendation of this report. The reasons for the proposed provisions of the policy are outlined in the table below. For further information on this please refer to the full justification provided by the applicant in attachment 1. Table 1. Summary of the main provisions proposed in the policy

Proposed LPP provisions

Summary of applicant’s justification for the proposed LPP provision – also refer to Attachment 1

LOTS CODED R35 & R40 (LOTS 4-10 & 12-28)

Reduced street setbacks

To assist in creating a strong street presence and a cohesive urban interface with greater opportunities for passive surveillance of the adjoining public realm.

Reduced side and rear setbacks

To make efficient use of natural resources and energy by appropriately orientating and setting back dwellings so as to optimise the northern aspect and increase accessibility to natural light. Further, reducing lot setbacks in particular locations affords greater flexibility in housing design and facilitates more compact streetscape outcomes where desirable.

Location of boundary walls prescribed

To allow for a more northern aspect to dwellings with solar access to liveable spaces and ensuring that all dwellings have the opportunity to optimise access to daylight.


Page 111



Required and preferred locations for garages. Variation criteria provided for “preferred” garage location

To coordinate garage location with crossovers & services to those lots where garages are to be provided from the primary street or to lots located on corners. This coordination will result in improved streetscape outcomes by ensuring streets are not garage dominated.

Increased minimum Outdoor Living Space to 25 sqm*

As a trade off to reduced open space requirements (detailed below) there is a greater focus on delivering outdoor living areas that are of sizes and configurations that are highly functional and well located.

Reduced Open Space*

The reduced street and boundary setbacks, increased outdoor living area dimension and passive solar design requirements under the LPP essentially would result in strategically located building envelopes within lots that allow for outdoor living areas to be in locations that are better situated, achieve more useable and functional spaces and result in less open space areas that are impractical, overshadowed and inaccessible (i.e. setback areas). Accordingly, less open space on a lot is considered appropriate as it provides more flexibility in building design whilst ensuring sustainable and site responsive design outcomes.

Reduced visual privacy requirements*

The building envelopes have been considered within the context of achieving effective and mutually beneficial outcomes in respect to reducing overlooking to adjacent habitable spaces through the application of good design. A lesser privacy setback requirement is considered appropriate in this instance due to the built form outcomes being sought and the narrow lot frontages which are not dissimilar to that being applied in higher-density areas

Solar access** (Require outdoor living areas and habitable living areas to have direct access to sunlight)

To encourage environmentally sustainable development, by optimising north-facing living spaces and prescribing access to natural light resulting in improved energy efficiency and amenity offered to residents.

Solar Access for Adjoining Lots

The building envelopes resulting from setback, outdoor living area and garage location requirements result in a residential amenity and character that has regard to overshadowing, solar access, ventilation and visual bulk. CODA have undertaken significant modelling within the bounds of the LPP’s provisions to ensure that lots can be developed to achieve a high level of solar access to developments without impeding on the ability for adjacent lots to meet the requirements of the LPP and achieve a high level of amenity.


Page 112



LOTS CODED R60 & R80 (LOTS 1-3 & LOT 11)

Reduced street Setbacks (Setbacks vary between nil – 2 metres to the multiple dwelling and grouped housing lots)

Nil setbacks promoted at nominated street edges to create a vibrant and active urban edge that enhances the streetscape character and provides a level of continuity of street facades. The proposed setbacks are not considered to diverge greatly from that prescribed under the R-Codes for R60-R80 coded lots.

Communal Open Space**

To provide both passive and active recreational opportunities to residents within multiple dwelling developments to improve their access to open space areas and the level of amenity offered.

Outdoor Living Areas* (increase the minimum dimension to balconies/terraces)

To ensure they are commensurate in size and composition to a dwelling, provide private open space opportunities of useable dimensions and contribute to the amenity of the residents. The increased minimum dimensions will provide greater flexibility to cater for service equipment and clothes drying areas to balconies/ terraces without impacting on the functionality of the space.

Building Priority Zones**

This provision identifies key areas within the policy area where a higher level of built form articulation is to be required. These areas either have interface with external streets, front key internal streets or are in landmark locations on the site.

LOT 7 (GEN Y DEVELOPMENT)

Building Height & Parking*

The provisions for Lot 7 have been applied to specifically cater for the Gen Y design for the site. The concept prepared for the site looks at providing affordable living opportunities to young home buyers through the provision of adaptable living spaces, sustainable water, waste and energy technologies and cost-effective design elements. The concept is considered to be a catalyst for the delivery of more innovative and adaptable living options to the City of Fremantle.

*This requirement requires WAPC approval to vary the “deemed to comply” criteria of the R-codes **This requirement is additional to the planning requirements the R-codes cover.

The LPP uses the R-codes’ design elements to set out and format the policy provisions. Officers are comfortable with this layout and the requirements proposed as these provisions can easily be incorporated into the City’s current statutory processes. There are three requirements in the proposed policy, however, that are additional to the R-codes’ design elements. While a residential development is not usually assessed on these requirements (see below) officers consider the provisions to be key to achieving the anticipated outcomes for the site and therefore reasonable for the City to assess a development application in the LPP area on, where applicable. These requirements are:

Solar access – This requirement would ensure direct sunlight to outdoor living areas and habitable rooms, improving energy efficiency and amenity offered to residents;

Communal open space - This requirement for multiple dwellings would ensure 20% of any site is set aside for communal open space for all residents of the multiple dwelling to enjoy; and


Page 113

Building priority zones – This requirement would provide a higher level of built form articulation in areas that interface with external streets, front key internal streets or are in landmark locations on the site.

Additionally, there are a number of provisions within the proposed policy that can only be varied with the explicit approval of the WAPC (i.e. visual privacy, open space, outdoor living area and solar access for adjoining sites). The applicant acknowledges this and has advised the City that discussions on this matter have commenced with the Department of Planning. Following final adoption of the LPP the policy will need to be forwarded to WAPC for approval to vary these deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes. Concurrent to drafting the LPP, Landcorp have also prepared Design Guidelines in conjunction with architects CODA that Landcorp will administer, as landowner, over all lots within the LSP area but outside of the statutory planning process. The purpose of the design guidelines is to ensure the overall design intent for the estate is adhered to. The guidelines include a number of design elements that are not covered by the R-codes including materials, colours, landscaping, the requirement for two storey development etc. The guidelines will form the basis of an approval process that LandCorp will administer through a requirement in the contract of sale on each lot. This process is separate to the City’s approval processes. The result of this would be anyone developing in this area would first require approval from Landcrop under their design guidelines for their development prior to a development application being lodged with the City. CONCLUSION The proposed policy is intended to ensure that appropriate statutory planning control mechanisms exist to bring about a built form of development on individual lots that is appropriate to the particular local context of the site and consistent with the approved LSP. Officers consider certain policy provisions represent an innovative approach to trying to secure high quality design outcomes on relatively small lots that are unlikely to be achieved by reliance on ‘standard’ R Codes requirements. It is therefore recommended that the draft policy be advertised for public comment, after which it will be reported back to Council for further consideration. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the following draft Local Planning Policy for the purpose of public advertising in accordance with the provisions of clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15

FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY

ADOPTION DATE: ## AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4


Page 114

STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.2.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) is to conform to the provisions of the R-codes. Part 7 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 states that a Local Planning Policy may contain provisions that amend or replace deemed-to-comply provisions. Those deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are as follows:

- 5.1.2 C2.1 – Street setback - 5.1.3 C3.1 – Lot boundary setback - 5.1.4 C4 – Open space - 5.1.6 C6 – Building height - 5.2.1 C1.1-C1.5 – Setback of garages and carports - 5.2.2 C2 – Garage width - 5.3.1 C1.1 and C1.2 – Outdoor living areas - 5.3.5 C5.1 – C5.3 – Vehicular access - 5.4.1 C1.1 – Visual privacy - 5.4.2 C2.1 and C2.2 – Solar access for adjoining sites - 6.3.1 C1 – Outdoor living areas - 6.3.3 C3.1. - Parking

Variations to this policy may be approved where the City is satisfied that the development application meets the design intent of this policy and the Design Principles of the R-Codes. Clause 10.2 of the Scheme empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval. The White Gum Valley Former Kim Beazley School Site Local Structure Plan also requires a Local Planning Policy to be adopted for the area prior to an application for development being approved. APPLICATION This policy applies to the land bound by Stevens Street, Yalgoo Avenue, Hope Street and Nannine Avenue (the former Kim Beazley Primary School site). This policy is divided into three areas and specific provisions are provided for each. These policy areas are:

Lots 4-10 & 12-28 - R35 and R40 density coding

Lots 1,2 3 and 11 - R60 and R80 density coding

Lot 7 - R40 density coding


Page 115

Figure 1 – Location and Residential Density Plan The provisions of this policy apply to residential development assessed under Part 5 and Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes. In the event there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within another Local Planning Policy, the more specific policy provision shall prevail. DEFINITIONS Habitable Living Area: has the same definition as “Habitable Room” in the R-codes but does not include bedrooms. All other definitions are as defined in the R-codes and the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. POLICY Lots 4-10 and 12-28 (R35 & R40) 1. Street Setbacks 1.1 Dwellings shall be setback from the Primary Street and secondary street(s)

in accordance with Figures 2 and 3.


Page 116

1.2 A portion of the main building line (including balconies) shall project

towards the Primary Street a minimum of 0.5 metre from the main line of the garage setback.

2. Lot boundary Setback 2.1 Dwellings shall be setback from the lot boundaries in accordance with

Figures 2 and 3 including walls built up to the lot boundary.

2.2 Boundary walls are permitted in locations as identified on Figures 2 and 3 to

a maximum of 70 per cent of the length of the boundary.

2.3 Variations to the requirements of clause 2.1 or 2.2 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following:

i. Lot boundary setbacks may be varied if Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of this policy

are satisfied. 3. Setbacks of Garages and Carports 3.1 Garages shall be provided in locations where nominated designated or

preferred garage location on Figures 2 and 3. 3.2 All garages shall be no greater than 6.0m in width (pillar to pillar). 3.3 Variations to the preferred garage location requirements of clause 3.1 may be

considered at Council’s discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting the following:

i. The alternative garage location has the same street frontage as the

preferred garage location as nominated on Figures 2 and 3; and

ii. The proposed location ensures clear sight lines and does not detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings; and

iii. The garage location must be set back from the street or laneway in accordance with Figures 2 and 3.

4. Outdoor Living Areas 4.1 All developments shall provide an outdoor living area with a minimum area of

25m2 and minimum dimensions of 5m x 5m. 4.2 The outdoor living area may be provided with permanent roof cover up to

two-thirds of the area required under clause 4.1 provided the development achieves the solar access requirements of Clause 7 of this policy


Page 117

4.3 Variations to the requirements of clause 4.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting the following:

i. The minimum outdoor living area dimension may be reduced to 4m if the

outdoor living area meets a minimum area of 28m2. 5. Open Space 5.1 The minimum open space provided as part of any development may be

reduced to 30% of the total site area (no discretion to vary) if compliance with Clauses 6, 7 and 8 and Figures 2 and 3 of this policy is achieved.

5.2 Notwithstanding the Design Principles of the R-Codes, there is no ability to

vary the minimum open space requirement under 5.1 of this policy. 6. Visual Privacy 6.1 The minimum visual privacy setbacks that apply to any development are as follows:

Type of habitable rooms/active habitable spaces

Setback distance (metres)

Major openings to bedrooms and studies

3.0

Major openings to habitable rooms other than bedrooms and studies

4.5

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

6.0

7. Solar Access 7.1 Notwithstanding the boundary setbacks prescribed on Figures 2 and 3,

dwellings shall be designed to ensure effective solar access to key internal and external spaces. Accordingly, the following applies:

i. Development is to demonstrate that a minimum of 25% of the minimum

outdoor living area (refer Clause 4) has direct access to sunlight at midday, 21 June. In undertaking this calculation, it is to be assumed that the adjoining dwellings are built to the full extent of the nominated building envelope identified on Figures 2 and 3.

ii. A minimum of 1 habitable living area is to receive direct access to sunlight at midday, 21 June.

8. Solar Access for Adjoining Sites 8.1 Development shall be so designed that its shadow cast at midday 21 June

onto any other adjoining property does not exceed 50% of any adjoining property’s site area.


Page 118

Lots 1-3 and 11 (R60 and R80) 9 Street Setbacks 9.1 Dwellings shall be setback from the primary street and secondary street(s) in

accordance with Figures 2 and 3. 10 Communal Open Space 10.1 A minimum of 20% of any site shall be set aside for communal open space

purposes for the exclusive use of residents.

10.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 10.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting the following criterion:

i. The requirement for communal open space may be reduced by up to 5%

if recreational facilities (i.e. fixed BBQ, seating and shade structures, hard and soft landscaping) are provided within the designated communal open space.

11 Outdoor Living Areas

11.1 Each dwelling shall be provided with at least one balcony or terrace

accessed directly from a habitable room with a minimum area of 10m2 and a minimum dimension of 3.0m.

11.2 Notwithstanding clause 11.1 above, 1 bedroom apartments or studios may

provide a balcony or equivalent space with a minimum dimension of 2.4m.

12 Building Priority Zones

12.1 Developments shall provide a contiguous and activated built form frontage to the boundaries identified as “Building Priority Zones’ on Figures 2 and 3.

12.2 Design responses may include but are not limited to, the orientation of

dwellings to the street, habitable rooms adjacent and overlooking the public realm and location of primary vehicle and pedestrian entrances for the streets.

12.3 No open car parking (carports or open at-grade car parking) is permitted

within this zone. Lot 7 (Gen – Y House)

13 Building Height

13.1 The maximum external wall height shall be no greater than 7.2m.


Page 119

14 Parking

14.1 Onsite parking and visitor parking is generally to be provided for in

accordance with the R-codes, however variations may be considered where there is a suitable provision of scooter and bicycle bays and adequate nearby on-street parking.


Page 120


Page 121

PSC1410-162 CITY OF FREMANTLE ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 NO.2

DataWorks Reference: 010/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 October 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1405-94; PSC1312-188 Attachments: City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A number of minor amendments are required to be made to the City’s newly gazetted Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 to satisfy the requirements of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. The purpose of this Council report is to present to Council for consideration a number of amendments made by the City to the City’s Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014; recommend adoption of the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 (No.2) to embody the City’s amendments; and recommence the local law adoption procedure prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995.

BACKGROUND

On 28 May 2014 the Council resolved to adopt the City’s Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 (PSC1405-94). The local law was adopted to replace the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas which was gazetted in 1998 (for more information refer to PSC PSC1312-188). The newly created local law was published in the government gazette on 18 July 2014 and subsequently the City received correspondence from the Department of Local Government and Communities (‘the Department’) identifying a number of shortfalls in the published local law including -

1. Incorrect formatting (use of italics, capitalisation etc)

2. Incorrect enactment date;

3. Absence of the definition of ‘nuisance’;

4. Use of ambiguous terms; and

5. Reference to ‘the City’ rather than ‘the local government’;

These shortfalls should have ideally have been communicated to the City prior to

gazettal of the local law; however these matters were not brought to the City’s attention

until after the gazettal date.


Page 122

COMMENT

The City considers that the shortfalls identified by the Department will almost certainly result in disallowance of the local law by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (‘the Committee’). The City has therefore rectified the matters highlighted by the Department. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial Nil. Legal The City is required to follow the local law adoption procedure as prescribed in the Local Government Act 1995. Operational The proposed local law will improve and simplify the current application, assessment and licensing process for outdoor eating areas as well as providing improved enforcement pathways for City officers. Organisational The proposed local law will serve as a standalone law to manage the use of City land for alfresco dining. The City has a number of other policies and local laws that relate to activities in the road reserve and these will continue to be enforced by relevant business units. CONCLUSION

The City’s Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 (No. 2) will serve to support the City’s strategic vision and simplify management of alfresco dining areas. The City has prepared a modern and relevant local law that seeks to achieve greater flexibility for business proprietors as well as simplifying the approvals and compliance procedures for City officers. The City considers the proposed local law to represent best practice for the management of City owned/managed space for dining and other compatible uses. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015 Strategic Imperative 1 – Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity Strategic Imperative 2 - Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The City will advertise the draft local law in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


Page 123

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council agree to adopt the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law

2014 (No. 2) for advertising, as shown below, and repeal the City of

Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

CITY OF FREMANTLE

ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 (No. 2) Under the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1995 and under all other powers enabling it, the Council of the City of Fremantle resolved on [insert date] to make the following Local Law.

Part 1 – Preliminary 1.1 Citation

This local law may be cited as the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law (No. 2) 2014. 1.2 Commencement

This local law comes into operation 14 days after the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. 1.3 Repeal The City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 as published in the Government Gazette on 18 July 2014 is repealed. 1.4 Application

This local law applies throughout the district. 1.5 Interpretation

In this local law, unless the context otherwise requires – Act means the Local Government Act 1995;


Page 124

alfresco dining area means an area in which tables, chairs and other structures are provided for the purpose of the supply of food or beverages or both to the public or the consumption of food or beverages or both by the public; alfresco dining means outdoor dining or drinking or both in a public place; authorised person means the CEO or any other person authorised by the local government under section 9.10 of the Act to be an authorised person for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this local law; CEO means the Chief Executive Officer of the local government; Council means the Council of the local government; district means the district of the local government; food business has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; fee means a fee or charge imposed under sections 6.16 to 6.19 of the Act; furniture means chairs, tables, waiter’s stations, planter boxes, umbrellas, screens, barriers, awnings, portable gas heaters and any other structure set up in the alfresco dining area; Health Act means the Health Act 1911; licence means a licence issued by the local government under this local law to set up and conduct an alfresco dining area; licence period means the period referred to in clause 2.9; licence plan means a plan attached to and forming part of a licence depicting the parts of a street or public place within which an alfresco dining area may be set up and conducted; licensee means a proprietor of a food business who holds a valid licence; Liquor Control Act means the Liquor Control Act 1988; local government means the City of Fremantle; local public notice has the meaning given to it in section 1.7 of the Act; month means calendar month; nuisance means –

(a) an activity or condition which is harmful or annoying and which gives rise to legal liability in the tort of public or private nuisance at law;


Page 125

(b) an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of a person of his or her ownership or occupation of land; or

(c) interference which causes material damage to land or other property on the land

affected by the interference; public place means any thoroughfare, pedestrian mall or local government property; proprietor has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; Regulations means the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; utility means any public or private body which provides an essential service, such as electricity, gas, water, drainage, sewerage, telecommunications or traffic control, and has equipment on, in or under a public place for that purpose; valid, in relation to a licence issued under this local law, means current and for which all the associated fees have been paid in full; and vehicle crossing means a crossing used by vehicles to allow access from a thoroughfare to private land or a private thoroughfare.

Part 2 - Licence 2.1 Licence required Unless exempt under clause 2.2, a person shall not set up or conduct an alfresco dining area in any public place – (a) other than in a portion of a public place adjoining a food business; (b) unless the person is the proprietor of a food business or is acting on behalf of the

proprietor of a food business referred to in paragraph (a); (c) unless the person is the holder of a valid licence issued under this local law; and (d) other than in accordance with the licence plan and any terms and conditions set out

in, or applying in respect of, the licence. 2.2 Exemptions (1) The local government may exempt a person or class of persons in writing from the

requirement to have a licence. (2) Any exemption in subclause (1) may be exercised-

(a) on the application of a person; or

(b) at the local government’s discretion.


Page 126

(3) An exemption in subclause (1) may be given subject to any conditions the local government sees fit.

(4) An exemption may apply to, or be in respect of –

(a) a particular event, street festival, carnival or activity approved by the Local government;

(b) particular goods or services; or

(c) a period of time. 2.3 Application for a licence (1) A person who is required to obtain a licence under this local law shall apply for the

licence in accordance with subclause (2).

(2) An application for a licence under this local law shall-

(a) be in the form determined by the local government;

(b) be signed by the proprietor of a food business adjacent to the portion of the public place to which the application relates;

(c) provide the information required by the form; and

(d) be forwarded to the CEO together with any fee imposed and determined by the

local government. (3) The local government may require an applicant to provide additional information

reasonably related to an application before determining the application.

(4) The local government may require an applicant to give local public notice of the application for a licence.

(5) The local government may refuse to consider an application for a licence which is not

in accordance with subclause (2) or where the applicant has not complied with subclauses (3) or (4).

2.4 Relevant considerations in determining application for licence In determining an application for a licence, the local government is to have regard to – (a) any relevant policies of the local government; and (b) any other matters that it considers to be relevant.

2.5 Decision on application for licence (1) The local government may, in respect of an application for a licence-


Page 127

(a) approve the application unconditionally or subject to any conditions; or (b) refuse to approve the application.

(2) The local Government may refuse an application for a license if it its opinion -

(a) the proposed alfresco area does not conform with the requirements of this local

law or any other relevant law;

(b) the proposed alfresco area does not conform with the requirements of any relevant policies of the local government;

(c) the use of the proposed alfresco area is likely to cause a nuisance; or

(d) the proposed licensee has been convicted during the preceding 5 years of an

offence against – (i) this local law;

(ii) the Health Act;

(iii) the Liquor Control Act; or

(iv) any other written law that affects alfresco dining.

(3) If the local government approves an application for a licence, it is to issue to the

applicant a licence in the form determined by the local government. (4) If the local government refuses to approve an application for a licence, it is, as soon

as practicable after the decision is made –

(a) to give the applicant written notice of, and written reasons for, the refusal; and

(b) to inform the applicant of his or her rights, under Part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision.

(5) Where a clause of this local law refers to conditions which may be imposed on a

licence of which are to be taken to be imposed on a licence, the clause does not limit the power of the local government to impose other conditions on the licence under subclause (1)(a).

2.6 Conditions which may be imposed on a licence The local government may approve an application for a licence subject to conditions relating to – (a) the area or location to which the licence applies; (b) the number, type, form and construction, as the case may be, of any furniture which

may be used in the alfresco dining area;


Page 128

(c) the care, maintenance and cleaning of any furniture used in the alfresco dining area; (d) the removal and storage of furniture used in the alfresco dining area prior to the

closure of the adjacent food business; (e) the alfresco dining area not impeding or obstructing a public place used by either

pedestrians or vehicles; (f) the requirement to maintain clear sight lines for vehicles entering or leaving a

thoroughfare or a vehicle crossing; (g) the obtaining of public risk insurance in an amount and on the terms reasonably

required by the local government; (h) the grant of another approval, permit, licence or authorisation which may be required

under any written law; (i) the duration and commencement of the licence; (j) the placement of advertising on furniture within the alfresco dining area; (k) the payment of all fees, charges, rates and taxes levied or incurred as a result of the

establishment and operation of the alfresco dining area; (m) the payment of costs associated with the local government preparing the public place

for the use as an alfresco dining area including but not limited to the reshaping of footpaths and marking the boundaries of the alfresco dining area.

2.7 Compliance with conditions Where – (a) an application for a licence has been approved subject to conditions; or (b) a licence is to be taken to be subject to conditions under this local law,

the licensee shall comply with each of those conditions. 2.8 Amendment of licence conditions (1) A licensee may apply in writing to the local government to amend any of the terms of

conditions of the licence. (2) The local government may, in respect of an application under subclause (1) –

(a) amend the licence, either in accordance with the application or otherwise as it sees fit; or

(b) decline to amend the licence.


Page 129

(3) The local government may, at any time, amend any of the terms and conditions of the license.

(4) If the local government amends a licence under this clause, it is to notify the licensee

in writing of the amendment as soon as practicable after the amendment is made and, unless otherwise specified in the amendment, the amended term or condition, or both, of the licence apply from the date of the notification.

(5) If the local government amends a licence otherwise than in accordance with an

application from the licensee, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision to amend is made –

(a) to give the licensee written notice of, and written reasons for, its decision to

amend; and

(b) inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision.

2.9 Duration of licence A licence is valid for twelve months from the date on which it is issued, unless it is – (a) otherwise stated in this local law or in the licence; or (b) cancelled under clause 2.12 2.10 Renewal of licence (1) A licensee may renew the licence by paying the fee imposed and determined by the

local government. (2) The provisions of the local law relevant to the license which is to be renewed shall

apply, with such modifications as are required, to an application for the renewal of a licence.

2.11 Transfer of licence (1) An application for the transfer of a valid licence is to –

(a) be in the form determined by the local government;

(b) provide the information required by the form;

(c) be signed by the licensee and the proposed transferee of the licence: and

(d) be forwarded to the CEO together with any transfer fee imposed and determined by the local government.

(2) The local government may refuse to consider or determine an application for the

transfer of a licence, which is not in accordance with subclause (1).


Page 130

(3) The local government may approve an application for the transfer of a licence, refuse to approve it or approve it subject to such terms and conditions as it sees fit, and if it is approved, the proposed transferee shall become the licensee from the date of the approval.

2.12 Cancellation of suspension of licence (1) A licence may be cancelled by the local government on any one or more of the

following grounds –

(a) the licensee has not complied with –

(i) a condition of the licence; or

(ii) a provision of this local law or any other written law which may relate to the activity regulated by the licence;

(b) if it is relevant to the activity regulated by the licence –

(i) the licensee is an undischarged bankrupt, or is in liquidation;

(ii) the licensee has entered into a composition arrangement with creditors; or

(iii) a manager, administrator, trustee, receiver, or receiver and manager, is

appointed in relation to any part of the licensee’s undertakings or property;

(c) the proprietor of the food business changes; or (d) the setting up or conduct of the alfresco dining area, or the behaviour of

customers within the alfresco dining area, is causing a nuisance. (2) The local government may cancel or suspend a licence if the local government or a

utility requires access to or near the place to which a licence applies, for the purposes of the carrying out works in or near the vicinity of that place.

(3) If the local government cancels or suspends a license under this clause, it is, as

soon as practicable after the decision is made –

(a) to give the licensee written notice of, and reasons for, the decision; and (b) inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to

object to, and apply for review of, the decision; and (c) the cancellation or suspension takes effect from the date on which the licensee is

served with the cancellation or suspension notice.

(4) On the cancellation of a licence, the licensee shall return the licence as soon as practicable to the local government.

(5) On the cancellation or suspension of a licence, the licensee is, subject to subclause (6), to be taken to have forfeited any fees paid in respect of the licence.


Page 131

(6) Where a licence is cancelled or suspended through no fault of the licensee, the local

government shall refund to the licensee all or part of the license fee in respect of what would otherwise have been the balance of the terms of the licence.

2.13 Display and production of licence A licensee shall produce to an authorised person his or her valid licence immediately on being required to do so by an authorised person.

Part 3 – Enforcement 3.1 Direction of authorised person to be obeyed (1) A licensee who is given a lawful direction by an authorised person shall comply with

that direction. (2) A licensee shall not obstruct or hinder an authorised person in the performance of

that person’s duties. 3.2 Notice to repair damage to public place Where any portion of a public place has been damaged as a result of the use of that public place as an alfresco dining area, the local government may, by notice to the licensee, order the licensee to repair or replace that portion of the public place to the satisfaction of the local government. 3.3 Removal and impounding of goods Where an alfresco dining area is conducted without a licence or in contravention of a condition of a licence, any furniture may be removed and impounded under regulation 29 of the Regulations by an authorised person. 3.4 Public access No person shall set up or conduct an alfresco dining area that prohibits public access to that area unless that area is located on private land. 3.5 Offences (1) A person who fails to do anything required or directed to be done under this local

law, or who does anything which under this local law that person is prohibited from doing, commits an offence.

(2) An offence against a clause specified in the schedule 1 of this local law is a

prescribed offence for the purposes of section 9.16(1) of the Act.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this local law shall be liable, on conviction to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 and if the offence is of a continuing nature, to an additional penalty not exceeding $500 for each day of part of a day during which the offence has continued.


Page 132

3.6 Infringement and infringement withdrawal notice For the purposes of this local law – (a) the form of the infringement notice referred to in section 9.17 of the Act is that of

Form 2 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations; and

(b) the form of the infringement withdrawal notice referred to in section 9.20 of the Act is that of Form 3 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

3.7 Offence description and Modified Penalty The amount appearing in the final column of Schedule 1 directly opposite an offence described in that schedule is the modified penalty for that offence. 3.8 Authorised persons Unless expressly state otherwise by the local government, a person appointed by the local government to be an authorised person for the purposes of this local law is taken to have also been appointed by the local government to be an authorised person for the purposes of sections 9.13 and 9.16 of the Act in relation to offences against this local law.

Schedule 1

City of Fremantle

Alfresco Dining Amendment Local Law 2014

Offences and Modified Penalties

Item No.

Clause No.

Nature of Offence Modified Penalty $

1 2.1(c) Set up or conduct an alfresco dining area without a valid licence

300

2 2.7 Failure to comply with a condition of licence 100

3 2.13 Failure to produce to an authorised person a valid licence when requested to do so

100

4 Other offences not specified 100

Dated .................. of [insert month]2014 . The Common Seal of the City of Fremantle } was affixed by authority of a } resolution of the Council in the } presence of: }


Page 133

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MAYOR


Page 134

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 135

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


Page 136


of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or 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 137


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 138

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 139

AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 10/1/2014 · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 1 October 2014...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 10/1/2014 · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 1 October 2014...