AGENDA - City of Fremantle · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 20 June 2012 Page 1 DEFERRED...

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 20 June 2012,6.00 pm

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, 20 June 2012 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street,

Fremantle (access via stairs, opposite Myer) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Philip St John DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 14 June 2012

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 6 June 2012 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1206-87 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11) 1

PSC1206-88 RULE STREET, NO. 18 (LOT 46) NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0548/12) 8

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 16

PSC1206-89 SHEPHERD STREET NO.20 (LOT 1), BEACONSFIELD – CARPORT AND OUTBUILDING ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (MS DA0413/11) 16

PSC1206-90 MORAN STREET NO. 1 (LOT 201), NORTH FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (KS DA0141/12) 21

PSC1206-91 LEFROY ROAD NO. 57 (LOT 71), BEACONSFIELD – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) REPLACEMENT TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS – (AD DA0544/11) 26

PSC1206-92 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 33

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 34

PSC1206-93 FREMANTLE ACTIVITY CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN - PRELIMINARY SCOPING AND DRAFT STUDY AREA 34

PSC1206-94 SUBMISSION ON THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1210/41 - RATIONALISATION OF STIRLING HIGHWAY RESERVATION - WAPC 49

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 60

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1206-87 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11) 3

PSC1206-89 SHEPHERD STREET NO.20 (LOT 1), BEACONSFIELD – CARPORT AND OUTBUILDING ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (MS DA0413/11) 16

PSC1206-90 MORAN STREET NO. 1 (LOT 201), NORTH FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (KS DA0141/12) 17

PSC1206-91 LEFROY ROAD NO. 57 (LOT 71), BEACONSFIELD – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) REPLACEMENT TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS – (AD DA0544/11) 25

PSC1206-92 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 37

PSC1206-93 FREMANTLE ACTIVITY CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN - PRELIMINARY SCOPING AND DRAFT STUDY AREA 39

PSC1206-94 SUBMISSION ON THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1210/41 - RATIONALISATION OF STIRLING HIGHWAY RESERVATION - WAPC 43

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 20 June 2012

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 PSC1206-87 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4) FREMANTLE -

RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 June 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1110-175 (October 2011) / PSC1203-27 (March

2012) / PSC1204-48 (April 2012) Attachment 1: Applicant further information (16 May 2012) Attachment 2: Previous PSC report PSC1204-48 (4 April 2012) Attachment 3: Heritage comments (21 May 2012) Attachment 4: Office of State Heritage advice (7 June 2012) Date Received: 10 August 2011 Owner Name: P C Donovan Submitted by: As above Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: MHI Level 1A Existing Landuse: Lodging House / Multiple Dwelling Use Class: Lodging House (TPS3) / Multiple Dwelling Use Permissibility: A & D


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 4 April 2012, PSC resolved to defer the application to the next appropriate PSC meeting to:

‘…allow council officers to seek professional heritage advice in relation to the paint type used, its potential impacts on existing fabric and the impact of its possible removal on the fabric of the building.’

On 16 May 2012, the applicant submitted further information containing the following advice (summarised): • Further investigation found that all of the surfaces coated with the acrylic paint

are cement-based with products manufactured in the 1960’s or later; • Presence of concrete indicates that the building has been refurbished

sometime after 1960 and, at that time, the concrete columns and formed corbelling was added to the building fabric;

• All substrates that were coated with acrylic paint are made from the modern concrete material;

• No evidence of limestone or heritage materials present in any of the areas; • Concrete columns and corbels are additions that were made to the original

building during renovations, carried out at least 40 years after original construction;

• No acrylic paint over limestone or any of the original building fabric. The further information submitted on 16 May 2012 was referred to the Office of State Heritage (OSH) and the City’s Heritage department for comment. On 7 June 2012, OSH provided the following comment (summarised): • It is noted that the applied acrylic paint is not affecting the original fabric of the

building; • The later additions to the building still form part of the overall State Registered

place; • The choice of painting schemes should be based on best practice, ie unpainted

surfaces should remain unpainted; • The building has clearly had a history of external alteration and selecting a

suitable historically based paint scheme may not be as easy as once considered;

• This outcome, whilst not the State Heritage Office’s preference, is acceptable as a negotiated outcome.

The removal of the unauthorised paintwork where painted in ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ is no longer required as the paintwork is not considered to have been applied to original fabric.


Page 3

However, it is considered the ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ colour is not compatible with the heritage significance of the building and therefore not supported by City officers. It is recommended a condition be imposed requiring the areas where painted in ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ be replaced with a more appropriate lighter grey colour similar to the original hydraulic lime. It is further recommended a condition be imposed requiring a schedule of colours be submitted prior to any works, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. BACKGROUND

Refer to PSC1204-48 (Attachment 2) for detailed background information regarding the site. On 5 October 2011, PSC resolved to defer the application DA0369/11 to the next appropriate PSC meeting to:

‘…allow the City to seek further evidence from the applicant regarding original paint colours.’

Refer to PSC1204-48 for discussion regarding further information submitted by the applicant on 11 January 2012. The item was referred to PSC on 7 March and 4 April 2012 in relation to information submitted by the applicant on 11 January 2012 regarding the unauthorised paintwork to the building. On 4 April 2012, PSC resolved to defer the application to the next appropriate PSC meeting to:

‘…allow council officers to seek professional heritage advice in relation to the paint type used, its potential impacts on existing fabric and the impact of its possible removal on the fabric of the building.’

On 16 May 2012, the applicant submitted further information regarding the unauthorised works.


Page 4

DETAILS The specific details of the unauthorised works at 5 Mouat Street are contained within the report presented to PSC on 5 October 2011 (PSC1110-175) which is attached to this report (Attachment 2). On 16 May 2012, the applicant submitted further information containing the following advice (summarised): • Further investigation found that all of the surfaces coated with the acrylic paint are

cement-based with products manufactured in the 1960’s or later; • Presence of concrete indicates that the building has been refurbished sometime after

1960 and, at that time, the concrete columns and formed corbelling was added to the building fabric;

• All substrates that were coated with acrylic paint are made from the modern concrete material;

• No evidence of limestone or heritage materials present in any of the areas; • Concrete columns and corbels are additions that were made to the original building

during renovations, carried out at least 40 years after original construction; • No acrylic paint over limestone or any of the original building fabric. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The following Council Local Planning Policies are relevant to this application: • LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance • LPP 2.5 External Treatment of Buildings Detailed assessment and discussion is contained in the Planning Comment of this report. CONSULTATION

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


Page 5

Heritage Comment The information provided by the applicant on 16 May 2012 was referred to the City’s Heritage department for comment. The following advice was provided (summarised): • The investigation carried out by Zedcon Scientific Services and information submitted

by the applicant confirm that the ground level columns and the upper level enrichment, such as the cornice, are of modern dense concrete;

• This indicates that these elements are not of the assumed original porous material but are instead relatively modern replacements;

• Earlier advice regarding removal of the unauthorised paintwork no longer applies – it is acceptable to apply acrylic paint to the dense concrete;

• The colour chosen for the acrylic paint is considered to be a poor choice – the opportunity should have been taken to reinstate the earlier light grey colour of the hydraulic lime.

Furthermore, it is noted that that there are several examples within the West End Conservation area of buildings depicting cornices with the lighter grey colour of hydraulic lime cement. The replacement colour as part of a colour schedule should be of a similar lighter grey colour consistent with the colour of hydraulic lime cement. Further discussion is contained in the Planning Comment section of this report. Office of State Heritage The information provided by the applicant on 16 May 2012 was referred to OSH for comment. On 7 June 2012, OSH provided the following advice (summarised): • It is noted that the applied acrylic paint is not affecting the original fabric of the

building; • The later additions to the building still form part of the overall State Registered place; • The choice of painting schemes should be based on best practice ie unpainted

surfaces should remain unpainted; • The building has clearly had a history of external alteration and selecting a suitable

historically based paint scheme may not be as easy as once considered; • This outcome, whilst not the State Heritage Office’s preference, is acceptable as a

negotiated outcome. Further discussion is contained in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Unauthorised Works Information provided by the applicant indicates that the ground level columns and upper level enrichment are of modern dense concrete. Subsequently, previous concerns regarding the impact of the acrylic paint used on the original fabric no longer applies. Therefore it is no longer required for the unauthorised paintwork to the portions of the façade to be removed.


Page 6

However, the dark charcoal grey colour scheme is not considered compatible with the heritage significance of the building. Therefore the unauthorised paintwork where painted in ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ to the portions of the façade are not supported. It is recommended a condition be imposed requiring the elements of the façade painted in ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ be painted in a more appropriate lighter grey colour. It is further recommended a colour schedule outlining the appropriate colours to be used to portions of the façade of the building be submitted prior to any works, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. CONCLUSION

The unauthorised works have been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The unauthorised paintwork of off white (‘Regency White’) to the timber joinery in the façade of the building is supported on heritage grounds. The unauthorised external paintwork to the façade of the building in ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ is not supported as it is considered incompatible with the heritage significance of the building. Information submitted by the applicant on 16 May 2012 has found that the paintwork has been applied to modern dense concrete material which was most likely to have been installed as part of renovation works undertaken after the 1960s. Subsequently, the previous recommendation requiring removal of the unauthorised paintwork is no longer relevant as acrylic paint is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the dense concrete material. However, as the colour is not considered compatible with the heritage significance of the building it is recommended that within 28 days of the date of the approval letter, the applicant shall submit a colour schedule for replacement of the ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ paintwork to the portions of the façade of the building, for the satisfaction and approval by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The replacement colour shall be of a lighter grey colour consistent with hydraulic lime cement. Subject to approval of the submitted colour schedule, the repainting of the portions of the façade shall be undertaken within 60 days of the date of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle’s approval letter in accordance with the approval colour schedule.


Page 7

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Approval for the Unauthorised External Painting to Existing Building at No. 5 (Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4) Mouat Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This retrospective approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans dated 10 August 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Within 28 days of the date of the approval letter, the applicant shall submit a

colour schedule detailing the replacement paint colour to replace the existing unauthorised external painting of ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ to the portions of the façade of the building, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. The replacement paintwork shall be undertaken within 90 days of the date of

the approval letter, in accordance with the approved colour schedule, referred to in condition 2 above.


Page 8

PSC1206-88 RULE STREET, NO. 18 (LOT 46) NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0548/12)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 June 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: n/a Attachment 1: Development Plans (7 March 2012) Attachment 2: Heritage assessment (December 2011) Attachment 3: Applicant Justification (5 March 2012) Date Received: 1 November 2011 Owner Name: D Butler & J White Submitted by: T Lemann Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: MHI Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: P


Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee for determination as objections were received during advertising which are unable to addressed through conditions of planning approval. Planning Approval is sought for a rear two storey addition with undercroft and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 18 Rule Street, North Fremantle. The subject site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 3. The Scheme permits a maximum external wall height of 5.5m and maximum roof plain pitch of 33 degrees. A 6.7m external wall height is proposed. The variation to height requirements is required to be assessed against the provisions of clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4. Revised plans dated 7 March 2012 are not considered to address the height requirements of Schedule 12 of LPS4 or concerns raised in the heritage assessment undertaken for the proposed development. The application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Residential in accordance with the LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area in accordance with Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 3. The site is located within the North Fremantle Heritage precinct which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The site is located on the south eastern corner of Rule Street and Alfred Road. The site is approximately 445m² and is improved by an existing single storey Single House fronting Rule Street. An approximate 1.1m downwards slope on site exists running east to west. The site is elevated approximately 2.4m above Alfred Road and 1.6m above Rule Street. Existing limestone walls abut Rule Street and Alfred Road, depicting maximum heights of approximately 1.5m and 1.4m respectively. DETAILS On 1 November 2011, the City received a planning application for a three storey addition and alterations to the existing Single House at 18 Rule Street, North Fremantle. The development plans dated 1 November 2011, incorporated the following proposed works: • Partial demolition of rear limestone and corrugated skillion element of existing

building to incorporate proposed rear addition; • Rear three storey addition depicting concealed roof design, incorporating ground floor

garage; • Conservation works to existing building including reinstatement of existing verandah

fronting Rule Street and reroofing.


Page 10

On 7 March 2012, the applicant submitted revised plans (Attachment 1) in order to address height requirements contained in Schedule 12 of LPS4 and concerns raised in the heritage assessment (Attachment 2). The development plans dated 7 March 2012, included the following changes: • Reconfiguration of rear addition to skillion roof design; • Reduction in wall height of the proposed rear addition from 8.5m to 6.7m (eastern

elevation); • Increase in floor area of garage; • Reconfiguration of terrace and pedestrian access from Alfred Road; • External walls of rear addition to be of a combination of render and limestone

finishes; • Roofing material to addition to be ‘Econodeck’ in grey. The revised plans contain the following variations to development requirements: • Secondary street setback; • Garage setback; • Sightlines at vehicle access points; • Boundary setbacks;

o Eastern upper floor; o Eastern boundary wall (garage);

• Building height. Further assessment and discussion is contained in the Planning Comment section of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development was assessed against the relevant provisions contained in LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The following Council Policies are relevant to the application: • LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development; • DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines. Detailed assessment and discussion is contained the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 11

CONSULTATION

Community The application (initial plans dated 1 November 2011) was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 December 2012, the City had received two submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised): • Variation to height requirements; • Overlooking from balcony; • Sewerage easement. The relevant planning concerns are addressed in the Planning Comment section below. PLANNING COMMENT

Heritage The original development plans dated 1 November 2011 were referred for external heritage comment. The heritage assessment received by the City in December 2011, provided the following comments: Positive • Restoration works to existing dwelling supported and considered to enhance the

dwelling’s contribution to the historical character of the North Fremantle area; • Proposal aimed to comply with DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines:

o New addition will be constructed at the rear of the original dwelling; o Minimal intervention is required to the original dwelling to accommodate the

new addition; o Three storey addition will be separated from the original dwelling by 3.5m,

linked by narrow single storey addition, setback behind the original dwelling. Negative • Massing of the three storey addition has potential to visually dominate the existing

dwelling; • Proposed garage and terrace above will result in significant building bulk to Alfred

Road; • Massing of solid elements, close to Alfred Road boundary, will have an adverse

impact on the streetscape setting of the heritage listed dwelling; • Large expanses of zincalume cladding to western and eastern elevations will result in

walls appearing as one large continuous mass that will become a dominant feature within the streetscape, elements require further articulation.

Supported • Proposed demolition of rear limestone and corrugated iron skillion permanent and

irreversible, however addition not integral to heritage significance of the place and therefore demolition is supported.

The revised plans dated 7 March 2012 were referred internally to the City’s Heritage department for comment.


Page 12

Heritage comments provided indicate that the revised rear addition is not considered to have addressed the previous concerns raised in the heritage assessment in regards to height and bulk of the rear addition. The height and overall bulk of the addition are not considered to be sympathetic to the heritage significance of the place or the streetscape of Alfred Road and therefore the proposed development is not supported in its current form. Height Maximum Permitted Provided Variation 5.5m 6.7m 1.2m Clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 contains provisions where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings depicting a height greater than depicted in Schedule 12 of LPS4, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied with specific criteria. The northern and eastern adjoining properties are single storey dwellings. The western adjoining property at 35 Rule Street (south western corner of Rule Street and Alfred Road) is a two storey dwelling. The southern adjoining property at 20 Rule Street (north eastern corner of Rule Street and Alfred Road) forms part of a two storey stepped terrace development which displays a single storey impression to Alfred Road and two storey to Rule Street. Other examples of two storey dwellings not directly abutting the site but within the locality which depict a height greater than permitted in Schedule 12 of LPS4 include 12 and 14 Rule Street, 26 Alfred Road and 7 Phyllis Street. However, as the site does not contain and is not considered directly adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than those contained in Schedule 12 of LPS4, on balance the proposed variation to height requirements is not considered supportable under clause 5.8.1.1. Notwithstanding non-compliance with the above, the proposed rear addition is not considered to satisfy the performance criteria of clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 in respect to: (a) Amenity The overall height of the rear addition is considered to add to the detrimental impact of building bulk to Alfred Road in accumulation with the reduced setback of the garage and terrace above. (b) Graduation of Scale The proposed rear addition is not considered to effectively graduate the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality.


Page 13

Due to the existing slope on site, the proposed addition displays a three storey impression to Alfred Road. The proposed 6.7m wall height is not considered to effectively graduate the scale of buildings with varying heights within the locality. (c) Heritage Values Heritage comments provided by the City’s Heritage department indicate that the revised plans dated 7 March 2012 are not considered to have addressed concerns raised in the heritage assessment undertaken in December 2011 in relation to the overall bulk and scale of the rear addition on the heritage values of the place and the Alfred Road streetscape. Secondary Street Setback / Garage Setback Element Required Provided Variation Secondary street setback (garage and terrace)

1.5m Garage / terrace – 0.5m

1m

Garage setback 1.5m (in line with street setback)

0.5m 1m

Sightlines at vehicle access points

Walls and fences truncated or no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of vehicle access point

Single garage setback 0.5m

1m

It is acknowledged that a maximum height 1.7m high limestone fence exists on the northern boundary of site. It is proposed that a 3.4m wide element of the existing limestone wall is to be removed to provide vehicle access to the garage from Alfred Road. The wall on either side of the vehicle access way is to be a total of approximately 2m high, which includes approximately 0.4m in excavation. The existing dwelling of the eastern adjoining property at 20 Alfred Road is located towards the rear of the property, setback approximately 24m from Alfred Road. The existing dwelling at 22 Alfred Road is setback approximately 6.5m from Alfred Road. The above variations are not supported for the following reasons: • The reduced setback of the garage and associated terrace above is not considered to

be consistent or contribute to the existing streetscape of Alfred Road; • The proposed garage as part of the rear addition is considered to add to the overall

bulk of the structure and is considered to detract from the heritage significance of the existing dwelling;

• Adequate sightlines are not considered to be provided to Alfred Road; • The proposed reduced setback of the garage would be considered to amplify an

existing vehicle sightlines issue with the existing limestone wall, the height of the existing footpath above of the street and upwards slope towards the intersection of Alfred Road and Rule Street.


Page 14

Boundary Setbacks Eastern Upper Floor Required Proposed Variation 1.6m 1.5m 0.1m The variation is supported for the following reasons: • The variation is not considered to significantly restrict direct sun access to the eastern

adjoining property; • Openings to the eastern elevation and the eastern elevation of the proposed balcony

have been assessed against and are considered to comply with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes;

• The eastern boundary setback is not considered to have a significant impact on the eastern adjoining property by way of excessive building bulk.

It should be noted that the height of the rear addition is considered to trigger the variation of the setback of the eastern upper floor against the requirements of the R-Codes. It is considered that if amended plans were submitted to reduce the height of the addition, the eastern upper floor setback would potentially comply with the requirements of the R-Codes and subsequently reduce the impact of the eastern upper floor of the development to the adjoining property. Eastern Boundary Wall (Garage and Terrace Above) The proposed eastern boundary wall is to abut the front garden area of the existing dwelling at 20 Alfred Road. The variation is supported for the following reasons: • Except for the proposed terrace, the wall is proposed to be a maximum height of

1.8m above NGL abutting the eastern adjoining property, which has a similar effect as a dividing fence;

• The terrace is to be solid up to 1.8m in height above NGL, with timber screening above to a maximum height of 2.3m;

• The boundary wall is not considered to create a sense of confinement by way of excessive building bulk;

• As the wall is situated lower than the eastern elevation of the proposed two storey addition, the boundary wall is not considered to significantly restrict direct sun access to the eastern adjoining property.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The revised plans dated 7 March 2012 are not considered to have addressed concerns raised in the heritage assessment regarding the overall height and bulk of the rear addition.


Page 15

The proposed height of the rear addition is not considered to comply with Schedule 12 and clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4. The application for the proposed two storey addition with undercroft and alterations to existing Single House is recommended for refusal as the proposal is inconsistent with the height requirements contained in Schedule 12 of LPS4 for Local Planning Area 3 – North Fremantle. Cr A Sullivan requested the item be referred to the next Planning Services Committee meeting to allow further consideration of recommendation. Seconded by Mayor, Brad Pettitt. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition with Undercroft Garage and Alterations to Existing Single House at No. 18 (Lot 46) Rule Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 1 November 2011 (Site Plan) and 7 March 2012. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the eastern boundary wall shall be of a clean finish in sand

render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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

5. Prior to occupation, the secondary street fence shall be altered to be truncated

or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of vehicle access points and street corners in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 6.2.6 of the Residential Design Codes.

6. Prior to application for a building permit the applicant shall seek and obtain the

approval of the City of Fremantle Technical Services for the proposed lowering of the foot path.

7. That the applicant submits revised plans to satisfaction of the Chief Executive

Officer to reduce the massing of the proposed deck in relation to the Alfred road streetscape.


Page 16

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 PSC1206-89 SHEPHERD STREET NO.20 (LOT 1), BEACONSFIELD – CARPORT

AND OUTBUILDING ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (MS DA0413/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 June 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans Date Received: 29 August 2011 Owner Name: M & S Dimmick Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: As Above Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as the proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of the City’s Local Planning Policy D.C6 - Carports/Garages in front of Dwellings/Buildings or the relevant requirements of the R-Codes relating to front setbacks. Planning Approval is sought for the construction of a carport and store to be located in the front setback area at No.20 (Lot 1) Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield. Given that the Carport is proposed to be built in front of the existing dwelling and that there are no other approved examples of such development in the street, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the requirements of the City’s D.C.6. nor satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. On this basis, it is recommended that the proposal be refused. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Residential under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R20. The site is located within the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area under and is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory. Furthermore, the site is not located within a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield and has a site area of approximately 638m2

. The site is currently improved by a single storey Grouped Dwelling.

DETAIL The applicant is proposing the construction of a carport and store to be located in the front setback area at No.20 Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield. Specifically the proposal is comprised of a brick, colourbond and timber screened carport and storage area located to the northern side of the site, with a nil setback to the northern and western boundaries. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

In assessing the proposal, it is noted the following discretionary decisions are being sought in relation to the Acceptable Development criteria of the R-Codes:

• Front setback • Outbuildings.

The variation to the Acceptable Development criteria of the R-Codes will be discussed further in ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Additionally, the applicant is pursuing an exercise of discretion in relation to the requirements contained in the City’s D.C6 Carports/Garages in front of Dwellings/Buildings.


Page 18

These variations will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes

Required provision Front setback

Proposed Variation 6m Nil 6m

The above variation is not supported for the following reason: • The reduced setback is not considered to contribute to the desired streetscape of

Shepherd Street in that the proposal will be contrary to the established pattern of dwellings setback in the vicinity of 6m or greater.

For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.10.1.

Required provision Outbuildings

Proposed Variation Wall height less than 2.4m Maximum wall height of 3.2m 0.8m Not located within primary

street setback area Located within primary street

setback area See discussion below

Complies with side boundary setbacks, but do

not need to meet rear setback requirements of

Table 1.

Nil setback to northern boundary 1m

The above variations are not supported for the following reason: • The Outbuilding is not considered to be consistent with the established pattern of the

streetscape, therefore may result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties;

For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.10.1.


Page 19

Council Policy

D.C 6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings

The City’s D.C 6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings states that: 1. Carports and garages will not be allowed in the front setbacks unless:

(i) There is an existing pattern of carports/garages in the street; (ii) The topography of the land is such that the carport/garage can form a part of

the existing slope/cliff or retaining wall; (iii) The topography of the land is such that the existing house is significantly

below the street level; (iv) The house is located on a corner lot. In this case a carport/garage can be

built to the secondary street; (v) The existing house’s setback is significantly greater than other setbacks in

the street or (vi) The subject lot is irregular in shape and location.

The established pattern of Shepherd Street is predominantly comprised of carports and garages setback behind the front façade of the dwelling or as either under-croft garages or alternatively located at the side of dwellings. There is not considered to be an existing pattern of carports/garages in the front setback areas in the street. The differentiation in topography of the site is marginal, so as to not warrant a carport forming part of the slope/cliff or retaining wall. The subject site is not irregular in its shape or location. Furthermore, the setback of the existing dwelling located on site (approximately 8m) is consistent with other dwellings in the street, forming part of a largely uniform streetscape along Shepherd Street. On this basis, the proposed carport is not considered to be consistent with the provisions contained within the City’s D.C6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings. CONCLUSION In considering this proposal, Council should be satisfied that the development will not result in any adverse impact on the streetscape through discretionary decisions sought for the proposed location of the carport and Outbuilding. It is considered that the proposed location of the carport is incongruous with the established streetscape of Shepherd Street, and will therefore act to diminish the uniformity of buildings setback from the primary street. Furthermore, the inclusion of an Outbuilding within the primary street setback area is not considered to be acceptable on the basis that it may establish an undesirable precedent along Shepherd Street. For the reasons outlined within the ‘Planning Comment’ section above, it is considered that the discretionary decisions sought should not be supported on the basis that they


Page 20

are contrary to the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes and objectives of Council Policy. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the carport and outbuilding addition to an existing Grouped Dwelling at No.20 (Lot 1) Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not meet the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s D.C6

Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings policy or the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes relating to front setbacks and outbuildings.


Page 21

PSC1206-90 MORAN STREET NO. 1 (LOT 201), NORTH FREMANTLE - THREE

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (KS DA0141/12) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 June 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development Plans Date Received: 3 April 2012

28 May 2012 (Amended Plans) Owner Name: Mario Camer-Pesci & Anna Camer-Pesci Submitted by: SIA Architects Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as objections were received during the advertising period which raised concerns that are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a three storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 201) Moran Street, Beaconsfield (subject site). The application has been assessed against relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies. Further, the development has been assessed against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires a discretionary decision with respect to building height. The variation to building height is considered to meet the relevant Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 1 (Lot 201) Moran Street, Beaconsfield is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20 and is located within Local Planning Area 3.5 – Beaconsfield. The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Lefroy Road and Moran Street and comprises a vacant lot with an area of 564m2

. The subject site is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) but is included within the South Fremantle Heritage Area.

DETAIL On the 3 April 2012 the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for a three storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 201) Moran Street, Beaconsfield. On 9 May 2012 the City requested amended plans and/or justification addressing boundary wall, building height, primary street fence and vehicle sightline variations. The City received amended plans on 28 May 2012 addressing/justifying the above variations and proposing the following three storey Single House at the subject site: Ground Floor • Double Garage under roof of main dwelling; • Laundry; • Entry; • Kitchen; • Dining; • Living; • Master Bedroom; • Ensuite; • TV Room; • Detached Garage and Store (detached from dwelling); • Pool (northern portion of site); • Primary street fence at 1.75m and limestone pillars at 1.9m above natural ground

level; and


Page 23

• Solid secondary street fence facing Lefroy Road at 1.8m above natural ground level. Upper level

• Activity Room; • Bed (x3) ; • Study; and • Bath.

Roof Level

• Roof terrace. The proposed development plans (as amended) are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 7 May 2012, the City had received two submissions pertaining to the proposal, raising the following relevant planning concerns:

• Overshadowing; • Eastern boundary wall; • Southern boundary wall; • Building height; • Primary street fence (visual permeability); and • Sightlines at vehicle access points.

Internal Referrals Parks and Gardens Department The application was referred for comment to the City’s Parks and Gardens Department on 17 April 2012 with comment received on 30 April 2012 as follows:

• Parks advises that the existing olive tree located in the verge (Moran Street) was planted for its contribution to the streetscape and its removal will not be supported.

• Parks supports the relocation of the existing olive tree in the verge for the instatement of the proposed crossover subject to the following:

The existing olive tree in the verge is to be relocated 2 metres to the northern edge of the proposed crossover.

Transplanting is to be performed by a professional tree planting company.

Tree to be fenced off to prevent damage during building works. Owner to be responsible for watering and maintenance for a two

year period. All costs at expense of the owner. If tree dies, owner to replace with similar sized tree at own expense.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the above be imposed as a condition of approval.


Page 24

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Variations to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes)

Building Height

Required Provision Proposed Variation 7m maximum wall height (concealed roof).

8.75m maximum wall height.

1.75m.

This variation is supported for the following reasons:

• Building height is considered to be consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality. The southern adjoining property at No. 3 (Lot 202) Moran Street, Beaconsfield has a maximum roof pitch height of 8.6m and No 9 (Lot 216) Moran Street, Beaconsfield has a maximum roof pitch height of 9.15m.

• The variation is limited to the roof level roof terrace which comprises a solid wall at 3.55m on its southern side and solid wall at 2.55m on its eastern side. The remainder of the wall elements associated with the roof level are of open construction. Further, the roof level is limited to the most western portion of the site and stepped back from the ground level and setback from the southern boundary. The upper level is also stepped back behind the ground level from the southern and eastern boundaries with all walls being setback in accordance with Design Element 6.3.1. Accordingly, the dwelling is considered to be designed to reduce the impact of building bulk and shadowing upon the streetscape and adjoining properties.

• The variation will not cast shadow upon any major opening or cast any additional shadow upon the outdoor living area associated with the southern adjoining property.

• The proposed development is contained within the maximum roof height requirement of 9m.

CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed against and is considered to comply with LPS4 and all relevant Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes, with exception to Design Element 6.7.1 Building height which is considered supportable under the relevant Performance Criteria. Further, the development is considered to meet the requirements of Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies, except in regard to the visual permeability requirements of L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy which has been bought into compliance through a recommended condition of approval. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 25


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the three storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 201) Moran Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 28 May 2012. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

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

4. Prior to commencement, the olive tree located in the verge on Moran Street,

be relocated to the position proposed on plans dated 28 May 2012 by a professional tree planting company to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All costs to be at the expense of the owner.

5. Prior to occupation, all fencing infill panels within the primary street (Moran

Street) setback area on the approved plans shall comply with the definition of ‘visually permeable’ within the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Notes: i. In regard to Condition 3, the applicant is advised to liaise with the City’s

Technical Services Department on 9432 9809 regarding the instatement of the vehicle crossover.

ii. In regard to Condition 4, the applicant is advised that the City will not

support the complete removal of the existing olive tree located in the verge (Moran Street). Further, the applicant is advised to liaise with the City’s Parks and Gardens Department on 9432 9854 in regard to the relocation of the olive tree in the verge.


Page 26

PSC1206-91 LEFROY ROAD NO. 57 (LOT 71), BEACONSFIELD – DEMOLITION

OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) REPLACEMENT TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS – (AD DA0544/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 June 2012 (PSC) Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (As Amended) Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 1 November 2011;

28 May 2012 (Amended Plans) Owner Name: Slavko & Antonija Djuric Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed,

South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Proposed Landuse: Grouped Dwellings Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of two (2) replacement two storey Grouped Dwellings at No. 57 (Lot 71) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The applicant is pursuing discretionary decisions in relation to ‘Acceptable Development’ requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) pertaining to the following Design Element’s: • Buildings on boundary; • Open space provision; • Building height; and • Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Hale Street to the west, Lefroy Road to the north, Beard Street to the south and Livingstone Street to the east. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 767m2

and is located on the southern side of Lefroy Road and the western side of Livingstone Street, Beaconsfield. The site has a north-south orientation and is currently improved by a single storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures. In terms of topography, the site slopes approximately 2.00 metres from its Livingstone Street frontage down to its western boundary, whilst rising approximately 2.00 metres from its southern boundary up to its Lefroy Road frontage.

A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning or to this application.


Page 28

DETAIL On 1 November 2011 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of two (2) replacement three storey (with undercroft) Grouped Dwellings at No. 57 (Lot 71) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield (refer DA0544/11). On 15 March 2012, the City sent the applicant an email requesting: amended development plans so as to comply with the prescribed development standards of LPS4, Council Policies and the R-Codes; and/or provide justification to the discretionary decisions sought by the proposal; a summary of the public submissions received; and a copy of the Heritage Assessment. It is noted that the applicant was advised by the City that it was not prepared to support the proposal in its current form and that significant redesign would be required, to get the proposal to the point where the City would be willing to consider anything to the contrary. On 9 May 2012, the City met with the applicant to discuss preliminary amendments prior to formally submitting them as amended plans. It was clear that the applicant was prepared to significantly redesign the proposal in light of the City’s email dated 15 March 2012. On 28 May 2012, the City received amended plans for the proposal which reduced the scale of the two (2) proposed replacement Grouped Dwellings from three storeys (with undercroft) down to just two storeys. It is noted that the changes made as part of the amended plans were significant, with the applicant clearly endeavouring to address the relevant planning concerns raised by the public submissions, as well as amending multiple elements of the proposal so as to comply with the prescribed standards of LPS4, Council Policies and the R-Codes. The proposed development plans (as amended) are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is proposing a number of variations from the ‘Acceptable Development’ standards of the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 30 January 2012, the City had received eight (8) submissions pertaining to the proposal, raising the following relevant planning concerns:

• Impact on streetscape and locality in general; • Impact upon heritage significance (abutting and adjoining heritage listed buildings

and area); • Building height; • Building bulk and scale; • Retaining wall height; • Street setbacks to Livingstone Street; • Overshadowing;


Page 29

• Visual privacy; and • Impacts on views of significance. Accordingly, those concerns that do not comply with the City’s requirements will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Heritage In accordance with Clause 5.15 of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments (LPP 1.6), a Heritage Assessment was required to be undertaken as the proposal includes the demolition of the existing building on site. Heritage advice was received by the City on 1 February 2012. Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.” In this regard, the proposed demolition of the existing builidings should be supported as the Heritage Assessment identified the existing place to be limited to none:

“The overall significance of the place is limited to none.” A copy of the Heritage Assessment is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes)

Variation No.

Buildings on boundary

Boundary Wall Required Proposed Variation

1 Unit 1 - Western boundary wall (‘garage’)

1.00m 0.00m (nil)

1.00m

2 Unit 2 - Southern boundary wall (‘garage’)

1.00m 0.00m (nil)

1.00m


Page 30

These variations are supported for the following reasons: • They are not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of

the western or southern adjoining properties in terms of views of significance; • It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site; • The proposal development in its entirety complies with ‘Acceptable Development’

standards of the R-Codes pertaining to overshadowing; • The walls are not adjacent to the outdoor living area of the western or southern

adjoining properties; • In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the western and southern

boundary walls are not considered to significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk, nor is it considered to impact the privacy of the western or southern adjoining properties; and

• Therefore the proposed variations are supported as it is considered that they address the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of Design Element 6.3.2 of the R-Codes and the additional factors stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.

Required provision

Open space provision

Proposed Variation 50% (201.8m2) of the site area to be allocated as open space

Unit 1 - Open space proposed = 44% (178m2)

6% (24m2)

This variation is supported for the following reason: • It is considered that there is sufficient open space around the proposed Unit 1 to

complement it, nor does not compromise the streetscape and is considered to suit the future needs of the residents.

Permitted

Wall height

Proposed Variation Top of external wall (roof above) 6.00m

• Unit 1 (northern elevation) between 6.40m and 6.80m (for a length of approximately 9.40m);

• Between 0.40m (400mm) and 0.80m (800mm)

• Unit 1 (western elevation) 6.40m for a length of approximately 9.00m);

• 0.40m (400mm)

This variation is supported for the following reasons: • As discussed in the ‘Background’ section earlier in this report, the subject site is

severely constrained by its natural topography, with a 3.80 metre crossfall across the site from its south-eastern corner down to its north-western corner. In this regard, the extent of the external wall height variations is limited to, and considered to appropriately reflect, the variations in the natural topography in the north-western corner of the site;


Page 31

• It is acknowledged that proposed Unit 1 exceeds the maximum external wall height

for its northern and western elevations as prescribed by the ‘Acceptable Development’ standards of the R-Codes, however the proposal complies with the maximum allowable roof ridge height of 9.00 metres as only 6.80 metres is proposed. In this regard, it is clear that the applicant has considered the concerns raised by the public submissions pertaining to building height and bulk and amended the plans accordingly to address them.

• Further, it is considered that the amendments made by the applicant in light of the public submissions received recognises the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, provision of adequate direct sunlight as well as views of significance.

Variation No.

Visual privacy

Required Provided Variation

1 Setback 6.00m

Unit 1 (ground floor – ‘sitting’) setback 4.50m 1.50m

2 Setback 7.50m

Northern elevation of upper floor ‘balcony’ of Unit 2 setback 5.80m

1.70m

3 Setback 7.50m

Eastern elevation of upper floor ‘balcony’ of Unit 2 setback 6.80m

0.70m

These variations are not supported for the following reasons: Variations 1 & 2

• Both of these variations are anticipated to overlook the rear garden space and outdoor living area of the western adjoining property, being No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield; and

• As these variations do not comply with the ‘Acceptable Development’ and ‘Performance Criteria’ of clause 6.8.1 of the R-Codes, an appropriate condition has been provided in the Officer’s recommendation to bring this element of the proposal into compliance.

This variation is supported for the following reason: Variation 3:

• The extent of overlooking of the southern adjoining property, being No. 1A (Lot 72) Livingstone Street, Beaconsfield, is limited exclusively to the carport of that dwelling.

CONCLUSION

The proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of two (2) replacement two storey Grouped Dwellings at No. 57 (Lot 71) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield has been assessed against and is considered to meet the ‘Performance Criteria’ provisions of the R-Codes specifically: Buildings on boundary; Open space provision; and Building height. Further, given that only one of the three variations sought to Visual privacy is considered supportable under the applicable ‘Performance Criteria’, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed to bring the other two variations into compliance with the ‘Acceptable Development’ standards.


Page 32

Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of two (2) replacement two storey Grouped Dwellings at No. 57 (Lot 71) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 28 May 2012. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and western

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

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

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

4. Prior to occupation, the ‘sitting’ room as contained within the ground floor on

the western elevation and the ‘balcony’ as contained within the upper floor on the northern elevations 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 20% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level; or

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

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

in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


Page 33

PSC1206-92 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

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

That the information is noted.


Page 34

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1206-93 FREMANTLE ACTIVITY CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN -

PRELIMINARY SCOPING AND DRAFT STUDY AREA DataWorks Reference: 115/038 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 20 June 2012 Previous Item: C1112-3 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachment 1: Structure plan requirements as per SPP4.2 Agenda Attachment 2: Metropolitan Region Scheme map for Fremantle central

area


Page 35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present a preliminary discussion on the role and scope of an activity centre structure plan for the Fremantle central area. During the formal initiation of Amendment 49 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in August 2011, Council resolved to support the undertaking of a broader strategic planning exercise to guide and integrate future land use, development and other activity in central Fremantle as a whole. Furthermore Fremantle is identified as a ‘strategic metropolitan centre’ under the state government’s hierarchy of activity centres as detailed in Directions 2031, and in accordance with the state planning policy 4.2 – Activity centres for Perth and Peel, a structure plan is to be prepared for each strategic metropolitan centre. This report will outline a process to begin the preparation of an activity centre structure plan for the Fremantle central area, addressing the following points and making recommendations for Council’s consideration: 1. What is an activity centre structure plan? 2. What is the role of the structure plan and where does it fit within the planning

framework? 2. Proposed preliminary Fremantle activity centre study area. 3. Identification of precincts within the activity centre structure plan study area. 4. Proposed timeline for structure plan process. 5. Use the Planning Services Committee as a working body to prepare the draft

structure plan. BACKGROUND

The following planning documents and Council resolutions are relevant to preliminary scoping of the Activity Centre structure plan, and are briefly detailed as follows.

Directions 2031 and State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel

Fremantle is identified as one of ten ‘strategic metropolitan centres’ under the State Government’s Directions 2031 strategic planning framework. The next tier in the strategic centre hierarchy is ‘Primary Centre’ of which there are currently no metropolitan centres identified, as the designation of Primary Centre is an aspirational target for any of the strategic metropolitan centres to move into over time. State Planning Policy 4.2 ‘Activity Centres for Perth and Peel’ (SPP4.2) (gazetted in August 2010) is a statutory document that guides the administration of the activity centres. SPP4.2 sets out typical characteristics and performance targets for each of the centres in the hierarchy. The policy expects that within 3 years activity centres are to develop an Activity Centre Structure Plan to ensure that development is integrated, cohesive and accessible – i.e. by the end of August 2013. An Activity Centre Structure Plan for a strategic metropolitan centre requires Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approval. Initiation of Amendment 49 – 24 August 2011


Page 36

Part 7 of the Council resolution to initiate Amendment 49 to LPS4 states:

In addition to the initiation of Amendment No. 49 to Local Planning Scheme 4, Council supports the undertaking of a broader strategic planning process to guide and integrate future land use, development and other activity in central Fremantle as a whole. Details of this process should be the subject of a further report to Council, but it is envisaged the process is likely to involve preparation of an Activity Centre Structure Plan satisfying requirements identified in State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres in Perth and Peel, addressing issues including but not limited to:

a) Pedestrian and cyclist movement and amenity, including improved linkages

between the city centre and the railway station, waterfront and east end and permeability and opportunities for mid-block access across street blocks;

b) Precinct character, and urban form and spatial layout c) Quality, connectivity and activation of public spaces; d) Public transport services including mode interchange facilities; e) Vehicle circulation and parking; f) Resource conservation and climate change factors.

Strategic Planning Priorities for the CBD Area – 21 December 2011

In December 2011 Council considered a report detailing a number of strategic planning projects relevant to the CBD, mostly associated with Amendment 49, the Fremantle Union, and the Council’s strategic plan objectives. The report recommended a general scope for each project, priorities for each project and clarification of the relationships between each project. Council resolved to adopt the following strategic planning priorities for the CBD as shown below: 4TH 1 2011 ST 2 2012 ND 3 2012 RD 4 2012 TH

Amendment 49 2012

Kings Square Design Policy for City Centre

Strategic sites and East End

Station and East Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct

Southern Transit Corridor State Heritage Listing for West End / Policy update Stan Reilly site

principles

Strategic approach to CBD parking

Council owned sites

Footnote: Council notes the CEO Working Group being formed in first quarter 2012 to review operational parking issues.


Page 37

COMMENT

The preliminary scoping of the activity centre structure plan project will be discussed under the following headings: 1. What is an activity centre structure plan? 2. What is the role of the structure plan and where does it fit within the planning

framework? 2. Proposed preliminary Fremantle activity centre structure plan study area. 3. Identification of precincts within the activity centre structure plan study area. 4. Proposed timeline for structure plan process. 5. Use the Planning Services Committee as a working body to prepare the draft

structure plan. 1.

What is an Activity Centre structure plan?

The Activity Centre structure plan will be a broad strategic planning document to guide future land use, development and other activity within the Fremantle city area. The structure plan will be holistic and visionary in approach; looking at the function of the Fremantle city area as a whole rather than separate and independent components. Whilst the structure plan will recognise and differentiate between places of different character, history and uses, the integration of these places into the whole will be at the forefront of the structure plan’s ambitions. The contents of an activity centre structure plan are set out in State Planning Policy 4.2 – broadly in Table 7 and in greater detail in Appendix 2 – Model Centre Framework (refer to Attachment 1 to this report which provides all the stated requirements from Appendix 2 of SPP4.2). The broad aspects to be addressed by the structure plan are detailed in the following table under the same headings as contained in SPP4.2:

Activity centre structure plan contents Centre context

General classification, assessment and mapping of the centre’s role and place in the Metropolitan area activity centres hierarchy.

Movement Analysis and audit of the existing transport network and parking supply servicing and affecting the centre. Identification of areas for improvement in consultation with appropriate authorities.

Activity Review and record land use patterns, clusters and character areas; identify the requirements to address the diversity performance targets for a strategic metropolitan activity centre, including residential density and employment generating land use targets.

Urban form Examination of urban design principles including the identification of opportunities and constraints of the urban form. Consideration of issues such as landmark sites, key nodes, view corridors, open spaces, landscaping and public art, connectivity between areas, pedestrian and vehicle movement. Identification of precincts within the activity centre and formulation of objectives for each precinct.


Page 38

Resource conservation

Assessment of environmental planning considerations and identification of actions to address these issues.

Implementation

Outline processes and actions to implement the structure plan.

Evidently the activity centre structure plan will address many aspects affecting the functioning and character of the centre which, in Fremantle’s situation, will cover multiple land authorities and agencies other than just the City of Fremantle. Therefore it is important that the structure plan evolves from a collaborative process so that the structure plan objectives are real and achievable. The broad scope of the structure plan has the potential to frame and integrate land use and development in the Fremantle central area into the city’s next evolutionary stage. 2.

What is the role of the structure plan and where does it fit within the planning framework?

The primary role of the structure plan will be to provide a broad framework to guide future planning work in the Fremantle central area. Strategic planning objectives will be identified and recommended actions to implement the objectives will be provided. The structure plan will be a strategic guiding document and whilst it will be a consideration in the assessment of development proposals, it won’t be a statutorily enforceable document. It must also be stressed early that the structure plan will not alter the roles and responsibilities of the individual planning authorities within the structure plan boundary. To this end, the scope and depth of the structure plan needs to be clearly defined and understood from the outset. As discussed above, the structure plan is to guide future planning initiatives and the structure plan’s implementation will be ultimately achieved through the adoption of appropriate statutory planning mechanisms, rather than being a statutory document in itself. The structure plan will broadly identify land use and development objectives within the activity centre however it should not attempt to prescribe exact development standards that are currently dealt with under the local planning scheme otherwise there is a risk that the broader objectives of the structure planning process could be lost within the debate on particular development or land use standards – a debate that would need to happen in any case should any changes to the statutory planning framework be proposed. This is not to say the structure plan shouldn’t attempt to deal with land use and development standards at all, rather than it should be considered in broad and general terms and not attempt to prescribe a level of detail that is better suited to the role of the local planning scheme, policy, or otherwise. Furthermore it needs to be recognised that the level of detail in the structure plan will vary depending on the land over which the provisions apply. The relationship of the structure plan, and its contents, within the statutory planning framework is shown in the following diagram:


Page 39

The implementation of the structure plan’s objectives will depend on the actions identified in the structure plan – i.e. amendments to the local planning scheme, adoption of appropriate policies etc. On land outside of the local planning scheme (i.e. MRS reserved land), the structure plan is intended to guide planning decisions as well as future planning initiatives such as the preparation of master plans or policies. However the relevant State agency (primarily the WAPC) will remain the decision-making body for such matters. 3.

Proposed preliminary Fremantle activity centre structure plan study area

In addition to the preliminary scoping of the structure plan, it is considered necessary to outline a draft boundary for the structure plan study area to define the scope of influence of the plan however it should be acknowledged that the proposed boundary is preliminary at this stage and won’t be confirmed until after appropriate consultation. The current planning framework for the Fremantle central area is complex, with the role of planning authority being shared between local and state agencies/departments as well as various documents drawing different central area boundaries depending on the objectives or point of view of the document. However, based on a desktop review of these various documents and given the early stages of the project, the existing zone boundaries under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme are considered the most appropriate instruments to base the preliminary structure plan study area on, as will be further elaborated. The following figures show: 1. The Central City zone of the MRS map for the Fremantle central area (refer to

Attachment 1 for a more detailed version of the MRS); 2. Local planning area 1 – City Centre as defined under LPS4; and


Page 40

3. Proposed structure plan study area.

Figure 1: MRS Central City zone

Figure 2: MRS Central City and Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre

Figure 3: Proposed structure plan study area


Page 41

The City Central MRS zone (figure 1) is subject to the provisions of the City’s local planning scheme and for the most part, includes most localities of what would be considered the Fremantle city centre area. However, in terms of an overall structure planning study area, this zone is considered insufficient due to the obvious exceptions from the broader Fremantle central area – specifically the Esplanade and Arthur Head reserves, Victoria Quay reserve, Port installations reserve, Railways reserve and Challenger and Fishing Boat Harbours (Refer also to Attachment 2 for a more detailed map of the Metropolitan Region Scheme reserves). Local planning area 1 – City Centre (figure 2) includes the above mentioned Metropolitan Region Scheme reserves, even though these areas are beyond the planning jurisdiction of the local planning scheme. However the LPA1 boundary differs from the MRS City Central zone as the southern boundary is Norfolk Street (rather than Howard Street), areas east of Parry Street aren’t included and rather form part of LPA2 – Fremantle, as does the area subject to Local Planning Scheme Amendment 38 (‘East End’). These excluded areas, as well as Fremantle Park and leisure centre, are considered part of the Fremantle central area and should be incorporated into the structure plan study area as these areas will significantly contribute to the residential population and recreational needs of the city. It is therefore proposed that the boundaries of the MRS City Central zone and LPA1 – City Centre be combined to form the structure plan study area, as shown by Figure 3. The proposed structure plan study area encompasses the historical and established places of commerce, trade and activity, such as the West End and Fremantle Port. However the proposed study area also includes areas currently in transition stages, such as the Amendment 38 area (‘East End’) and Amendment 49 sites, which once redeveloped will contribute greatly to the overall functioning of the city area. The proposed study area incorporates an array of land uses that are integral to the centre’s function, including all forms of retail, commerce and banking, government administration (including key social services), tourist and entertainment orientated uses, residential, educational, recreational, special facilities such as medical and health services, and maritime industries. Additionally the area is well serviced by public transport, with most of the area within the accepted 800metre walkable catchment from the railway station or high frequency bus routes. Furthermore the area under LPS control is already recognised by the MRS as the city centre, thus ensuring the boundary is in line with the existing state planning framework. Whilst it is restated that the proposed study area is preliminary at this stage, the proposal is considered to present the most comprehensive, yet practical, boundary to the city centre structure plan area. 3.

Identification of precincts within the activity centres structure plan study area

Within the proposed activity centre structure plan study area there are numerous areas or precincts that are readily distinguishable from one another for various reasons. Strengthening a precinct based reading of Fremantle by reinforcing the established positive characteristics of each precinct or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, ensuring that they promote the desired future character of the precinct would contribute to the City’s overall legibility, distinctiveness and hence vitality, in ways that would not be possible in a more monotonous cityscape.


Page 42

Therefore whilst the structure plan will adopt a holistic approach to the Fremantle central area, it is important that these precincts be identified and recognised. Additionally, as resolved by Council in December 2011, three strategic priorities for 2012 relate to particular precincts within the broader CBD area – those being, design policies for the Amendment 38 (‘East End’) and Amendment 49 sites and masterplanning for the Station and East Victoria Quay commercial precinct – and therefore it is considered appropriate to draft the boundaries of these precincts in the context of the broader structure plan study area, and at this stage of the structure planning project. A historical reading of the development of the Fremantle central area, illustrates that Fremantle’s urban structure relates to the topographical and geological features of the land including the peninsular and the limestone ridges to the east. This resulted in distinctive block shapes, sizes, orientations, street widths and lot subdivisions assigned for each areas, and together with changing patterns of use and activity developed into distinctive interdependent precincts within the Fremantle central area. These historical precincts are still evident and can be interpreted today and strategic planning initiatives should recognise the established positive characteristics of each precinct, and encourage desired future character to promote the City’s legibility distinctiveness and vitality. These historical precincts have been considered and compared with the existing statutory planning boundaries within the proposed Fremantle central area as well as existing land uses and development. The following map shows the identified precincts within the structure plan study area:


Page 43

There are 11 precincts within the proposed structure plan area. The following table also briefly describes each precinct and details the most notable current planning information.

DRAFT


Page 44

No. Description Notable planning information 1 Reclaimed land used predominantly for

Port operations, including the passenger ship terminal. Includes bus interchange and public parking on PTA land.

MRS Port Installations and Railways reserves.

2 Reclaimed land used for a variety of land uses as well as Port operations. Includes Port Authority building, Maritime Museum, Railway Station E Shed markets, TAFE.

MRS Public Purpose, Port Installations and Railways reserves. Fremantle Waterfront Masterplan 2000. DGF26 Planning policy for the West End of Victoria Quay 2001.

3 Area subject to the recent Amendment 38 to the local planning scheme. Part of original town plan, Beach St follows the original river shoreline. Historical warehousing and port related uses however finer scale built form on the eastern side of Queen Victoria St. Opportunity to create a new character as the area is undergoing transition.

MRS Central City zone. LPS Mixed Use zone. Recent Amendment 38 to LPS4.

4 Mix of current land uses including residential, educational and recreational, notable Fremantle Park.

MRS Central City zone. LPS Residential and Mixed use zones and Open Space reserve.

5 Traditional civic and cultural heart of Fremantle. Includes a number of sub-precincts – notably King’s Square, Woolstores, South Tce/Market St retail and entertainment. Includes Amendment 49 sites so potential for redevelopment and creation of new character on and around the Amendment sites.

MRS Central City zone. LPS City Centre zone. Numerous existing local planning policies.

6 Includes ‘West End’ and ‘Former Warehousing/Residential’ zones identified in West End Conservation policy (DGF14). Also includes properties north of Phillimore St that exist on reclaimed land.

MRS Central City zone. LPS City Centre zone. DGF14 – West End Conservation policy 1992.

7 Includes Arthur Head cottages, Round House and Bathers Beach.

MRS Parks and Recreation reserve. DGF5 Arthur Head Reserve Strategy Plan 1993.

8 Reclaimed land currently used for recreational and public purposes (Esplanade).

MRS Parks and Recreation and Public Purpose reserves. Esplanade Masterplan 2009.

9 Part of the original town plan. Currently occupied by commercial and residential land uses.

MRS City Centre zone, LPS Mixed Use, Residential and Local Centre zones.


Page 45

10 Variety of maritime related uses associated with the Fishing Boat and Challenger Harbours.

MRS Public Purpose reserve. Part of proposed ‘Three Harbours’ policy area.

11 Original convict site however also extends south eastwards to Alma St and Hampton Rd to encompass the MRS Public Purpose reserve and to align with the draft Fremantle Prison Buffer zone.

MRS Central City zone, Civic and Cultural and Public Purpose reserves. World Heritage listing, Fremantle Prison Conservation Management Plan.

As with the proposed structure plan study area, it should be understood that the identified precinct boundaries are preliminary working boundaries to further planning work within the Fremantle central area. Council won’t be requested to finalise these boundaries until relevant community consultation has occurred, whether the consultation is for the precinct design policies or the structure plan overall.

Proposed timeline for structure plan process

There is substantial work involved in preparing an activity centre structure plan in accordance with the SPP4.2 requirements. Whilst there are numerous documents, policies and reports adopted and implemented by the City and other authorities that address many of the aspects of a structure plan, either directly or indirectly, the structure plan will need to examine these documents and collaborate the information under a common document. Gaps or inefficiencies in the information will need to be identified and addressed. Given the size and complexities of the project and to ensure the timely completion of the project, it is considered appropriate to sketch out a preliminary timeframe of key actions and milestones to undertake the structure plan. The following timeline maps out a process to prepare the structure plan, subject to Council’s agreement. Year 2012 Month Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Council actions

Preliminary structure plan scoping, including draft structure plan study area and precincts.

Review community input, adopt guiding principles for structure plan.

Officer actions

Preliminary community input and ‘visioning’

Analysis of community input and preparation of draft structure plan.

Review and audit of existing data and mapping for structure plan requirements. Identify issues and shortfalls in existing data.


Page 46

Year 2013 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Council actions

Adoption of draft structure plan for advertising.

Consideration of submissions. Adopt principles to guide modifications to final structure plan.

Final adoption of structure plan. Forward to WAPC for endorsement.

Officer actions

Analysis and drafting of structure plan (cont’d).

Community consultation (60 days)

Review community feedback, report on submissions and prepare recommended principles to guide modifications to structure plan.

Modify and finalise structure plan for final adoption.

5.

Use the Planning Services Committee as a working body to prepare the draft structure plan

Due to the nature and size of the activity centre structure plan project, it is appropriate that consideration be given to how Elected Members are to give Officers direction on key issues during the formulation of the draft structure plan. Whilst Council could consider forming a working group or similar, under Council’s Standing Orders, the Planning Services Committee (PSC) is able to ‘to exercise delegated authority, develop policy and make recommendations to Council on strategic trends and needs analysis and integrated forward planning in relation to … structure plans.’ The PSC meets twice a month and offers a timely opportunity to be able to consider key issues as part of the structure plan preparation process and, as such, it is recommended that Council utilise the ability under the Standing Orders for the PSC to develop the structure plan during its preparation. This will not impinge on any formal decisions to be made by the Council and does not prohibit the PSC from referring a matter to Council for deliberation. Therefore it is recommended that Council resolve to utilise the Planning Services Committee as a working body to develop and draft the Activity Centre structure plan for Council’s future consideration. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Collaboration between local and state government agencies (to streamline the effectives of government decision making), the private sector (to provide strong innovation and market knowledge) and the local community (to provide community input and local knowledge) are considered critical in ensuring the long term viability of the structure plan and in achieving the ultimate vision for the Fremantle activity centre. As indicated in the


Page 47

above timeline, it is proposed that a form of community visioning takes place early in the structure plan process. Further details of the type of community visioning will be presented to Council at a later stage. In addition to the preliminary community visioning, it is recommended that the City engage with the Fremantle Ports as a matter of priority as there a number of critical aspects to the structure plan project that require early consideration; for instance, land use and connectivity objectives and general issues about the future implementation of the structure plan’s objectives. Further and more widespread community consultation will occur once Council has adopted a draft structure plan, in accordance with the relevant statutory consultation requirements. CONCLUSION

The preparation of an activity centre structure plan is a critical element in the City’s aim to achieve Primary Centre status under the state government’s hierarchy of activity centres. This report presents a preliminary discussion on the preparation of an activity centre structure plan for the Fremantle central area, discussing the scope and role of the structure plan and where the structure plan will fit within the planning framework. In order to proceed with the structure planning project, it is recommended that Council adopt the activity centre structure plan study area as outlined in this report as a working boundary for use in the preparation of the structure plan. Final determination of the activity centre boundary is not necessary at this stage; rather that the study area is endorsed as a preliminary working boundary to allow the further preparation of the structure plan. It is further recommended that the Council support the identification of the precinct boundaries within the structure plan study area in order to progress the planning initiatives identified by the Council in December last year. It is also recommended that Council support the timeline presented to prepare the Activity Centre structure plan as well as the utilisation of the Planning Services Committee as a working body to develop and draft the structure plan.


Page 48


That Council: 1. Adopt the Activity Centre structure plan study area, as proposed in this

report, as a working boundary for use in the preparation of the Activity Centre structure plan, with the final consideration of the structure plan boundary to be developed during the preparation of the plan and finalised upon the final adoption of the plan.

2. Support the identification of the precinct boundaries within the structure plan

study area, as proposed in this report, as working precinct boundaries for the preparation of future planning initiatives, specifically:

a) The preparation of the local planning policies for the Amendment 49

strategic sites and East End precinct; and b) The preparation of a masterplan for the Railway Station and East Victoria

Quay precincts, in collaboration with the Fremantle Ports, Public Transport Authority and Departments of Planning and Transport.

and that these be finalised upon final consideration of the plan.

3. Support the proposed Activity Centre structure plan timeline to guide the

preparation of the structure plan, as proposed in this report. 4. Utilise the Planning Services Committee as a working body to develop and

draft the Activity Centre structure plan for Council’s future consideration. 5. Delegate authority to the Planning Service Committee to make decisions

related to the preparation of the structure plan excluding adoption for the purposes of advertising and final adoption.

6. Liaise with Fremantle Ports with regard to the proposed structure planning

process as outlined in this report.


Page 49

PSC1206-94 SUBMISSION ON THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1210/41 - RATIONALISATION OF STIRLING HIGHWAY RESERVATION - WAPC

DataWorks Reference: 216/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 June 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Map – City of Fremantle Heritage Listed Properties,

Stirling Highway, North Fremantle 2. City of Fremantle Heritage Listed Properties, Stirling Highway, North Fremantle


Page 50

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is inviting comment on the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1210/41 – Rationalisation of Stirling Highway Reservation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure adequate space is allocated for a consistent and safer highway design into the future. The amendment proposes to rezone or reserve approximately 29.9 hectares of land along Stirling Highway from Broadway, Nedlands, in the north to Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle, in the south. Of this land area, approximately 26.4 hectares is be removed from the existing Primary Regional Road reservation and approximately 3.5 hectares of land, primarily between Jarrad Street, Cottesloe and Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle, is to be included into the Primary Regional Road reservation. The road design and rationale for the MRS amendment is to improve the existing ineffectual Primary Regional Roads reservation; the current Primary Regional Roads reservation over Stirling Highway has proved to be cumbersome and not effective. The amendment will improve the existing situation by providing, for the first time, an agreed consistent highway design (reflected in an appropriate reserve) which will assist government and landowners to plan and apply for future development and subdivision. The City’s officers are supportive of the amendment in principle as the modifications to the road reservation is for the primary purpose of benefiting pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and thus encourages alternatives to private car use. There is also provision in the proposed amendment to compensate landowners at market value, which is reasonable. However, there are further issues for the North Fremantle section of the proposed Stirling Highway reservation that need to be addressed before full support can be recommended. The issues include consideration of the significant implications for City Heritage Listed properties and the North Fremantle local centre, and alternative options to the carriageway design to minimise the impacts on these properties. Accordingly, it is recommended the City objects to the amendment in its current form and requests modification of the proposed MRS amendment by the WAPC to address concerns regarding the impact of the reservation changes upon properties in North Fremantle. BACKGROUND

Stirling Highway has had a MRS Primary Regional Roads reservation over it since 1963. This reservation however is cumbersome and inconsistent. The existing reservation has adversely affected the outcomes of many development and subdivision applications along Stirling Highway and has often made such proposals complicated where the purpose of the reservation has not been clear. Accordingly Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) started a series of reviews on the Stirling Highway Primary Regional Roads in 1999. One of the main reports completed out of this work was the Stirling Highway Activity Corridor Study (SHACS). This MRS amendment is part of SHACS Phase 1 focusing on regional transport.


Page 51

The resulting Concept Design Plans (also called Carriageway Pattern plans), the subject of this amendment, veers away from a focus on private vehicle use as a means of transport and instead concentrates on effective pedestrian, cyclist and public transport. This supersedes earlier planning which mainly catered for private vehicle movements. The Concept Design Plans attempt* to satisfy the following criteria:

• Verges of 5.1 metres width on both sides of Stirling Highway, reduced to 4.5 metres in constrained areas and to an absolute minimum of 4.1 metres in severely constrained isolated locations;

• 1.5 metre wide on road cycle lane in each direction; • Bus priority treatment at traffic signalised intersections, generally an additional

lane (designated bus lane) serving as a left turn pocket and prioritised controls to favour Transperth buses;

• 3.5 metre wide traffic lanes (two lanes in each direction); • 2 metre to 5.5 metre width central median (to cater for central street trees, right

turn lane pockets and pedestrian refuges); • Consolidated right turn lanes to reduce the potential for traffic conflict along

Stirling Highway (informed by relevant LGA and Main Roads officers); and • Adaptive design to minimise impacts on State Heritage property.

* Criteria may not be met due to existing development or constraints. The proposed amendment has two distinct sections:

North of Jarrad Street, Cottesloe to Broadway, Nedlands

The existing reservation north of Jarrad Street, Cottesloe is approximately 80 metres wide and has been in place since 1963. The reserve is proposed to be rationalised and reduced for all Stirling Highway properties in Claremont, Nedlands and north of Jarrad Street in Cottesloe and Peppermint Grove, completely removing the reserve from over 200 properties (including strata units).

South of Jarrad Street, Cottesloe to Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle

The Stirling Highway reservation south of Jarrad Street, Cottesloe was significantly reduced in 1996 and has no capacity to accommodate physical improvements associated with pedestrian, cyclist and public transport infrastructure or safe turning lanes necessary for an effective and functional regional road network. The amendment report notes that this is especially significant in North Fremantle where MRS land use zones have been changed from Industrial to Urban in the vicinity of McCabe Street, which may eventually result in additional dwellings and traffic movements. The MRS amendment proposes an increase to the Primary Regional Roads reservation, to enable future road planning and construction to serve both local and regional road users in this area. The proposed overall increase to the Primary Regional Roads reservation is 3.46 hectares: 2.35 hectares from existing Urban zoned land and the remainder from MRS Parks and Recreation and Railways reservations.


Page 52

At the intersection of Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle, 189m2

of ‘Urban’ zoned land is proposed to be reserved as MRS 'Other Regional Roads' reservation as part of this amendment. The City of Fremantle is currently responsible for Queen Victoria Street. The amendment proposes further works such as a Bus Priority Lane in this portion of Queen Victoria Street. Including this area in the 'Other Regional Roads' reservation will give Main Roads WA the responsibility of this part of road to undertake the works the amendment proposes.

PLANNING COMMENT

Overall the City supports the principle of MRS amendment 1210/41 to increase the Primary Regional Road reservation of Stirling Highway for the primary purpose of benefiting pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and supporting sustainable transport and improved infrastructure outcomes (promoting alternatives to private car use and decreasing car dependency). The City also supports the amendment’s proposal to compensate landowners at market value where the reservation adversely affects development on their land. However, there are local factors that need to be considered before the City can provide full support to the amendment itself; specifically the significant impact on a large number of City Heritage Listed properties, the impact on the cultural and historical significance of the built form and coastal location of Stirling Highway and the economic vitality of the North Fremantle local centre. These are discussed in detail below under the following headings:

• Heritage; • Proposed Primary Regional Road reserve and the Railways reservation; • Bus Priority Lanes; • Truncations with Adjoining Dedicated Roads; • Proposed Principal Shared Pathway (parallel to the railway line); and • Proposed Curtin Avenue to Queen Victoria Street link.

Directions 2031 recognises the importance of heritage in providing a sense of place and a link to our past and encourages the consideration of heritage values as part of redevelopment; supporting the continued identification and protection of heritage places into the future. The section of Stirling Highway within North Fremantle considered as part of this amendment runs parallel to the coastline, with ocean view lines, and contains a number of intact late 19

Heritage

th century – early 20th

century heritage listed residences and commercial buildings; including the North Fremantle civic precinct, Dingo Flour Mill, and former Matilda Bay Brewing Company. Both the coastal landscape and heritage built form are of cultural and historical significance to the City of Fremantle and contribute to a distinctive entryway to Fremantle.


Page 53

The MRS amendment has not sufficiently considered the impact of the proposed widened road reservation on approximately 40 properties and buildings on the City of Fremantle’s Heritage List (which is inclusive of five places listed on the State Heritage Office Register of Heritage Places). It is observed with the current Stirling Highway regional road reservation, four heritage listed properties would require complete and/or partial demolition. The proposed widening of the primary regional road reservation under this amendment would significantly impact each of the 40 heritage listed properties, with approximately 18 heritage listed properties requiring demolition when the reservation is acted upon. The City does not support this and suggests modifications to a number of sections of the primary regional road reservation to reduce the number of heritage listed properties affected. This is discussed further under the headings below.

It is observed that approximately 17 heritage listed properties at the section of Stirling Hwy from 140 and 141Stirling Highway south to 20 Staples Street (opposite the North Fremantle train station) would be significantly impacted, with a large number requiring demolition, by the proposed changes at the eastern boundary of this section of the amendment. This section of Stirling Highway runs parallel to, and adjoins, a large portion of MRS Railways reserve.

Proposed Primary Regional Road Reserve and the MRS Railways Reserve

With regards to the adjoining Railways reserve and the availability of land within this area, the City recommends the proposed total width of the Stirling Highway road reserve be shifted as a whole to the west partly into the Railways reserve. Alternatively, officers recommend the reduction of the total width of the proposed Primary Regional Road reservation through a minor reduction to the proposed eastern and/or western verge width to enable the eastern boundary of the reserve to be maintained on, or closer to, its current alignment to preserve the built form of the buildings on the City’s Heritage List located on the east side of Stirling Highway. The modifications to the Primary Regional Road reserve as set out above would preserve both a substantial number of heritage listed properties (including State Heritage Office registered places) whilst in general maintaining the proposed width of the Primary Regional Road reservation itself.

Under this amendment, additional road reservation has been identified for the purpose of truncation at two dedicated roads intersecting with Stirling Highway; Christina Parade and White Street. The amendment Carriageway Pattern plans depicts Christina Pde and White St as no through roads at Stirling Highway. Both roads are currently cul de sac’s and have been closed to through vehicular access at Stirling Highway for a number of years.

Truncations with Adjoining Dedicated Roads

The City recognises the amendment has proposed truncation at these intersections should either of these roads be re-opened to Stirling Highway in the future. However, the City’s Technical Services have commented there would be no benefit to the community, in terms of safety or amenity, in re-opening these already closed roads onto Stirling Highway in the near or long term future and therefore consider the truncations redundant in a practical sense. Furthermore, the proposed truncations would require the demolition of three heritage listed properties.


Page 54

With regard to the detail as provided above, it is considered the additional road reservation for the purpose of truncation is not necessary at the intersection of Christina Pde and White St with Stirling Highway. Congdon Street Truncation The majority of Congdon Street occurs within MRS Railways reserve, and therefore is not dedicated road. Only approximately 75m of Congdon St is zoned MRS Primary Regional Road reserve, and on further investigation, is a Crown right of way managed by the City. The Carriageway Pattern plans (Plan No. 1.7221) depict only ingress to Congdon Street where it meets Stirling Highway north of 93 Stirling Highway. It is uncertain to what extent the portion of Congdon St occurring within the Railways reserve will be retained, particularly with regard to the proposed Curtin Avenue link. With regard to this it is recommended the carriageway design at this intersection propose both ingress and egress for vehicular access at the intersection of Congdon St and Stirling Highway should Congdon St become a cul de sac in the future.

Bus Priority Lanes

The City supports the principle of increased public transport efficiency through the provision of Bus Priority Lanes at traffic signalised intersections as part of this amendment. However, at the intersection with Alfred Road and Queen Victoria Street, the additional carriageways have significant impacts on a number of heritage listed properties, in addition to the character and economic vitality of a local centre main street of North Fremantle. The City considers the conservation of the built form of the heritage listed properties and the economic vitality of the local centre of North Fremantle substantially outweighs the need for a Bus Priority Lane at these intersections. Where suitable, modifications or alternatives to the Bus Priority Lane have been recommended. This is discussed in further detail below. Stirling Highway and Alfred Road traffic signal intersection At the traffic light intersection of Stirling Highway and Alfred Road, the Carriageway Pattern plans (Plan No. 1.7221) propose at the western side of the Highway (north facing lanes) a four lane carriageway with bicycle lane. This is an additional two lanes to what currently exists. The additional outside lane is identified as a Bus Priority Lane, the additional inside lane as a dedicated right hand turning lane. To achieve this proposed concept design, the built form of five heritage listed properties would require demolition. Whilst the City acknowledges and supports the intention of the design to promote public transport efficiency and reduce congestion, it is considered the conservation of the five heritage listed buildings substantially outweighs this intention. Therefore it is recommended the additional outside lane (bus priority lane) be removed to enable a reduction in the reservation at the western section of the highway from 87 to 99A Stirling Highway, which would preserve the existing built form at these sites.

Notwithstanding the above, the City supports retention of the proposed dedicated right hand turning lane. The additional turning lane would provide two through traffic lanes (from the existing one) and this in itself would facilitate an improved outcome at the intersection through a reduction in traffic congestion and increase traffic flow. If considered feasible by Main Roads WA, the Bus Priority Lane may be relocated to the outside lane of the two through traffic lanes as an alternative to providing the additional Bus Priority Lane as discussed previously.


Page 55

261 Queen Victoria Street and Jackson Road traffic signal intersection The additional width of the road reserve as proposed at Queen Victoria Street within the ‘Other Regional Road’ reservation would require the demolition of heritage listed shops at 261 Queen Victoria St (Lot 1 on Carriageway Pattern plan no. 1.7221). The suite of shops at 261 Queen Victoria St is not only significant for their cultural and heritage value but also for their contribution to the economic vitality of the North Fremantle local centre. The properties fronting this portion of Queen Victoria St between Tydeman Rd and Stirling Hwy are zoned ‘Local Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and reflect the centre’s existing ‘main street’ land uses and function, including small scale shops, cafes, showroom, small bar, restaurant, and entertainment. The majority of the properties within this strip are heritage listed and contribute significantly to the diversity, interest and character of this centre. The reduced speed limit of 50km/hr and provision of street parking along this section of Queen Victoria St also reflects this. The rationale for the increase to the road reserve is the proposed addition of a Bus Priority Lane at the intersection with Jackson Rd and at an approximate length of 85m as depicted in the Carriageway Pattern plans. This section of Queen Victoria St between Jackson Rd and Tydeman Rd intersections is zoned ‘Other Regional Road’ and is managed by the City. On investigation, two bus routes currently utilise this portion of Queen Victoria Street and there is one north facing bus stop at this section of Queen Victoria St between Tydeman Rd and Stirling Highway. It appears the length of the Bus Priority Lane to be greater than what is necessary to support the volume and frequency (medium to high) of buses utilising this portion of Queen Victoria St. Additionally, it is considered any future new bus routes would primarily be directed to Stirling Highway either via Tydeman Rd or Stirling Highway Bridge. The City does not support the additional lane (specifically the length of the lane) to the detriment of the heritage listed property at 261 Queen Victoria St and the economic vitality of an important local centre of North Fremantle and therefore recommends the following alternatives:

• The northern carriageway remain at its existing two lane design at the intersection with Jackson Rd. If it is considered a Bus Priority Lane is still required at this location, an existing lane can be utilised for this purpose. If necessary, the City supports the extension of the existing outside lane at 63 Stirling Hwy south to the southern boundary of 261A (Lot 100 on the Carriageway Pattern plans) Queen Victoria St to accommodate a Bus Priority Lane; or

• The proposed additional lane for the purpose of a Bus Priority Lane as depicted on the Carriageway Pattern plans is shortened to finish at the southern boundary of 261A Queen Victoria Street.

Principal Shared Pathway

Whilst not forming part of the amendment, it is noted on the Carriageway Pattern plans (Plan No. 1.7221) a potential future principal shared pathway is proposed adjacent to, and running parallel with, the railway line. This link is also identified in the Department of Transport’s draft Western Australia Bicycle Network Plan 2012-2021. With the possibility of this proposal occurring prior to the implementation of the carriageway design at Stirling Highway, in the second phase of design, further consideration may want to be given with regard to the need of a cycle lane both on Stirling Highway and at the railway line.


Page 56

Proposed Curtin Ave to Queen Victoria Street link

The City observes the future link between Curtin Ave and Stirling Highway at the intersection with Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle as shown on the Carriageway Pattern plans. The City acknowledges this is subject to further investigations and does not form part of this amendment, however, due to the impact this proposal would have on North Fremantle, the City wishes to express the importance of being included in future discussions regarding this proposal. CONCLUSION

The road design and rationale for the MRS amendment is to improve the existing ineffectual Primary Regional Roads reservation. The Carriageway Pattern plans (Concept Design Plans) demonstrate how the reservation could be developed in line with current requirements. An agreed highway design confirmed through the amended Primary Regional Roads reservation will enable consistency in decision making across six Stirling Highway LGA’s and resolve the ineffectual MRS reservation better informing the long term land use and urban design planning along Stirling Highway. While officers support the amendment in principle it is considered further modifications can be made to limit the impacts (including demolition) of the increased road reservation on 40 City Heritage Listed properties, the impact on the cultural and historical significance of the built form and coastal location of Stirling Highway and the economic vitality of the North Fremantle local centre. It is therefore recommended the City objects to the amendment in its current form and requests modification of the proposed MRS amendment by the WAPC to address concerns regarding the impact of the reservation changes upon properties in North Fremantle. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised that the City of Fremantle’s comments on the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1210/41 – Rationalisation of Stirling Highway Reservation, are as follows:

1. The City of Fremantle (‘The City’) supports in principle the objective of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1210/41 – Rationalisation of Stirling Highway Reservation, to improve the viability of pedestrian, cycling and public transport use of Stirling Highway. However, the City objects to Amendment 1210/41 in its advertised form due to the significant adverse impact the proposed widening of the Primary Regional Roads reservation would be likely to have on approximately 40 properties in North Fremantle which are included on the City’s Heritage List under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and in some cases also on the State Register of Heritage Places. Therefore, the City recommends that the following modifications be made to MRS Amendment 1210/41 to minimise or remove the impact on these properties:

i. Along the section of Stirling Highway from No’s. 140 and 141 Stirling

Highway south to 20 Staples Street (and inclusive of the North Fremantle train station car park);


Page 57

a. The proposed Primary Regional Road reservation be realigned as a whole to the west (partly into the current Railways reserve); or

b. The reduction of the total width of the proposed Primary Regional Road reservation through a minor reduction to the proposed eastern and western verge width to enable the eastern boundary of the reserve to be maintained on, or closer to, its current alignment to preserve the built form of the buildings on the City’s Heritage List located on the east side of Stirling Highway.

The reason for this suggested modification is that approximately 17 City Heritage Listed properties (inclusive of State Registered Heritage Places) adjoining Stirling Highway from No.140 Stirling Highway south to Staples Street would be significantly impacted or in the case of approximately 8 heritage listed properties, require demolition, under the currently proposed width and alignment of the Primary Regional Road reservation.

ii. Removal of the additional road reservation for the purpose of truncation at the intersection of Christina Parade and White Street with Stirling Highway for the following reasons: • Both Christina Parade and White Street are currently cul de sac’s and

have been closed to through vehicular access at Stirling Highway for a number of years;

• There would be no benefit to the community, in terms of safety or amenity, in re-opening these already closed roads onto Stirling Highway in the near or long term future; and

• The proposed truncations would require the demolition of three City Heritage Listed properties.

iii. At the intersection of Congdon Street and Stirling Highway it is

recommended the carriageway design at this intersection provide both ingress and egress for vehicular access to Congdon Street. The Carriageway Pattern plan (plan no. 1.7221) depicts only ingress to Congdon Street where it meets Stirling Highway. The City observes only approximately 75m of Congdon St, located between 93 and 95 Stirling Highway, is zoned Primary Regional Road reserve, and on further investigation, is a Crown right of way managed by the City. The majority of Congdon Street occurs within Railways reserve. With regard to the proposed Curtin Avenue link as depicted on the Carriageway Pattern plans, it is uncertain to what extent the portion of Congdon St occurring within the Railways reserve will be retained and therefore consideration should be given to the possibility of Congdon Street becoming a no through road in the future.

iv. At the traffic light intersection of Stirling Highway and Alfred Rd (north

facing lanes), it is recommended the additional outside lane (bus priority lane) be removed to enable a reduction in the width of the reservation on the western side of the highway from 87 to 99A Stirling Highway, which would preserve the existing built form of the heritage listed properties at these sites.


Page 58

The Carriageway Plans propose at the western side of the Highway (north facing) a four lane carriageway with bicycle lane. This is an additional two lanes to what currently exists. The additional outside lane is identified as a Bus Priority Lane, the additional inside lane as a dedicated right hand turning lane. To achieve the proposed concept design, five City Heritage Listed properties would require demolition. Whilst the City acknowledges and supports the intention of the design to promote public transport efficiency and reduce congestion, it is considered the conservation of the built form of the five heritage listed buildings substantially outweighs this intention.

Notwithstanding the above, the City supports retention of the proposed dedicated right hand turning lane. The additional turning lane would provide two through traffic lanes (from the existing one) and this in itself would facilitate an improved outcome at the intersection through a reduction in traffic congestion and increase traffic flow. If considered feasible by Main Roads WA, the bus priority lane may be relocated to the outside lane of the two through traffic lanes as an alternative to providing the additional bus priority lane as discussed above and as depicted in the Carriageway Pattern plans.

v. The City does not support the widening of the Primary Regional Road

reservation on the western side of Queen Victoria Street as depicted on the Carriageway Pattern plans (Plan 1.7221), at the intersection with Jackson Road, to the detriment of the heritage listed property at 261 Queen Victoria St (Lot 1 on the Carriageway Pattern plans) and the economic vitality of an important local centre of North Fremantle. Therefore following alternatives are recommended:

a. The northern carriageway remain at its existing two lane design at the intersection with Jackson Rd. If it is considered a Bus Priority Lane is still required at this location, an existing lane can be utilised for this purpose. If necessary, the City supports the extension of the existing outside lane at 63 Stirling Hwy south to the southern boundary of 261A (Lot 100 on the Carriageway Pattern plans) Queen Victoria St to accommodate a Bus Priority Lane; or

b. The proposed additional lane for the purpose of a Bus Priority Lane is shortened to finish at the southern boundary of 261A Queen Victoria Street.

2. Whilst not forming part of the amendment, it is noted on the Carriageway

Pattern plans (Plan No. 1.7221) a potential future principal shared pathway is proposed adjacent to, and running parallel with, the railway line. This link is also identified in the Department of Transport’s draft Western Australia Bicycle Network Plan 2012-2021. With the possibility of this proposal occurring prior to the implementation of the carriageway design at Stirling Highway, in the second phase of design, further consideration may want to be given with regard to the need of a cycle lane both on Stirling Highway and at the railway line.


Page 59

3. The City observes the future link between Curtin Ave and Stirling Highway at

the intersection with Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle as shown on the Carriageway Pattern plans. The City acknowledges this is subject to further investigations and does not form part of this amendment, however, due to the impact this proposal would have on North Fremantle, the City wishes to express the importance of being included in future discussions regarding this proposal.


Page 60

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil.


Page 61

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

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

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

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


Page 62


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 63


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 64

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.

AGENDA - City of Fremantle · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 20 June 2012 Page 1 DEFERRED...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - City of Fremantle · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 20 June 2012 Page 1 DEFERRED...