AGENDA - City of Fremantle...Agenda - Planning Services Committee 8 July 2015 Page 1 DEFERRED ITEMS...

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 8 July 2015, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Services Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on

Wednesday, 8 July 2015 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street,

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

6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 2 July 2015

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 3 June 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1507-1 DEFERRED ITEM - DOOLYA ROAD, NO. 3 (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0649/14) 1

PSC1507-2 DEFERRED - LOIS LANE, NO. 21 (LOT 653), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0132/15) 7

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 12

PSC1507-3 CLARKE STREET, NO. 6-12 (LOT 32-33), O?CONNOR - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE TO SERVICE INDUSTRY AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (JL & TB DA0193/15) 12

PSC1507-4 SOUTH STREET, NO. 277 (LOT 303), HILTON - THREE STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (10 DWELLINGS) TO REAR OF EXISTING TAVERN (SOUTH STREET ALE HOUSE) - (AA DA0214/15) 22

PSC1507-5 SHEEDY STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 45), SOUTH FREMANTLE - HOME OCCUPATION - (TB DA0166/15) 33

PSC1507-6 HOPE STREET, NO. 83 (LOT 22), WHITE GUM VALLEY - RETROSPECTIVE OUTBUILDING ADDITION AND CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING TO ANCILLARY DWELLING - (TB/AD DA0175/15) 38

PSC1507-7 CHADWICK STREET, NO. 33A (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0223/15) 43

PSC1507-8 SIMPER CRESCENT, NO. 5A (STRATA LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (JL DA0177/15) 48

PSC1507-9 MARTHA STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0157/15) 53

PSC1507-10 TERRENE LANE, NO. 14 (LOT 125), O?CONNOR - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (TB DA0128/15) 61

PSC1507-11 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 65 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0121/15) 71

PSC1507-12 HULBERT STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 102), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0178/15) 77

PSC1507-13 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 81 (LOTS 9 & 10), FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DAP0001/13 - (JL DAPV005/15) 84

PSC1507-14 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 16 (15), FREMANTLE - STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE- (CJ DA0094/15) 94

PSC1507-15 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - 8 JULY 2015 99

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 100

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 100

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation 101

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1507-1 DEFERRED ITEM - DOOLYA ROAD, NO. 3 (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0649/14) 4

PSC1507-2 DEFERRED - LOIS LANE, NO. 21 (LOT 653), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0132/15) 15

PSC1507-3 CLARKE STREET, NO. 6-12 (LOT 32-33), O?CONNOR - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE TO SERVICE INDUSTRY AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (JL & TB DA0193/15) 30

PSC1507-4 SOUTH STREET, NO. 277 (LOT 303), HILTON - THREE STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (10 DWELLINGS) TO REAR OF EXISTING TAVERN (SOUTH STREET ALE HOUSE) - (AA DA0214/15) 43

PSC1507-5 SHEEDY STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 45), SOUTH FREMANTLE - HOME OCCUPATION - (TB DA0166/15) 53

PSC1507-6 HOPE STREET, NO. 83 (LOT 22), WHITE GUM VALLEY - RETROSPECTIVE OUTBUILDING ADDITION AND CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING TO ANCILLARY DWELLING - (TB/AD DA0175/15) 57

PSC1507-7 CHADWICK STREET, NO. 33A (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0223/15) 71

PSC1507-8 SIMPER CRESCENT, NO. 5A (STRATA LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (JL DA0177/15) 79

PSC1507-9 MARTHA STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0157/15) 86

PSC1507-10 TERRENE LANE, NO. 14 (LOT 125), O?CONNOR - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (TB DA0128/15) 94

PSC1507-11 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 65 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0121/15) 105

PSC1507-12 HULBERT STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 102), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0178/15) 129

PSC1507-13 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 81 (LOTS 9 & 10), FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DAP0001/13 - (JL DAPV005/15) 137

PSC1507-14 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 16 (15), FREMANTLE - STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE- (CJ DA0094/15) 189

PSC1507-15 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - 8 JULY 2015 207

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 8 July 2015

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

PSC1507-1 DEFERRED ITEM - DOOLYA ROAD, NO. 3 (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0649/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PS1505-5 (6 May 2015) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Revised plans

Attachment 2 – Previous item Date Received: 5 December 2014 Owner Name: Shayne and Sandra Kessey Submitted by: Plunkett Homes Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of a single storey Single House to an existing vacant lot in Hilton. The application is seeking a number of discretions against the City’s LPP 3.7 Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area in regards to:

Primary street setback;

Garage width;

Minimum external wall height

Boundary walls;

Roof form and

Eaves. The development at No. 3 Doolya Road, Hilton was previously referred to the City’s Planning Services Committee on 6 May 2015, with PSC deferring the application to the next available PSC, with a request for an alternative recommendation for approval. An alternative recommendation for approval is therefore provided for PSC’s consideration. Additionally, in response to feedback from PSC on the 6 May 2015, the applicant has chosen to amend the plans. Design principle assessments on some of the above design elements have changed as a result. The revised plans dated 11 June 2015 and are considered to be more consistent with the intent of LPP 3.7 BACKGROUND

On 5th December 2014, the City received an application for the addition of a single storey Single House at No. 3 Doolya Road, Hilton. The application was previously presented to PSC on the 6th May 2015, with Council deferring the application to the next available PSC meeting to enable Council Officers to prepare an alternative recommendation for approval. For further detail on the background, please see the previous report dated 6 May 2015 (attachment 2). DETAIL In response to comments received from PSC during the meeting dated 6 May 2015, the applicant made amendments to the plans including:

Alterations to the front of the house reducing the primary street setback in some portions to create a more consistent street elevation;

Addition of a verandah to the front elevation;

Removal of roof features (gable end architectural features);

Reduction in the number of roof elements;

Addition of weatherboard clad gable end wall element on the front elevation; and

Reduction in size of bedroom windows (front elevation).


Page 3

The façade modifications in particular (as illustrated below) have changed the appearance of the dwelling as viewed from the street to be more consistent with the intent of LPP 3.7.

Previous street elevation

Proposed street elevation

For further detail on the application, including planning comment and assessment, see the previous item. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions contained within the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4(LPS4). The applicant seeks discretion relating to LPP 3.7 Hilton Heritage Area, which are discussed in detail in the previous item. Further discussion is included in Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION

As no new discretions or Design Principle assessments were required as a result of the amended plans, further neighbour notification was not required.


Page 4

PLANNING COMMENT

The amendments made to the plans have altered planning discretions sought for the Primary Street setback and roof form and eaves, and are discussed further below. The following discretions sought by the previous report remain unchanged –

Garage width;

Minimum external wall height; and

Boundary walls. Primary street setback – Bedroom 4 only

Required Provided Discretion

7m 5.5m (Previous plans) 1.5m (Previous plans)

7m 5m 2m

The primary street setback has been decreased on the south eastern portion (Bedroom 4) to create a more consistent elevation. The remainder of the Single House is setback as per previous plans presented to PSC in May. Please see previous report for assessment of the primary street setback. Roof form and eaves Previous


Min roof pitch of 27.5 and max of 35 degrees

28.22 Complies

Simple in form, no more than 2 elements facing the street

Not simple in form, 6 elements

Four elements

Eaves minimum width of 450mm Nil-300mm 150-450mm

Revised plans


Min roof pitch of 27.5 and max of 35 degrees

28.22 Complies

Simple in form, no more than 2 elements facing the street

Simpler in form, 5 elements Three elements

Eaves minimum width of 450mm Verandah (front elevation) Complies (front elevation)

The number of roof elements has been reduced, and the decorative elements have been removed to simplify the roof form. The addition of the front verandah has provided eaves to the front of the property. It is considered that the amendments made to this design element, has reduced the level of discretion sought and ensured the proposed roof form is more consistent with that in the existing streetscape. The roof form and eaves are therefore supported on balance.


Page 5

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document:

Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No. 3 (Lot 2) Doolya Road, Hilton, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy Local Planning Policy 3.7 - Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area in regards to –

a) Clause 1.1.2 - Primary street setback; b) Clause 1.4.1- Garage width; c) Clause 2.1.1 - Minimum external wall height; d) Clause 3.1 – Boundary walls.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION As per PSC’s deferral on 6th May 2015, an alternative recommendation is provided for PSC’s consideration: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No. 3 (Lot 2) Doolya Road, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 11 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the western boundary

shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,


Page 6

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


Page 7

PSC1507-2 DEFERRED - LOIS LANE, NO. 21 (LOT 653), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0132/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1506-10 (3 June 2015) Attachments: 1 – Previous officers report

2 – Amended development plans (4 June 2015) Date Received: 23 March 2015 Owner Name: P Dobson Submitted by: Klopper and Davis Architects Scheme: Residential (R20/25) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant – site cleared Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House. The application was previously considered by the Planning Services Committee (PSC) at its meeting of 3 June 2015 where the following resolution was made;

‘MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant time to amend plans to significantly reduce the adverse impact on the eastern neighbour’s amenity, specifically related to the eastern wall at RL49.5 blocking the neighbour’s primary living space windows. The applicant is encouraged to consult with the affected neighbour to achieve an outcome both can live to maintain community harmony.’

In response to the resolution, the applicant submitted amended plans (see Attachment 2) which seek to address the concerns raised during the initial community consultation period and as per the resolution. The amended plans included the following changes;

The setback of the building to the eastern boundary has increased from 1.2m to 1.7m; and,

The external wall height of the proposal is now noted as being up to 6.0m. The apparent wall height at the higher side of the eastern boundary is now approximately 5.5m.

The amended proposal is considered to meet the deemed-to-comply criteria in reference to the setback of the building to the eastern boundary. This is considered to be the substantive concern raised during the consultation and by the PSC resolution. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

A summary of the background to the subject site and proposal is contained in the ‘Background’ section of Attachment 1. On 3 June 2015, the application was presented to the City’s PSC for consideration. The following resolution was made;

‘MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant time to amend plans to significantly reduce the adverse impact on the eastern neighbour’s amenity, specifically related to the eastern wall at RL49.5 blocking the neighbour’s primary living space windows. The applicant is encouraged to consult with the affected neighbour to achieve an outcome both can live to maintain community harmony.’

In response to the resolution, the applicant submitted amended plans (see Attachment 2). DETAIL


Page 9

The application seeks planning approval for the development of a two storey Single House at the subject site, which is currently vacant of improvements. The development plans indicate a two storey dwelling, below ground swimming pool, forward carport structure and various areas of retaining, site works and landscaping. In response to the resolution of the 3 June PSC meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans (see Attachment 2). The amended plans included the following changes;

The setback of the building to the eastern boundary has increased from 1.2m to 1.7m; and,

The external wall height of the proposal is now noted as being up to 6.0m. The apparent wall height at the higher side of the eastern boundary is now approximately 5.5m.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions contained within, LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment a design principle assessment is made. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply criteria cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The amended proposal does not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ requirements of the R Codes and seeks policy discretions relating to the following elements;

Street setbacks; The application previously included a design principle assessment relating to the eastern side boundary setback. This assessment has now been removed on the basis of the increased setback depicted in the amended plans meets the deemed to comply requirement of the R Codes. CONSULTATION

Community The original application was previously advertised to surrounding landowners. Discussion of the objection previously received is summarised as follows;

Adjoining windows to bedrooms will be overshadowed by the proposal. The windows in question are the only windows to these rooms;

Upstairs living areas on adjoining sites will have views and light obstructed by the upper floor of the proposal;

The proposed wall will impact on light access to existing vegetation that is specifically integrated into the design of an adjoining property; and,

The proposed garage/parking area is unsafe in design.


Page 10

The amended plans were referred to the party that raised the previous objection. The objecting party notified the City that there concerns remained and that they did not support the amended proposal. The City was also advised that there was a belief that an amicable solution could be reached between the parties. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design principle

assessment

East – Wall section adjoining the store, stairwell and entry stairs and upper floor guest bedroom only – does not include

ground floor section south of the two storey element of the proposal.

1.7m 1.7m Nil

The amended proposal now satisfies the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes in respect to the eastern setback. The proposal cannot be refused on the basis of this setback. Street setbacks

Element Policy criteria Proposed Discretion

Primary street ground floor

7.0m 3.3m - 12.3m Up to 3.7m

Carport structure Up to 6.0m wide,

unattached to the dwelling

11.3m wide, attached to the dwelling

+5.3m wide, attachment to the

dwelling

Discussion of these issues is included in the Planning Comment section of Attachment 1. The amended plans do not result in any change to these elements of the proposal. The resolution previously made by the PSC does not identify these elements of the proposal as a concern. 5.3.4 Design of car parking spaces Discussion of this issue is included in the Planning Comment section of Attachment 1. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the following strategic document;

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.


Page 11


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey Single House at No. 21 (Lot 653) Lois Lane, White Gum Valley, as detailed on plans dated 23 March 2015, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 4 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


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


Page 12

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

PSC1507-3 CLARKE STREET, NO. 6-12 (LOT 32-33), O?CONNOR - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE TO SERVICE INDUSTRY AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (JL & TB DA0193/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Application

Attachment 2 – Site Photos Date Received: 22 April 2015 Owner Name: Pvgt O'Connor Pty Ltd & Agt O'Connor Pty Ltd Submitted by: Planning Solutions Scheme: Industry Zone Heritage Listing: Not individually listed Existing Landuse: Warehouse Use Class: Service Industry Use Permissibility: P & P


Page 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle (the City) is in receipt of an application for Planning Approval for a partial change of use from Warehouse to Service Industry and alterations to the existing building at No. 6-12 (Lot 32) Clarke Street, O’Connor (the site). The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to submissions being received that cannot be resolved via the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours notwithstanding that no policy or the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) discretions are sought. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

Site The subject site is located at No. 6-12 Clarke Street, O’Connor and is zoned ‘Industrial’ and ‘O’Connor Industrial Interface Area’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The site is currently occupied by a warehouse, which has two (2) vehicle access points, one via Hines Road and one via Clarke Street. The southern boundary, bound by Clarke Street, directly abuts a Residential zoned area. After the previous planning approval was granted in 2000 the closure of Clarke Street to Hines Road was carried out by the City (a cul-de-sac was constructed at the eastern end of Clarke Street abutting Hines Road). These changes are further discussed below in the History section. The sites to the north, east and west of the subject site are located within the industrial zone. Sites to the north and west are of a similar lot size to the subject site and sites located to the east are predominantly smaller industrial lots. The existing warehouse is proposed to be reduced in overall floor area, in order to provide a retail component to the existing development as well as to meet the required car parking provisions. Portions of the warehouse are currently storm damaged and are proposed to be demolished in order to provide additional parking space to the eastern portion of the site. The following table demonstrates the total reduction in the warehouse and warehouse land use on site.

Existing Warehouse space

Portion of demolition

Portion of Service Industry land use

Total Warehouse GLA reduction

9924m2 1289m2 2100m2 (inclusive mezzanine floor area)

6535m2

History


Page 14

On 27 March 2000, the Development Assessment Committee, under delegated authority of Council, resolved to defer consideration of the proposed development for a Warehouse and Office (Refer item DAC303).

Following the 27 March 2000 deferral, a public meeting was held on 5 April 2000. At this meeting the applicant and the landowner submitted plans which were redesigned to accommodate the identified public concerns which in summary related mainly to traffic movements, noise generation, general amenity loss, bulk and scale issues, land use compatibility, staff parking and street verge issues.

On 12 June 2000, the Development Assessment Committee, resolved to grant conditional approval for the development of a warehouse and office complex. The conditional approval included conditions relating to vehicle access, landscaping and an acoustic study. A copy of the decision letter, outlining the conditions of approval is attached to this report as ‘Attachment 3’.

On 19 June 2000, at its ordinary meeting, Council in confirming the minutes from the PSC meeting held 12 June 2000 advised that planning condition No.2 was to be amended. Planning Condition No.2 related to the vehicles accessing the warehouse use and loading facility, and not the administration facility off Clarke Street, was limited to enter and leave from Hines Road. See ‘Attachment 4’ below for a copy of the amended wording for this Council as adopted by Council at this meeting.

DETAIL

On 22 April 2015, the City received a development application for a partial change of use to Service Industry and alterations to existing Warehouse at No. 6-12 (Lot 32) Clarke Street, O’Connor. On 15 June 2015 the City received amended plans for this application. The proposed amendments included the reduction of onsite parking form 120 to 116 bays. The use ‘Service Industry’ (Spudshed) replaces a portion of the previous Warehouse use of the subject premises. This use is directly connected and operated in conjunction with the existing Warehouse use located on the subject site. Alterations to the site include the partial demolition of portion of the eastern side of the warehouse as a result of previous storm damage as well as facilitating a greater number of car parking to the front setback area of subject site. Similarly, other internal alterations are also proposed including creation of two (2) mezzanine offices, end of trip facilities and administration area. These alterations are classified as permitted development under Clause 8.2 (a) of the Scheme and are therefore not discussed further within the report. The Service Industry use of the site use will occupy 2100m2 of the overall 8724m2 floor space. The Service Industry use is classified as a ‘P’ use within the Industrial Zone. The existing Warehouse land use component of the site will operate from 7am-7pm for seven (7) days per week. The proposed Service Industry retail area of the site will operate from 7am – 9pm for seven (7) days per week. The existing warehouse is currently being used and operated for its approved warehouse use by the Spudshed, specifically for distribution and storage of goods.


Page 15


The application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions contained within the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and Council’s LPP3.8 – O’Connor Local Planning Policy. The application is not seeking discretion against LPS4 or Council policy provisions. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposed partial change of use did not seek any discretion. The application was however advertised at the Manager’s discretion under Clause 1.1 of Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, as it was considered to be within the public’s interest. Prior to the application being lodged the City was aware that the applicant had engaged in some community consultation and some concerns were raised from nearby owners. On this basis notwithstanding that no discretions were sought, it was considered to be in the broader public interest to advertise the proposal. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 22 May 2015, the City had received 17 objections and a 111 signatory petition. The following issues were raised that related to planning issues, however these issues either met the relevant requirements of LPS4 or could be satisfied through conditions imposed (see Planning Comment section below for further details). A summary of the planning issues raised are as follows:

1. Does not meet the objectives of the zone 2. Will impact the amenity of the adjacent residential area 3. Traffic generation 4. The proposed use is a non-industrial use 5. Is considered a shop land use 6. Retail catchment is too large and will attract more than the local community 7. Inconsistent with LPS4, Local Planning Manual, SPP4.2 8. Potential use of Clarke Street by retail customers 9. Noise and lighting concerns 10. Conditions of the previous approval should remain consistent, specifically

conditions relating to vehicle access and egress, maintenance of the verge along Clarke Street and acoustic testing.

11. Opposed to 24 hour trade, 7 days a week. 12. Concern over the use of Clarke Street for “Warehouse deliveries and dispatches” 13. Inconsistent with planning framework

The following issues were raised that did not relate to relevant planning issues, and consequently are not discussed further in this report:

1. Lack of “community feel” of the development. 2. Parking on the verge of Hines Road 3. A centre in this location has not strategically been identified and is discouraged in

the City of Fremantle’s strategy planning documents


Page 16

In relation to the parking on the verge of Hines Road, it is considered that the current physical limitation of the existing cul-de-sac restricts the likelihood of this concern occurring. The current verge area is surrounded by bollards, limiting the ability to park on the verge. These comments are therefore not discussed further in this report. In relation to the 111 person signatory petition, the three main planning concerns that were raised, related to the following:

Previous conditions should remain consistent; specifically condition 17 which limits the warehouse retail sales.

Inconsistent with MRS Industry zone due to the size and traffic generated.

Is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres, due to the catchment of the proposed retail space.

Technical Services Comment The traffic assessment (as amended) submitted by the applicant was reviewed by the City’s Technical Services staff and the following comments were made: “The city has assessed Hines Road previously and recognised the need for traffic calming between South Street and Forsyth Street. With the addition of the Spud Shed development here this traffic management project will be developed with a view to implement at the earliest opportunity. The pedestrian access to the site will need to be improved with a footpath on Hines Road. This can be a council initiative or contributed to by the developer. Increasing access for foot traffic will benefit the immediate community and should be prioritised” PLANNING COMMENT

Land Use The land use is considered to consistent with the proposed uses in the area and most appropriate for the Industrial Zone. The following land use definition of Industry Service is considered consistent with the proposed use that is outlined in the ‘Detail’ section of this report above. The Industry Service definition is as follows: Industry—service: means—

a. an industry—light carried out from premises which may have a retail shop front and from which goods manufactured on the premises may be sold, or

b. premises having a retail shop front and used as a depot for receiving goods to be serviced.

It is considered that retail component proposed meets part (a) of the above land use criteria as the use will be an ancillary retail shop front to the existing warehouse. The existing warehouse is currently used for the storage, processing of produce and imported goods which includes cleaning, cutting, packaging and labelling. The goods processed are then distributed to other Spudshed retail outlets across Perth. The land use is therefore best described as an Industry Service land use.


Page 17

Furthermore, the proposed land use is classified as a ‘P’ use within the Industrial Zone and is considered appropriate to the surrounding area. Car Parking The car parking on site complies with the provisions of LPS4, with an excess of car parking bays provided.

Land Use Parking Requirement Number of bays provided

Industry Service (2100m2) 1:50m2 gla – 42 bays 42 bays

Warehouse (6535m2) 1:100m2 gla – 65 bays 66 bays

Total for site GLA 107 bays 116 bays

Additional requirements for the Warehouse and Industry Service areas included provision of bicycle racks and delivery bays which are tabled below:

Bicycle Rack Requirement Provided

Industry Service (2100m2) Class 1: 1 per 800m2 gla – 3 required

8

Warehouse (6535m2) N/A N/A

Delivery Bay Requirement Provided

Industry Service (2100m2) 1:service/storage area – 1 2

Warehouse (6535m2) 1:unit – 1 required 6

Community traffic and parking Concerns Several submissions were received during the community consultation period which raised specific concern to increased traffic volumes onto Clarke Street and increased verge parking along abutting streets. With regards to the concerns relating to increase verge parking, the Clark Street reserve is heavily vegetated today and has a sloping topography and the Hines Road reserve includes bollards treatments and no parking signage. Large portions of these road reserves are considered significantly limited in providing easy adequate on street car parking options. If this issue was to arise in the future due to high demand of the land uses on site, Council does have numerous other mechanism available other than those available under planning legalisation to address the matter, but given the above mentioned physical limitations, this issue isn’t considered to be a significant amenity impact. It is noted is that the site currently allows for all vehicular movements from Hines Road to the Clarke Street entrance point via the existing northern and western boundary driveways. The applicant has identified that all delivery and retail visitors for the building are to be limited to the existing Hines Road crossover. The applicant also intends to incorporate signage onsite site outlining these parking and vehicle movement restrictions and also implement a parking management plan to assist in limiting such traffic and car movement amenity impacts, which are all considered appropriate actions. However fundamentally, it’s extremely difficult to control such intended vehicle movements as it not only involves


Page 18

third party behaviour, but the ease of the vehicle movements between Clarke Street and Hines Road is currently available. Therefore as the traffic movements are anticipated to significantly increase due to the proposed Service Industry land use, two conditions requiring:

1) a physical fence/ barrier preventing vehicular movements from Hines Road to Clarke Street, and

2) appropriate signage to be installed onsite restricting onsite parking areas to staff

and visitors being restricted to existing separate street crossovers and all delivery access being limited via Hines Road crossover only,

are considered a reasonable imposition to help safeguard and limit any amenity impacts experienced on existing residents on Clarke Street due to the partial change of use of the land. Special Control Area – O’Connor Industrial Interface Area The change of use of the site is considered against the provisions of Clause 6.6 of the Scheme, O’Connor Industrial Interface Area, as the site’s southern boundary adjoins a residential zone. 6.6.4 In considering applications for industrial and commercial buildings Council shall have regard to all of the following –

design of vehicle ingress / egress to minimise traffic impacts including intrusion of commercial vehicles into adjoining residential streets,

high standard of landscaping, and

materials and finishes to complement the visual amenity of the area. A new building is not proposed on site and therefore the requirements of Clause 6.4.4 are considered to have been previously addressed in conditional approval granted June 2000, for the previous approval for the Warehouse. It is noted that the partial demolition and the resultant changes to the eastern façade of the building will remain consistent with the existing appearance of the building. The current proposal remains consistent with the previous conditional approval. It is also recommended that conditions limiting the access be imposed to the current proposal. In relation to the traffic impact, the applicant provided additional information which included a Traffic Report detailing the increase in traffic as a result of the change of use to Industry Service. The traffic report has been reviewed by the City’s Technical Services department as detailed in the Consultation section of this report who have recommended that the developer should contribute to the construction of a footpath in front of the property It was noted that there will be a significant increase in traffic as outlined in the traffic report and by City Officers. Notwithstanding the increase in traffic in the area, Hines Road is subject to existing traffic issues which the City recognises may need to be dealt with through traffic calming methods, irrespective of the current development application.


Page 19

The hours of operation are recommended to be conditioned as per the approval in order to ensure the amenity of the area is not significantly compromised as a result of increased operating times. Objectives of the Industrial Zone Development within the industrial zone shall—

i. provide for manufacturing, processing and fabrication industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses, service industry, utilities and communication, ancillary retail which by the nature of their operations should be separated from residential areas, and

ii. ensure that development contributes to a high standard amenity and design as

well as compatibility with adjacent residential areas. The retail use proposed is considered to be ancillary to the warehouse and distribution use currently operating on the site. The design of the site limits the access to the retail component from the residential area and therefore is considered to meet the objectives of the Industrial Zone outlined above. Additionally the site is proposed to have additional parking for cars, motor cycle and bicycles as well as additional landscaping, in order to improve the existing amenity of the site. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15: New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

2. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: New commercial businesses established in Fremantle

providing employment opportunities. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use from Warehouse to Service Industry and alterations to existing Building at No. 6-412 (Lot 32-33) Clarke Street, O’Connor, , subject to the following condition(s):


2. Prior to occupation of the retail portion of the development approved as

part of DA0193/15, on plans dated 15 June 2015, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance


Page 20

with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. All car parking and vehicle access and circulation areas shall be

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

4. Prior to the occupation of the Service Industry use of the development,

the owner shall: a) install and maintain a permanent closed gate / fence or other

appropriate structure / building to the northern elevation at the north western corner of the existing building to the northern common boundary of site, which restricts all vehicle movements from Hines Road to Clarke Street and vice a versa to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, and

b) install and maintain onsite signage limiting:

i. delivery vehicle access from Hines Road crossover, ii. visitor parking access only from Hines Road, and iii. parking access from the Clarke Street crossover being limited

to staff members only,

to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the Service Industry use of the development, the owner shall submit for approval a parking management plan, outlining visitor parking allocation, staff parking allocation and delivery vehicle access limitations on site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the Service Industry use, the owner shall

financially contribute or construct a footpath in front of the property along Hines Road to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping

plan, including information relating to species selection, reticulation, details of existing vegetation to be retained, and treatment of landscaped surfaces (i.e. mulch, lawn, synthetic grass etc), shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of

DA0193/15, on plans dated 15 June 2015, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans as required in condition No.7 or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development


Page 21

on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 10. The signage hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving

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

11. The Industry Service land use hereby permitted shall have hours of

operation that do not exceed the following;

a) 7:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Sunday


Page 22

PSC1507-4 SOUTH STREET, NO. 277 (LOT 303), HILTON - THREE STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (10 DWELLINGS) TO REAR OF EXISTING TAVERN (SOUTH STREET ALE HOUSE) - (AA DA0214/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 4 May 2015 Owner Name: Mr Dean Pty Ltd, Fuschcia Gardens Pty Ltd and N & F De

Laurentis Submitted by: West Coast Plan Scheme: Local Centre (R20) Primary Regional Road (MRS) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Tavern Use Class: Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the development of a three storey building at the rear of the site containing the existing South Street Ale House. The building will comprise a ground floor parking and service level and three additional levels containing 10 Multiple Dwellings. The development proposed is considered to meet discretionary criteria of LPS4 that allow for a density bonus up to the R100 code. This includes criteria ensuring access from a road other than South Street (in this case, Paget Street), retention of an existing non-residential use and the coordination of future development within the Hilton Local Centre precinct. The most pertinent exercise of discretion under LPS4 relates to a short-fall of parking of 5 bays. The subject site adjoins No. 279 (Lot 700) South Street which also has access to Paget Street. Lot 700 measures approximately 8.0m at the Paget Street frontage. Currently Lot 700 shares (informally) a vehicle crossover and vehicle circulation area with the subject site. It is recommended that any development approval include a condition relating to an access easement being provided over the subject site so that future development can occur on Lot 700, without the need to provide a separate vehicle access isle on that site. The applicant has requested that existing bays on Lot 700 be burdened by an easement so that the bays can be shared with the subject site. As this adjoining site does not form part of the subject site, it cannot be burdened under this approval. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site exists in the portion of South Street boundary by Carrington Street to the west and Paget Street to the east. The subject site is not heritage list and measures approximately 2,064m2. The subject site is zoned ‘Local Centre’ under LPS4 and the first 10m of the site as measured from South Street is reserved ‘Primary Regional Road’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) The subject site forms part of a wider precinct zoned ‘Local Centre’ under the provisions of LPS4 centred around the portion of South Street immediately to the east of Carrington Street. Schedule 12 of LPS4 contains a number built form requirements and bonuses intended to encourage density development within the precinct and its periphery. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for the development of a four storey building containing 10 Multiple Dwellings. The building includes a ground floor level comprising vehicle parking, storage and service areas. The three additional floors contain a mix of one and two bedroom Multiple Dwellings. The building is positioned at the rear of the existing South Street Ale House; which exists over the northern portion of the property.


Page 24

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, local planning policies and the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles. Not meeting the deemed to comply criteria cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes;

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall); and,

Landscaping. The application also includes the exercise of discretion under LPS4 in relation to the following elements;

Density bonus;

Land use; and,

Vehicle parking. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposal seeks the exercise of discretion under provisions of LPS4. The application was advertised as a ‘significant’ application in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals. Advertising of the application included notification to surrounding landowners (within 100m of the subject site), notification to precinct groups, a community information session and notices being placed in local newspapers, the City’s website and at the City’s administration centre. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 June 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised;

A two storey development would be more appropriate for the area given the surrounding development is mostly single storey;

The proposal will result in adverse overshadowing;

The design proposed is uninteresting and will reduce amenity as a result;

The façades and materials used should be varied to provide a more softened presentation to Paget Street and surrounding sites; and,

The building will attract the wrong type of people to the area. The submissions were referred to the applicant for a response. On 15 June 2015 the applicant provided the following (summarised) response to the submissions;


Page 25

The proposal is broadly consistent with the R-Codes and the City’s stated planning criteria for the Hilton Local Centre area;

The proposal meets the criteria relating to overshadowing and solar access;

The proposal will provide for a mix of housing within the local area;

The proposed 11m height is lower than the 14m prescribed height;

The design of the development may be reviewed to include a greater level of articulation (i.e. greater range of materials as part of the building permit application).

Main Roads Western Australia The application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) as part of the site is reserved under the MRS for the purpose of a primary regional road. On 22 May 2015, MRWA provided the following (summarised) advice regarding the application;

The existing property is affected by a 10 metre wide land requirement reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. This land will be required for road widening of some purpose in the future;

The project for upgrading South Street is not in MRWA 4-year forward estimated construction program;

The development application is supported. Technical Services The application was referred to the City’s Technical Services department for comment. Comments received are summarised as follows;

A number of measures should be undertaken to ensure access is gained from South Street, but that this access is one-way only;

Visitor parking bays should be marked as such;

Deficiency in parking allocated for the Ale House will need to be managed by the landowner.

Appropriate conditions of approval are recommended. Design Advisory Committee The development falls below the relevant thresholds contained in clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 for referral to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC). No comment from the DAC was sought as a result. PLANNING COMMENT Density bonus vehicle access and coordination of development

Scheme criteria Proposed Discretion sought

Residential density may be increased up to R100 subject to residential uses being restricted to

Residential uses above ground floor with vehicle parking at the rear of the site with access to the

See comments below.


Page 26

the first floor and above, where; (Vehicular access to the development site can be obtained directly from a road other than South Street; and Vehicle parking is provided below ground level or at the rear of buildings and is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining sites.

dwellings provided directly from Paget Street.

The proposed development is considered to meet the above criteria as relevant to the R100 density bonus given development is proposed to the rear of the site with residential dwellings provided above ground floor. Vehicle access can also be accessed directly from Paget Street; though it is noted that one-way access still remains from South Street. The current development does not rely on this access. The scheme criteria also specify that vehicle parking and access should be coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining sites. The development adjoins No. 279 (Lot 700) South Street which also has access to Paget Street. Lot 700 measures approximately 8.0m wide at the Paget Street frontage. Currently Lot 700 shares (informally) a vehicle crossover and vehicle circulation area for access to existing bays, with the subject site (see below).


Page 27

The 8.0m wide portion of land connecting Lot 700 to Paget Street is, in isolation, insufficient in width to provide a vehicle driveway and parking to the rest of the site. It is also noted that if this was to form the sole point of access to the site, an existing street tree to Paget Street would need to be removed to provide for an additional crossover. A condition of approval requiring reciprocal rights of access to be placed on the title of the subject site specifying access right, is recommended. The reciprocal agreement should provide for a vehicle driveway isle only. The City cannot bind the landowner of Lot 700 to this application as that land does not form part of the application. This ensures compliance with the stated provision for development to be ‘coordinated with existing of future parking on adjoining sites.’ Vehicle parking

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment

Multiple Dwellings & visitors

7.5 + 2.5 = 10 bays 13 bays Nil

The proposal includes sufficient vehicle parking bays for the Multiple Dwellings proposed. However the proposal also results in the removal of 24 vehicle bays from the existing hardstand area at the rear of the Ale House. Schedule 12 of LPS4 provides that where a non-residential use is retained and/or provided as part redevelopment within the Hilton Local Centre zone, a 50% reduction in the vehicle parking requirements may apply. The existing Ale House provides 38 bays on-site. Applying this 50% reduction results in a scheme requirement of 19 bays. As a result 14 bays remain on-site for use by the Ale House; up to 4 in tandem behind the Ale House and 10 at the rear of the site fronting Paget Street. The exercise of discretion relevant to the further 5 bay shortfall is supported under clause 5.7.3.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons;

There is an existing prevalence of shared (informal) vehicle parking within the precinct;

The mix of uses, in particular the Ale House, mean that demand for parking for the use occurs during periods where other uses have a lesser parking demand; and,

The subject site is located adjacent to high-frequency public transport on South Street.

The applicant notes that 8 additional bays are ‘available’, via a reciprocal agreement with the adjoining landowner of Lot 700. As stated above, the City cannot burden the adjoining site by reciprocal agreement as part of this application; therefore these bays are not considered available to the development. Land use


Page 28

The proposed Multiple Dwelling land use is a discretionary land use pursuant to Table 1 of LPS4. The proposed Multiple Dwelling land use is considered to meet the objectives of the Local Centre zone, stated at clause 4.2.1(c) of LPS4 in so far as;

The proposal retains existing non-residential land which maintains the existing land use diversity of the local-serving role of the centre;

The development is not considered to impact on the amenity of surrounding development and proposes limited exercise of discretion;

The proposal does not affect the cultural heritage significance of surrounding sites.

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls)

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design principle assessment

East 3.0m 10.3m long x 9.4m high on the eastern boundary

3.0m

The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in regards to lot boundary setbacks to both the east boundary of the site in so far as;

The wall adjoins a non-residential property. As a result there is no impact on privacy, light or ventilation access;

The proposed wall is considered consistent with the long term objective for redevelopment of the Local Centre area as a mixed use, density development precinct;

The wall does not impact on any views of significance or significant vegetation. It adjoins a hardstand vehicle parking area.

Landscaping

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

Vehicle parking area

Landscaping between each six consecutive external car parking spaces to include shade trees.

Not provided

See comments

The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in so far as opportunities for landscaping are provided at the street frontage (Paget Street) end of the parking area as well as at the western end of the main parking area adjoining the proposed bin store building. A condition of approval ensuring provision of this landscaping is recommended. Potential noise impact The proposed residential dwellings will be located adjacent to the existing Ale House tavern use. There is potential for adverse noise impact on future residents of the dwellings.


Page 29

Council may consider applying a condition of approval specifying a notification being placed on title advising future residents of potential noise impacts. No condition is included in the officers recommendation given the clear objective of the local centre is to provide for a range of land use that may generate a greater level of noise than in a typical residential environment. It is noted that the Ale House remains subject to normal noise controls. Public art The proposal is subject to the provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contributions for public art and heritage works. A condition of approval specifying a contribution for public art prior to the issue of a building permit, consistent with the policy is recommended STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents;

Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy: Provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and growing population and provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city

CONCLUSION The application includes the development of 10 Multiple Dwellings to the rear of the existing South Street Ale House. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant criteria of LPS4, the R-Codes and adopted Council policy. The development is required to provide for coordinated development between lots within the Hilton Local Centre zone. The applicant has suggested partially burdening an adjoining site so that access can be shared. Council cannot require another site to be burdened as part of planning approval or make conditions that rely on a third party to agree to the proposal. A condition of approval requiring an access easement over the subject site only is recommended. The proposal also adjoins the existing Ale House land use. This may result in an adverse noise impact on future residents. Council may consider the following (additional) condition;

‘Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0214/15, on plans dated 4 May 2015, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development prior to occupation advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to land use and a primary regional road and may be subject to noise and activity not normally associated with typical residential zoned land. The notification is to be prepared by


Page 30

the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.’

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 Three storey Multiple Dwelling development (10 dwellings) to rear of existing Tavern (South Street Ale House) at No. 277 (Lot 303) South Street, Hilton, as detailed on plans dated 4 May 2015, subject to the following conditions;

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

approved plans, dated 4 May 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this approval, prior to the issue of a

Building Permit the proposal shall be designed and constructed and thereafter maintained so that no vehicles can egress the site directly to South Street, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice of the Coordinator Infrastructure Projects. It is noted that this may include traffic signs not depicted on the plans hereby approved.

4. Prior to commencement of development, the manoeuvrable areas for car

bays, carports or garages shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1 to allow vehicles to exit to the street in a forward gear.

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0214/15,

on plans dated 4 May 2015, all screening depicted of the plans hereby approved shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres

above floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and

with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

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

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 31

6. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of

DA0214/15, on plans dated 4 May 2015, suitable landscaping shall be provided between the street alignment and the proposed building in areas not consisting of vehicle hardstand, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary

shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish

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

8. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit a

Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; b) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; c) Security fencing around construction sites; d) Gantries; e) Access to site by construction vehicles; f) Contact details; g) Site offices; h) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; i) Sand drift and dust management; j) Waste management; k) Dewatering; l) Traffic management; and m) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The approved Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development.

9. Prior to the issue of Building Permit, an easement for public vehicle and

pedestrian access from Paget Street over the subject site shall be provided, prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the landowner. The easement shall provide public access to the extent that such access allows reasonable vehicle and pedestrian movements from Paget Street to the adjoining site at No. 279 (Lot 700), South Street, Hilton, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 32

10. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner shall contribute a

monetary amount and/or public art or heritage works integrated into the development or surrounding public realm, equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $1,100,000.00 the contribution to be made is to be equal in value to $11,000.


Page 33

PSC1507-5 SHEEDY STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 45), SOUTH FREMANTLE - HOME OCCUPATION - (TB DA0166/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development plans Date Received: 7 April 2015 Owner Name: Agostino Valtolina Submitted by: Alan Morandi Scheme: Urban Zone Heritage Listing: Level 3 listing Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Home Occupation Use Permissibility: D


Page 34

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development and due to objections received that cannot be fully addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of a neighbour. The applicant is seeking retrospective approval for the change of use of an existing Single House to Home Occupation (making of ‘wine and beer jellies’) at No. 5 (Lot 45) Sheedy Street, South Fremantle. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential R30’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is listed as a Level 3 Heritage Building on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The subject site is located at No. 5 Sheedy Street, South Fremantle which is located on the southern side of Sheedy Street, South Fremantle. The site is currently used for a residential use as a Single House. The existing kitchen and dining area of the dwelling are proposed to be used for the operation of the Home Occupation. This area accounts for approximately 15m2 of the dwelling, with the existing portion of the residence used for residential purposes by the owner. DETAIL

On 7 April 2015, the City received a development application for a change of use for a Home Occupation at No. 5 Sheedy Street, South Fremantle (the site). The Home Occupation is proposed for the making of ‘wine and beer jellies’. The process involved for the making of the jellies includes boiling the wine and beer in order to evaporate the alcohol, sugar and pectin are then added before the jam like product is placed into jars. The product will then be sold, off site, by delivery to markets and shops. The applicant is proposing to operate the business during regular business hours on a Monday (9:00am to 6:00pm). Additionally, the applicant is also proposing to operate the business after regular business hours on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings (7:00pm to 10:00pm). The estimated volume of alcohol used for the proposed jellies is approximately 20-30 litres of alcohol per week which will make approximately 200-300 jars of jelly. The land owner is the single operator of the business and does not employ any other employees. The applicant is seeking Council’s discretion relating to the land use.


Page 35

See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of development plans. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposed change of use to a Home Occupation is classified as a Discretionary use in the residential zone. The application was however advertised, at the Manager’s discretion under Clause 1.1 of Local Planning Policy 1.3 as it was considered to be within the public’s interest. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 20 May 2015, the City had received 2 submissions including 1 in support and 1 objection. The following issues were raised during the advertising period:

1. The close vicinity of the dwelling and kitchen will have a negative impact due to the beer and wine fumes.

The main planning concern raised regarding the amenity, above, is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. Environmental Health Department Comments

The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health Department for comment who advised that concerns relating to potential cooking odour are very low risk because alcohol is odourless when heat is applied and other components in beer and wine are generally grain based or fruit based and when heated in the limited production time and quantities proposed are not considered to be foul odours. An advice note was added to the approval requiring the applicant to apply for a food business license. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The application seeks discretion relating to:

Land Use The above matters are discussed in the “Planning Comment” section below. PLANNING COMMENT

The proposal is considered to meet the definition of Home Occupation as outlined in LPS4. The following elements of the Home Occupation definition are discussed in relation to this application: Home occupation: means an occupation carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which—


Page 36

a) does not employ any person not a member of the occupier’s household,

b) will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood,

c) does not occupy an area greater than 20 square metres,

d) does not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres,

e) does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature

f) in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in the requirement for a greater number of parking facilities than normally required for a single dwelling or an increase in traffic volume in the neighbourhood does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 2 tonnes tare weight, and does not include provision for the fuelling, repair, or maintenance of motor vehicles, and

g) does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than

normally required in the zone. It is acknowledged that a Home Occupation use does have the potential to impact the amenity of surrounding residential properties and therefore the proposal is considered in relation to the potential risks to the amenity of the neighbourhood. Typically residential amenity impacts arise when such a use is of such a high intensity that it is more appropriately located within an industrial area. It is considered that the Home Occupation is proposing a limited volume of production and anticipated operating hours. For these reasons the intensity of the business is not considered to be of a size or intensity that would adversely impact the amenity of the area. It is also noted that the product will be distributed by the business owner and no deliveries or sales are proposed to occur at the site. In relation to vehicle parking, the proposed Home Occupation is not considered to have an impact on the existing car parking demand within the area and furthermore does not result in an increase in parking numbers to what would be considered acceptable for a single dwelling. For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the home occupation will not result in an increased demand in traffic during the hours of operation and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the residential amenity of the area. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: 1. Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15: New commercial businesses

established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities. 2. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: New commercial businesses established in

Fremantle providing employment opportunities.


Page 37


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the home occupation at No. 5 (Lot 45) Sheedy Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 7 April 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 7 April 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The Home Occupation hereby permitted is limited to hours of operation

as follows;

Monday 9am to 6pm; and

Tuesday and Wednesday 7pm to 10pm. Advice Note: The proponent must make application to undertake food preparation, skin penetration or beauty therapy activities in residential premises and submit detailed plans during the Building License application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.


Page 38

PSC1507-6 HOPE STREET, NO. 83 (LOT 22), WHITE GUM VALLEY - RETROSPECTIVE OUTBUILDING ADDITION AND CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING TO ANCILLARY DWELLING - (TB/AD DA0175/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer / Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photos Attachment 3 – Site Photos as viewed from 3A Nannine

Avenue Attachment 4 – Site photos with existing outbuilding

present 2007

Attachment 5 – Site photos taken 23 December 2014 Date Received: 13 April 2015 & 16 June 2015 (additional plans) Owner Name: Helen Mary Codde Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential Zone – R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed Existing Landuse: Existing Single House, two existing Outbuildings (one

used as Ancillary Dwelling) Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City received an application for a retrospective Outbuilding addition to the existing Single House and retrospective conversion of existing outbuilding to Ancillary Dwelling at No. 83 (Lot 22) Hope Street, White Gum Valley. The application has been assessed against the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires design principle assessment against the following:

Boundary walls (Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development)

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination as an objection has been received from a neighbouring landowner that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered supportable against the relevant design principles and therefore is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located along the southern side of Hope Street and west of Nannine Avenue in White Gum Valley. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under LPS4 with a density code of R20/R25. The property measures approximately 483m2 and currently contains a single storey Single House and two single storey outbuildings (one currently is used as an Ancillary Dwelling). The subject site is not contained on the City’s Heritage List and is not located within a Heritage Area. The existing unauthorised outbuilding located in the centre of the site is estimated to have been built some time ago (more than several years). Photos taken in 2007 of the site have indicated that the outbuilding was constructed prior to 2007. See Attachment 3 for site photos in 2007. Aerial photos also indicate that the outbuilding may have been built prior to this time. The existing outbuilding being used as an Ancillary Dwelling located in the south western rear corner of the site is estimated to have been built some time before 1983. Aerial photos indicate the outbuilding may have been built several years prior to this time. On 19 July 1983, planning approval was granted for additions and alterations to the outbuilding which involved increasing the floor area. Conditions imposed as part of the 1983 approval related specifically to the building being non- habitable. A search of the property file also revealed that on 10 December 2001, the existing rear outbuilding was considered at the Development Assessment Unit meeting, who resolved to defer a proposal for a second storey addition to the existing outbuilding as well as the conversation to ancillary accommodation and the additional construction of an outbuilding. Development Assessment Unit resolved to defer the proposal as revised plans were required as well as the applicant needing to obtain a structural engineers


Page 40

report to demonstrate the outbuilding is structurally sound. Due to the application being deferred at this time and the request for amended plans and engineers report not being provided, no additional decision was made in relation to this site. Therefore, the outbuilding was not granted planning approval to be converted into an ancillary dwelling. Prior to this time, on 1 May 2000, approval was given to the demolition of a timber framed cottage (the existing dwelling) as well as the ‘granny flat’. The demolition approval granted in 2000 was not acted upon. However, significant maintenance work has been carried out to both the timber framed cottage and granny flat. . DETAIL

On 13 April 2015, the City received an application seeking retrospective planning approval for an Outbuilding at No. 83 (Lot 22) Hope Street, White Gum Valley. During this time it was also bought to the City’s attention that the existing Ancillary Dwelling on the site was not granted planning approval to be converted from an Outbuilding to an Ancillary Dwelling and as such this was included as part of this planning application. The precise construction dates of both the existing outbuildings is unknown however, these buildings were constructed by a previous owner of 83 Hope Street, White Gum Valley. The existing outbuilding located on the subject site is situated on the eastern boundary with a nil setback. The outbuilding is approximately 9m2 in area and is 2.3m in height. The outbuilding also has an extended roof cover that extends approximately 3m. It is noted that the height of the neighbouring property to the east, is of a lower natural ground level to the subject site. The existing Ancillary Dwelling, built as an outbuilding is located to the south western corner of the site with a nil setback to both the southern and western boundaries. The building is approximately 34m2. The building also has a roof cover that extends approximately 1-2m on the northern and eastern sides of the building. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Boundary wall (east) The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report, below. It is also noted that the Ancillary Dwelling has already previously been approved as an outbuilding. Furthermore the setbacks of the outbuilding have already previously been


Page 41

approved and therefore are not discussed further throughout the report. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed Ancillary Dwelling is considered to meet the requirements of the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and is therefore not discussed further within the report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as a Design Principle assessment was required for the boundary wall. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 May 2015, the City had received one submission. The main planning issue raised related to:

1. The building can be seen from the outdoor living area and is an eyesore.

The following issues were raised that related to planning issues, however these issues met the relevant deemed-to-comply provisions as measured by the R-Codes:

1. Sunlight is restricted in Winter


1. Northern light is restricted due to existing gum tree.

2. It is believed that the previous asbestos wall was pushed over as a result of the outbuilding.

Building Services Comment

The City’s Senior Building Surveyor attended a site inspection on 8 June 2015 to view the compliance of the existing outbuildings and the habitability of the outbuilding proposing conversion to Ancillary Dwelling. The advice of the City’s Principal Building Surveyor is that the outbuildings are both compliant with building requirements and the proposed Ancillary Dwelling is appropriate for human habitation.

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

East (outbuilding)

Where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions;

Nil setback provided with no adjoining boundary wall to neighbouring property.

Boundary walls do not abut existing boundary walls


Page 42

The height of the visible portion of the outbuilding can be seen in Attachment 2 and Attachment 5, which is approximately 1.4m to the roof pitch as viewed above the existing fence at 3A Nannine Street. Similarly site photos taken during 2014 also demonstrate the portion of building above the existing fence as seen in Attachment 3 and Attachment 5. The proposed eastern boundary wall is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP 2.4 in the following ways:

The orientation of the site ensures that direct sun to major openings to the outdoor living area for the eastern adjoining property, is not restricted as measured by the R-Codes.

In relation to the amenity of the boundary wall for the adjoining eastern property, it is considered that a compliant two storey dwelling which meet the deemed to comply setbacks, would have a significantly greater impact on the adjoining eastern property, than the height of the boundary wall does.

The outbuilding boundary wall to the east makes more effective use of the space for enhanced privacy for the outdoor living areas on both the subject site and adjoining eastern property.

The length of the boundary wall is not considered to be of significant length. Additionally due to the length it is considered that the impact of the boundary wall reduces the building bulk as viewed from the adjoining property.

The visible portion of the outbuilding wall is approximately 1.4m at the highest point of the roof pitch as viewed from the neighbouring property. Due to the height and pitch of the outbuilding viewed from the adjoining property, the impact of building bulk is considered to be of limited impact for the adjoining land owner. The portions visible from the south-eastern adjoining property, being No. 3 Nannine Avenue are depicted in photos taken from that site and are contained as Attachment 3 of this report.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Approval for Outbuilding addition and conversion of existing Outbuilding to Ancillary Dwelling to existing Single House at No. 83 (Lot 22) Hope Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 April 2015 and 16 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


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


Page 43

PSC1507-7 CHADWICK STREET, NO. 33A (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0223/15)

DataWorks Reference: 3009855 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans Attachment 2 – Site photos Date Received: 6 May 2015 Owner Name: H. McCowan Submitted by: Home Group WA Scheme: Residential Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Vacant Site Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the addition of a single storey Single House to the existing site. The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to a number of submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours, as well as the requirement for design principle assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Boundary wall (west); Lot boundary setback (south).

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located west of Snook Crescent, east of Thornett Street, north of Harwood Street and south of Chadwick Street. The site measures approximately 478m² and is currently a vacant site. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provision of LPS4 and has a density coding of R20/R25. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage list and is located within the Hilton Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

On 6 May 2015, the City was in receipt of an application for a single storey Single House and includes:

Three bedrooms; Two bathrooms; Kitchen, dining and family rooms; Alfresco; Theatre Laundry; and Garage.

Refer to Attachment 1 for development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies.


Page 45

Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Lot boundary setback (south); Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Boundary wall (west); The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 29 May 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised:

The building bulk of the western boundary wall has an adverse impact on the western adjoining property;

Sun light will be restricted to the western adjoining property.

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setback

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

South

1.5m 1.07 – 2.19m

Up to 0.43m

The proposed western lot boundary setback is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The setback is considered to provide a sufficient distance so as to reduce the impact of building bulk on the southern adjoining properties;

The proposed lot boundary setback is deemed to allow for adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site, in addition to the southern adjoining neighbours.

Minimises the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

Boundary Wall

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle


Page 46

Assessment

West 1.5m 0m to a maximum height of 3.2m and 13.25m in length.

1.5m

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development for the following reasons:

Due to the ground level on the adjoining western property being higher, the boundary wall is only 2.4m high from the neighbouring property which would have a similar impact to a 1.8m high dividing fence with 0.5m privacy screening on top which is permitted as of right.

The boundary wall ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and the outdoor living area as measured by the R Codes for the western adjoining property is not restricted;

The external wall height proposed is not considered to have a detrimental building bulk impact;

There is not considered to be an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property by way of the orientation of the site.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: The proposal will provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No. 33A (Lot 1) Chadwick Street, Hilton, as detailed on plans dated 11 May 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 11 May 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter.

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the western boundary shall

be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




Page 47



Page 48

PSC1507-8 SIMPER CRESCENT, NO. 5A (STRATA LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (JL DA0177/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: NIL Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee (PSC) Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Amended Development Plans (Dated 2 June2015) Attachment 2: Site Photo’s Date Received: Amended plans dated 2 June 2015 Owner Name: Leo Alexander Hartley Submitted by: Brad Ladyman Architects Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Vacant Land Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to submissions being received regarding the proposal, raising planning related concerns that cannot be dealt with appropriately via the imposition of conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The proposal requires Design Principle assessments of the Residential Design Codes 2013 (R-Codes) in relation to the following Design Element:

Lot boundary setbacks (reduced ground floor southern setback and Boundary Walls to the northern and eastern common boundaries)

The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a split density coding of R25. The subject site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List nor is the site located within the prescribed Heritage Area under the clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is vacant rear surveys strata allotment that comprises of approximately 287m2 of site area which has an east west orientation. The site is located on the western side Simper Crescent, White Gum Valley. The site has a slight slope from the rear to the front of approximately 1.5m and a cross fall from north to south by approximately 700mm. Synopsis of adjoining properties All adjoining northern and southern properties are zoned residential and are improved by single storey dwellings. The southern adjoining properties have a slightly lower topography of approximately 200mm – 800mm than the subject site itself. The adjoining residential zoned western (side) property (being No.54 and 52A Wood Street) are improved also by single storey dwellings fronting Wood Street, with outbuilding additions which incorporate nil setbacks located on the common boundary dividing this development site. The adjoining eastern (front strata) residential zoned adjoining property known as 5 Simper Crescent also improved by a single storey dwelling, which has a slightly lower topography than the subject site of approximately 200-300mm. See ‘Attachment 2’ below for streetscape and site photos. DETAIL

the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for a Two Storey Grouped dwelling to be constructed at the vacant lot known as No.5A (Lot 2) Simper Crescent, White Gum Valley (the site).


Page 50

On 2 June 2015, the City received amended plans which proposed the following amendments to the original proposal:

Reduced the building height from 7m to 6m,

Modifiying the roof form from skillion to ridge roof,

Increasing the upper floor southern elevation setback from lot boundary from nil to 1.5m, and

Increasing the ground floor eastern elevation setback from lot boundary from nil to 700mm – 1.5m.

See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of the amended development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions contained within, LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R Cides, as assessment is made against the reelavnt design principles. Not emeting the deemed to comply requirement cannon be used as a reasons for refusal. The proposal does not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions of the R Codes regarding lot boundary setbacks (reduced southern ground floor setback). Some of the City’s polciies replace or augment the deemed to comply criteria of the R Codes. The proposal seeks a discretion from Local Planning Policy 2.4 regarding the northern boundary wall. CONSULTATION

Community

The original proposed development was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy as a design principle assessment and policy discretion were sought. At the conclusion of the original advertising period, being 18 May 2015, the City had received two submissions. A summary of the relevant planning concerns raised in relation to design principle or discretionary assessment matters are as follows:

Building height,

Visual Privacy,

Setback of Retaining Walls,

Solar Access to adjoining sites, and

Lot boundary setback of buildings. As a result of the submissions received the applicant opted to review the proposal, and submitted amended plans (2 June 2015) addressing the majority some of these planning concerns by amending the proposal to meet the deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes, specifically building height, Solar access to adjoining sites, visual privacy and the upper floor southern boundary setback.


Page 51

Concerns associated with the proposed ground floor reduced southern boundary boundary setback will be included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot Boundary Setbacks Southern lot Boundary setback

Design Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

Southern ground

floor carport 4.9m long 2.3m

high wall

1m setback

Between 700mm to 1.5m setback

Up to 300mm

The lesser setback is considered to address the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The 300mm reduced setback relates to a small portion of a 4.9m long and 2.4m high pillar portion of the ground floor carport component of the dwelling. Given the limited dimensions of the ground floor wall and that its open in design and of a lightweight construction, any building bulk impacts are considered to be minimal,

The lesser setback is also not considered to significantly contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings, with the proposal complying with the overshadowing requirements of the R Codes, and,

The lesser setback meets the deemed to comply privacy requirements of the R Codes.

Boundary Walls

Design Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

Northern Alfresco Area 13m long x up to 2.1m

high wall

Table 2A

1.5m setback

Nil setback

1.5m

Eastern Alfresco Area4.4m

long x 2.6m – 3.7m high

Table 2A

1m setback

600-700mm

400 -300mm

The proposed boundary walls are considered to address the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed boundary walls are not considered to result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight as measured by the R Codes owing to their locations on the southern and western common boundaries of the adjoining respective properties,


Page 52

With regards to loss of ventilation, the majority of the northern boundary wall addition will abut and existing outbuilding which also incorporates a nil setback to this boundary with the remaining portion of wall abutting what is considered to be remote backyard area of the adjoining property. With regards to the eastern boundary wall addition, given the wall consist of an open designed lightweight constructed patio sufficient ventilation will be provided to the adjoining eastern property and its rear exclusive outdoor living area. As such both existing neighbouring dwellings will continue to secure sufficient cross ventilation to all existing internal and external habitable spaces of the dwellings on these properties,

The introduction of the boundary wall is also considered to assist in protecting privacy between the subject dwellings exclusive outdoor living area whilst having a negligible impact on the amenity of this neighbouring property, and

Furthermore, neither of the boundary walls will have a significant impact on any views of significance captured from this particular area of White Gum Valley nor will they have a considerable impact any existing significant vegetation on the subject site.

CONCLUSION Based upon the above assessment it is considered that the proposed development adheres to the majority of the relevant R-Codes ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions. Where the proposed development does not meet these criteria, it has been outlined above that it is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘Design Principle’ criteria of the R-Codes. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Grouped Dwelling at No.5A (Strata Lot 2) Simper Crescent, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):


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

eastern common boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


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


Page 53

PSC1507-9 MARTHA STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0157/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Comments Attachment 3: Site photos Date Received: 2 April 2015 Owner Name: Rachael O’Byrne Submitted by: Rodney O’Byrne Design Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI Management Category Level 3 (parent lot since

subdivided, heritage listed house located at No. 172 Hampton Road);

South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 2) Martha Street, 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, with exception of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP2.9) specifically the ground floor front setback. The proposal also does not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ requirements of the R Codes in relation to:

Secondary street setback;

Lot boundary walls;

Sight lines; The proposal is considered satisfy the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4 (Boundary Walls). However, the proposal is not considered to comply with LPP2.9 in relation to its ground floor setback, nor the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes in relation to its secondary street setback and for sight lines. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area 5 – (LPA 5) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Hampton Road to the west, Martha Street to the south, South Street to the north and McCleery Street to the east. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 3; and it is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area, which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 333m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site slopes downwards by approximately 2.0m from its rear (south-east) to the lots frontage with Hampton Road (north-west). A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

On 7 March 2012, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted conditional approval for a three lot survey strata subdivision of No. 172 (Lot 152) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (refer WAPC1122-11). This resulted in the subdivision of the subject site.

On 21 February 2013, Landgate issued titles for the subdivision approved as part of WAPC1122-11, resulting in the creation of the subject site.


Page 55

DETAIL

On 2 April 2015 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a single storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 2) Martha Street, Beaconsfield. A copy of the proposed development plans is contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 30 April 2015, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal. City’s Heritage Department

The City’s heritage department has reviewed the proposal and has advised that they have concerns, particularly in relation to the front setback to Hampton Road and its relationship to the setback of the heritage listed property to the north, with recommendations as follow:

“Recommendations In regard to the impact that the siting of the proposal will have on the streetscape, it is recommended:

That the current proposal not be supported.

That the current proposal be redesigned so the front set back of the new house aligns with the front face of the main body of 172 Hampton Road.”

A copy of the heritage comments are contained as Attachment 2 of this report. State Heritage Office (SHO)

As the site is in close proximity to a property that is on the State Heritage Register (174 Hampton Road which is directly across the subject site to the south), the proposal was referred to the SHO for their comment. On 25 May 2015, the SHO provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“Findings

The South Fremantle Post Office (fmr) is referred to in the Statement of Significance as being a well-known landmark in an elevated position that contributes to the community’s sense of place, and exhibits a prominent gable roof form in the Federation Arts and Crafts style.

The proposed single storey residence at 14 Martha Street, Beaconsfield, is on a similar setback and will not have an adverse impact on the cultural significance of the registered place.


Page 56

Advice The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of South Fremantle Post Office (fmr).”


The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy and scheme discretions:

Primary street setback;

Secondary street setback;

Lot boundary walls;

Sight lines; A more detailed discussion of the above is provided in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

Required Proposed Discretion

Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of 4 metre or less = 7.00m

2.00m – 3.00m

5.00m – 4.00m

As the proposal does not comply with the requirements of clause 1.1 of LPP2.9 above, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 1.2 of LPP2.9, which states:

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

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

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

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

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or

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


Page 57

The table below details the characteristics of the prevailing streetscape, as defined by LPP2.9.

Address Characteristics

North 1 of 3 No. 172 (Lot 1) Hampton Road

Dwelling: Single storey

Ground floor setback: 3.50m

Upper floor setback: N/A

2 of 3 No. 170 (Lot 23) Hampton Road


Ground floor setback: ~8.50m


3 of 3 No. 168 (Lot 2) Hampton Road




There are only three properties contained within the prevailing streetscape, all of which are located to the north of the subject site. Of those three properties to the north, all are single storey dwellings. The proposal would have the closest setback to the street of all three properties within the prevailing streetscape. As such, the ground floor street setback discretion cannot be supported against the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (i) of LPP2.9. Further to this, the proposed 2.00m (to 3.00m) setback to the primary street for the ground level is considered to result in a projecting element to the streetscape vista and therefore does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP2.9. The proposed reduced ground level street setback discretion will not facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree and as such does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (iii) of LPP2.9. In relation to Clause (iv), it is considered that there is a prevailing streetscape so this discretionary clause is not applicable. In relation to Clause (v), the site is a corner lot, so this discretionary criteria is not applicable. In light of the above discretionary criteria prescribed by Clause 1.2 (i, ii, iii, iv and v) of LPP2.9, the City does not consider the proposal to satisfy any of the above discretionary criteria in relation to the ground floor setback and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal. As detailed earlier in this report, the City’s heritage department are not satisfied that the proposed front setback of the dwelling is sympathetic to adjoining heritage listed properties, namely the property immediately abutting to the north. Furthermore, it is considered that there is sufficient space on-site so as to bring the building line of the dwelling to setback commensurate with the setback of existing heritage listed buildings to the north, particularly with the property immediately abutting to the north.


Page 58

Secondary street setback

‘Deemed-to-comply’ Proposed Design Principle assessment

1.50m setback from secondary street (Martha Street)

1.00m 0.50m

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

The closest example of a similar setback to Martha Street and on the same side of this street is at No. 17 (Lot 14) McCleery Street, which has a setback of approximately 1.50m from Martha Street. It is noted however that this particular property is located approximately 80m east of the subject site and as such, it is not considered to be close enough to warrant justification as any meaningful established streetscape, particularly when all properties in between are setback no closer than 2.50m from Martha Street. Accordingly, the proposed reduced secondary street setback is considered to not contribute to, nor be consistent with an established streetscape.

Lot boundary walls

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

1 Northern boundary (length - 4.1m; height – 4.3m)

Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback

line within the following limits;

(ii) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously

constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

0.00m Refer comments

below

2 Northern boundary (length – 5.0m; height – 3.9m)

0.00m Refer comments

below

The proposed boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed boundary walls do not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight as measured by the R Codes owing to its location of the northern boundary and its setback to the existing dwelling contained on the adjoining site;

The boundary walls are not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk as the two walls are broken up by a gap of 7.4m, with the remainder of the dwelling sufficiently setback from this boundary; and,

The western-most of the two proposed boundary walls is to predominantly abut a blank wall of the dwelling on the northern adjoining property, of which is not considered to be a sensitive area of that dwelling. The eastern-most of the two proposed boundary walls is to abut an outbuilding and a detached toilet, both of which are not considered to be a sensitive area of that dwelling;

The boundary walls do not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

Sight lines

‘Deemed-to-comply’ Proposed Design Principle


Page 59

assessment

Walls or fences reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street

Solid wall (of the dwelling – ‘bed 2’) within 1.0m of the proposed driveway

Refer comments below

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

The proposal is not considered to provide unobstructed sight lines at vehicle access points to ensure safety and visibility along the vehicle access way to the crossover and footpath that runs along the Martha Street frontage of the property.

As the proposal includes a tandem car parking arrangement, it is probable that cars will enter the parking bays in a forward gear and then have to reverse to exit the property. This, combined with the reduced capacity for sightlines is considered to compromise safety and visibility as cars typically have less visibility when reversing than they do moving forward.

As this could be conditioned if the application was recommended for approval, this has not been listed as a reason for refusal. LPP2.8 – Fences Policy

Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of Council’s LPP2.8 provides for fencing requirements for properties included on the Heritage List pursuant to clause 7.1 of LPS4. Clause 2.1 of LPP2.8 states:

“Fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of places on the Heritage List shall be compatible with, and complimentary to, the heritage character of the listed place with respect to height, materials and heritage character.”

Clause 2.2 of LPP2.8 states:

“Where a property is included on a heritage list Council may specify the type of building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place.”

The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s heritage department and they have advised that they do not have any concerns on heritage grounds in relation to the proposal. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed fencing is acceptable on heritage grounds and as such is considered to satisfy clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of Council’s LPP2.8. Scheme

Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 outlines the matters to be considered by the Council. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the following matters of clause 10.2.1 of LPS4:

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

(f) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2


Page 60

and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme,

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

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

(s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

(w) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,”

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Economic Development Strategy 2011-15: the proposed potentially increases the number of residents in the area;

CONCLUSION

The proposed single storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 2) Martha, Beaconsfield, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to the above and the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4 (Boundary Walls). However, the proposal is not considered to comply with LPP2.9 in relation to its ground floor setback, nor the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes in relation to its secondary street setback. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 2) Martha Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 2 April 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area

under clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local

Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy. 3. The proposal is inconsistent with the design principles of 5.1.2 – Street

setback; of the Residential Design Codes.


Page 61

PSC1507-10 TERRENE LANE, NO. 14 (LOT 125), O?CONNOR - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (TB DA0128/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1 – Development plans (3 June 2015)

2 – Site photos Date Received: 18 March 2015 Owner Name: KL Short and LJ Short Submitted by: Building Lines Approvals Pty Ltd Scheme: Development Area 8 (Residential R40) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 62

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for a two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 104) Commercial Street, Fremantle. The application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires design principle assessment and discretions against the following:

Primary street setback (Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy);

Solar access;

Open space;

Boundary walls (Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development);

Garage width; and,

Lot boundary setbacks. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination as an objection from a neighbouring landowner has been received that cannot all be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The proposal is not considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 in regards to the upper floor setback. The proposal is inconsistent with adjoining development and will represent a projecting element into the prevailing streetscape pattern. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Terrene Lane and Wexford Way, O’Connor. The development site has a total land area of 326m2 and is currently vacant land. The subject site is located within Development Area 8 which has an adopted structure plan. The Structure Plan was endorsed by the WAPC on the 26 March 2008. The adopted structure plan has been used for guidance when assessing development standards for this site. The Taylor College Structure Plan zones the subject site Residential with an R40 density coding. The sites located along Terrene Lane have a ‘restrictive covenant’ placed on the title pertaining to the orientation of any development upon those lots burdened. The covenant states as follows;

‘Unless otherwise approved by the City not to permit, nor suffer to permit, development on the Land Burdened unless such development is designed to provide for a suitable interface and adequate surveillance of public open space, including without limitation low fencing and orientation towards public open space.’

The site is not listed on the State Register of Heritage Places, the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List and it is not located within a Heritage Area. DETAIL


Page 63

On 18 March 2015, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No. 14 Terrene Lane, O’Connor. Amended plans were received from the applicant on 3 June 2015, in response to discussions with City staff regarding areas of non-compliance with LPP 2.9 and the R-Codes. The applicant was notified in these discussions that the proposal would not likely be supported by City staff, and has since been notified that the amended plans do not meet requirements also. The following amendments were made to the plans;

Building height reduced from 6.3m to 5.9m. Upper floor setback on southern boundary increased from 0.01m to 1.2m. Overshadowing reduced from 45.45% to 38% Upper floor primary street setback change from 4m to 2m.

A copy of the development plans (as amended) are contained within this report as Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy and scheme discretions:

Primary street setback (Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy);

Solar access;

Open space;

Boundary walls (Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development);

Garage width; and,

Lot boundary setbacks. A more detailed discussion of the above is provided in the 'Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the exercise of discretion under the planning framework of the City (most prominently LPP2.9) is sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 May 2015, the City had received two submissions, one objecting to the proposed


Page 64

development and one in support of the proposed development. The following issues were raised;

1. Overshadowing – sunlight from the north will be entirely cut. Our light, garden

and lifestyle will be affected as a result. 2. Streetscape – most of the street is single storey. 3. Do not agree with the proposed boundary wall.


1. The street has a neighbourly look and feel, especially backing on to the park. 2. Negatively affect the value of our property.

Notwithstanding the amendments made by the applicant a number of the concerns raised are considered to remain valid in relation to the amended proposal. The three main planning concerns raised above are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comments’ section below. PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy

Policy criteria Proposed Merit based assessment

Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of 4 metre or less = 8.00m

2.25m 5.75m

Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of greater than 4 metres = 10m

2.71m-4.495m 7.29m – 5.505m

As the proposal does not comply with the requirements of clause 1.1 of LPP2.9 above, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 1.2 of LPP2.9, which states;

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

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

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

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

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.’


Page 65

The table below details the characteristics of the prevailing streetscape, as defined by LPP2.9.

Address Characteristics

South 1 of 3 No. 12 (Lot 126) Terrene Lane




2 of 3 No. 10 (Lot 127) Terrene Lane

Dwelling: None (currently vacant)

No current approvals for site.

3 of 3 No. 8 (Lot 128) Terrene Lane



Ground floor setbacks There are only three properties contained within the prevailing streetscape, all of which are located to the south of the subject site. Of those three properties to the south, all are single storey dwellings, with the exception of one, which is currently a vacant site with no existing development. As such, the ground floor street setback discretion is considered supportable against the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (i) of LPP2.9. Upper floor setbacks The prevailing streetscape does not have a two storey dwelling and therefore the proposed upper level primary street setback discretion cannot be supported against the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (i) of LPP2.9. Further to this, the proposed 2.71 metre setback to the primary street for the upper level is considered to result in a projecting element to the streetscape vista and therefore does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP2.9. The proposed reduced upper level street setback discretion will not facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree and as such does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (iii) of LPP2.9. In relation to Clause (iv), it is considered that there is a prevailing streetscape so this discretionary clause is not applicable. The City does not consider the proposal to satisfy any of the above discretionary criteria in relation to the upper floor setback and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal. Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

R40 = 35% shadow cast, of site area of adjoining property

38% overshadowing 3%


Page 66

The proposed amount of overshadowing is not supported for the following reasons;

A significant amount of the overshadowing affects the roof of the southern property, however, the southern lot’s outdoor living area as well as a major opening to a habitable room will be significantly impacted by the proposed overshadowing;

It is noted that the previous overshadowing proposed was reduced as part of the revised plans, however the area of greatest concern relates to the outdoor living area of the adjoining property and a minor change has been made to reduce the impact to these areas.

A two storey dwelling that complies with deemed-to-comply requirements for lot boundary setbacks and building height would likely still overshadow the adjoining property. Notwithstanding this, the proposal does not address the significant shadow cast onto the outdoor living area and major opening. For these reasons the overshadowing cast onto the site is not considered to the meet the design principles of the R-codes and is not supported. Garage width


Garage door not to occupy more than 60% of the frontage

80% See comments

The proposal is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons;

The garage and supporting structures are considered to dominate the lot as viewed from the street.

The visual connectivity between the street and the dwelling is maintained.

Views from major openings, on the first level, to the street remain unaffected.

The width of the garage structure is considered unreasonably above the deemed-to-comply requirement and contributes to a sense that the street is dominated by garage doors.

It is also noted that within the prevailing street there are two (2) dwellings (No. 12 and No. 8 Terrence Lane) which exceed the deemed-to-comply requirement of 50% garage door frontage (approx. 60%). Notwithstanding the two dwellings within the prevailing streetscape, the proposed garage width is considered to be of a greater dominance within the street than the existing dwellings. Open Space


45% (144m2) 35.6% (113.8m2) 9.4% (30.2m2)

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


Page 67

The amount of open space is offset by the provision of an outdoor living area greater than that specified by the deemed-to-comply criteria. This ensures suitable, useable outdoor space is available to residents of the dwelling;

The two balcony areas proposed on the first floor are also considered to contribute to the overall space that ensures suitable, usable outdoor space;

The lesser open space provided will not be apparent from the primary street due to the proposed upper floor balcony; and

The scale of development is considered to be consistent with other dwellings in the prevailing streetscape.

Lot boundary setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Northern upper floor setback

5.7m 2.19m 3.51m

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

The setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk as the adjoining site is open space;

The setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings; and,

The setback does not result in any new merit based decision relating to visual privacy.

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development

Element Deemed to comply Provided Discretion

Southern boundary

(ground floor)

Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within

the following limits; (ii) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed

boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

0.01m See comments

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet, on balance, the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The upper floor has been amended in order to reduce the sense of building bulk for the adjoining southern property.

The typography of the site, being lower by approximately 800mm, reduces the overall impact of building bulk on the adjoining southern property. The southern site has an existing boundary fence which is approximately of a similar height to the proposed boundary wall.


Page 68

Additionally an 8.4m portion of the proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the deemed-to-comply provisions as this area abuts an existing boundary wall to the southern property. The proposed southern boundary walls are considered to have an impact on the adjoining site as the boundary wall contributes, in part, to the overshadowing of the property. The proposed boundary wall abuts an existing major opening to a habitable room on the southern adjoining property. It is also noted that if the wall did meet the deemed-to-comply setback criteria as per the R-Codes, the adjoining property will still be overshadowed. However, the setting back of the building would, in part, assist in reducing the overall shadow cast on the adjoining property. For the reasons outlined above the boundary wall is considered supportable on balance. Matters to be considered under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 outlines the matters to be considered by the Council. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the following matters of clause 10.2.1 of LPS4:

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

b) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2 and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme, the compatibility of a use or development within its setting,

c) the preservation of the amenity of the locality, d) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their

effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

e) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15; the proposed potentially increases the number of residents in the area. CONCLUSION The proposed two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The proposal is considered to satisfy some, but not all, of the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. In particular the proposal is not considered to address those principles relating to overshadowing and the width of the garage.


Page 69

In addition, the proposal is not considered to comply with Council’s LPP2.9 pertaining to the upper floor setbacks. The application is recommended for refusal as a result. An alternative recommendation has been provided should Council resolve to approve the application.

‘That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 3 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall


a) coloured sand render; b) face brick; c) painted surface; or, d) other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.’


That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 3 June 2015, for the following reasons; 1. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local

Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy in relation to the upper floor setback of the proposal. The setback is inconsistent with clause 1.2(i) & (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 in so far as it is inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape character and represents a projecting element into the established street setback line.

2. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.4.2 of

the R-Codes. The proposal will result in an impact on amenity by way of light restriction to outdoor living areas and major openings on the adjoining site.

3. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.2.2 of

the R-Codes in so far as the width of the garage proposed is considered to dominate the streetscape.


Page 70

4. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(f), (i), (o), (s) and (w) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.


Page 71

PSC1507-11 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 65 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0121/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site photographs Attachment 3 – Heritage Comment and Heritage

Assessment Date Received: 16 March 2015 Owner Name: Susanna Tarquinio Submitted by: Coby Godwin Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 72

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the demolition of an existing Single House at No. 65 Solomon Street, Fremantle. The property is not on the City’s Heritage List, however heritage advice has been received that identifies the property as being of some to considerable significance and recommends it be added to the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as Level 2. In accordance with Clause 5.15 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Single House is not supported for demolition as it is considered to be of some to considerable significance. The application is therefore presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) with a recommendation for refusal. BACKGROUND

No. 65 Solomon Street, Fremantle is located on the western side of Solomon Street near the corner of the intersection of Stevens and Solomon Street. The street block is bound by Stevens Street to the south, Solomon Street to the east, Bellevue Terrace to the west and Fothergill Street to the north. The lot is 531m2 and is currently occupied by a Single House and outbuilding. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory, nor is it located in a Heritage Area. There are no planning approvals for the site on the property file. The existing streetscape is occupied by a number of properties on the Heritage List. Properties on the City’s Heritage List include–

No. 66 Solomon St – Level 3





No. 55 Solomon St – Level 3 On 1 October 2014, PSC reviewed the City’s Heritage List and MHI; with PSC recognising the need to identify the significance of the contribution of non-British migrants to the post-World War Two development of Fremantle, and that there should then be an effort to conserve the physical expression of that significance. An amendment was made to the Officers Recommendation, to include the following in Council’s resolution:

That as part of the next annual review of the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory, officers identify and assess the cultural heritage significance of places that might merit inclusion on the Heritage List and/or MHI as representative examples of late twentieth century architecture, which have aesthetic, historic and social values as part of the post-World War Two development of Fremantle, including the settlement in Fremantle of non-British migrants.

DETAIL

On 16 March 2015, the City received an application for the demolition of a Single House. The applicant has provided the following justification for the demolition –


Page 73

The house next door is owned by the brother of the deceased owner and they shared a driveway to access the garage at the rear of the property. Upon the owner passing away the brother erected a fence on the boundary line resulting in access to the rear of the property being reduced to a 900mm wide path. Without access to the rear of the property there is now no off street parking to the premises. There is not enough room at the front of the property to erect a garage/carport without ruining the façade of the home and would still leave the back yard without access. The back yard is about 2.5m below floor level of the house so there is no connection between the house and the big back yard. The house on this property is quite small and not heritage listed. We have exhausted all feasible options for this house and after 18 months of putting it to market to see if anyone else can come up with a plan, have decided to demolish the house.

A demolition plan is included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. The application does not meet the requirements of Clause 5.15 Demolition of Buildings and Structures of LPS4, as a result of a Heritage Assessment undertaken by the City of Fremantle. A more detailed discussion of the above is provided in the Planning Comment section of this report. CONSULTATION

Heritage The application was referred through to the City’s Heritage Department for assessment. Both a Heritage Comment and Heritage Assessment were provided. The Heritage Assessment includes greater detail on the history of the place, whereas the Comment provides greater detail regarding the assessment of the proposed demolition. For the following reasons, the Single House is not supported for demolition – “House, 65 Solomon Street, Fremantle a rendered brick and tile house dating from the early 1950s has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

Constructed in the early 1950s in the Art Deco style of Architecture with Italian influences;

For its contribution to the streetscape and local area;

The place has some historic value Post World War 2 workers’ residence that demonstrates the European (Italian) migrants’ settlement and development of the Fremantle area,

It has historic value due to the Rotondella family who have retained ownership for more than 60s years.


Page 74

The place has social significance as it contributes to the community’s sense of place.

The rear shed is of limited significance. In general House, 65 Solomon Street, is an intact and good example of an early 1950s Art Deco and Italian influenced constructed residence. It is considered that the place is of some to considerable significance and therefore worthy of inclusion on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory and together with the residence at 63 Solomon Street. Demolition is not recommended on heritage grounds. It is recommended that the house be retained and conserved and that any future development consist of an appropriately designed single or two storey additions at its rear.” For full Heritage Assessment and Heritage Comment, please refer to Attachment 3. The City’s heritage staff have advised that 65 Solomon Street will be included in the next annual MHI review.

PLANNING COMMENT

Demolition of buildings and structures Clause 5.15 of LPS4 requires:

5.15.1 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.

5.15.2 In considering an application under 5.15.1, Council shall have regard to any heritage assessment required under Clause 7.4.

Cultural Heritage Significance is defined by the LPS4 as:

Has the same meaning as in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. Cultural Heritage Significance is defined by the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 as:

Means, in relation to a place, the relative value which that place has in terms of its aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social significance, for the present community and future generations

The City’s Heritage Coordinator and Heritage Planner have reviewed the proposal and have provided advice that has determined the Single House to be of some to


Page 75

considerable significance for aesthetic, historic and social reasons and that the Single House makes a contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which is located. In addition to Clause 5.15, relevant objectives of the residential zone in LPS4 are as follows:

i) provide for residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character

ii) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area

iv) recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development

v) conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development

vi) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area

Providing diverse housing does not just depend on the provision of new, higher density infill, it also relies on protection of historically significant housing development undertaken in Fremantle.

The retention of existing Single Houses, as well as providing additional Grouped Dwellings and Multiple Dwellings is important for providing residential uses at a range of densities and to provide housing choices for current and future residents.

The demolition of the Single House is not required to accommodate further development of the site, as the site is not large enough to subdivide at its current coding of R25.

The existing Single House is capable of accommodating rear additions that would not impact on the local character of the streetscape, particularly given the significant slope to the rear of the site, which would allow two storey additions that were barely visible from the street.

Demolishing a building that has been assessed to be of some to considerable significance for a number of reasons, including for its contribution to the streetscape, would not be sympathetic to the character of the area.

Further to the above, Clause 10.2 (Matters to be considered by the Council), includes

k) the cultural significance of any place or area affected by the development, including but not limited to provision for the preservation, incorporation or recording (by means including public art works) and significant cultural values of the site


Page 76

In summary, as the existing Single House at No. 65 Solomon Street, Fremantle has been assessed to be of some to considerable significance in its own right and within its streetscape, the demolition of the building is not supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of Single House at No. 65 (Lot 2) Solomon Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the following requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 -

Clause 5.15 – Demolition of Buildings and Structures,

The objectives of the Residential zone (Clause 4.2.1a); and

Clause 10.2 – Matters to be Considered by the Council.


Page 77

PSC1507-12 HULBERT STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 102), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0178/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans (15 May 2015) 2 – Site photos Date Received: 15 May 2015 Owner Name: MJ Ralph Submitted by: My Gen Homes Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 78

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House. The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) on the basis that the proposal includes the significant exercise of discretion relating to the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy, primarily in regards to the street setback of the upper floor addition. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 relating to the upper floor setback (5.9m proposed in lieu of 10.0m). The proposal exists in a portion of Hulbert Street characterised by single storey (or equivalent) development. Looking beyond the ‘prevailing streetscape’ as defined by LPP2.9, there is considered to be a greater variety of housing scales and setbacks. The proposal is recommended, on-balance, for refusal on the basis it will result in a projecting element into the prevailing streetscape. However the conclusion section of this report contains an alternative recommendation for approval should Council give greater regard to the wider context of the subject site. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hulbert Street, south of Douro Road measures approximately 455m2. The site contains an existing single storey Single House that has previously been approved for demolition by the City subject to DA0180/14 on 23 March 2014. The subject site is not contained on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. On 15 May 2015 the City received the current development application (see Attachment 1). On 10 June 2015, the applicants were advised that officers of the City were of the view the proposal would be difficult to support pursuant to the City’s LPP2.9 and options to amend the plans were presented. The applicant advised that they did not want to pursue amendments to the proposal and the application is now presented to the PSC for consideration. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House including;

A ground floor including a double garage structure, ground floor living area and study area; and,

An upper floor containing two bedrooms and additional sitting area. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


Page 79


The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within, LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy discretions:

Street setbacks;

Visual privacy; and,

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall). Discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the exercise of discretion under the planning framework of the City (most prominently LPP2.9) is sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 June 2015, the City had received 4 submissions, including 2 objections. The objections raised the following concerns;

Privacy; The proposal results in a loss of privacy to adjoining sites. This could be solved via screening or providing frosted glass. Particular concern is raised in respect to the west facing balcony;

Design; The design is not in keeping with the streetscape character of Hulbert Street;

Double garage; The proposed double garage will dominate the street;

Roof form; The pitched roof form is out-of-character;

Sustainability; The proposal does not include any sustainability features. Further discussion of the matters raised above are contained in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Street setback

Element Policy criteria Provided Discretion

Ground floor (wall height less than 4m)

7m 3.6m 3.4m

Upper floor (wall height greater than 4m)

10m 5.9m 4.1m

Clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 specifies the following merit based criteria;


Page 80

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

The proposal includes an upper floor fronting Hulbert Street with a balcony element to the western corner of the frontage. Buildings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ consist of the following;

No. 6 Hulbert Street, a single storey (with loft) dwelling setback approximately 6.0m to the street;

No. 10 Hulbert Street, a single storey dwelling setback 6.2m from the street;

No. 4 Hulbert Street, a single storey (with loft) dwelling setback approximately 3.0m to the street;

No. 12 Hulbert Street; a two storey dwelling setback approximately 7.0m on the ground floor and greater than 10.0m from the street at the upper floor;

No. 19 Douro Road, being a non-residential site but approved as a three storey residential development including a nil setback to both the ground and first floor; and,

No. 14 Hulbert Street, a two storey (undercroft) dwelling with both levels setback at least 7.0m from the street.


Page 81

The proposal includes a ground floor setback forward of the most immediately adjoining dwellings but otherwise consistent with the setback of the existing building on-site (3.4m) and the nearby dwelling at No. 2 Hulbert Street and the approved (under construction) building at No. 19 Douro Road. For that reason the proposal is considered to satisfy part (i) above and is supported. In regards to the upper floor, the proposal is not considered to meet the merit based criteria of LPP2.9 in the following ways;

The proposal is inconsistent with buildings with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape (part i above) in so far as;

o The two properties adjoining the subject site are single storey (No. 10

Hulbert Street) or a single storey with a loft (No. 4 Hulbert Street), presenting a gable end to Hulbert Street. The proposed upper floor will be broadly in line with the loft element at No. 4 Hulbert Street, but of significantly greater bulk and scale;

o The next properties further removed from the subject site being No. 2

and 12 Hulbert Street either meet the 10.0m prescribed criteria (#12) or and a single storey (with loft) building (#2)

The upper floor of the proposal will represent a projecting element into the established streetscape pattern of limited development scale with second storey elements setback from the street (part ii above)

For the above reasons and on the basis that criteria (iii), (iv) and (v) are not considered relevant, the proposed street setback is not supported. However it is noted that within the wider context of Hulbert Street there are a number of two storey dwellings, a range of setbacks to the street and in a range of building forms. It is considered that this greater diversity is largely confined to the southern end of Hulbert Street and on properties fronting Douro Road. Should Council considered the streetscape to be sufficiently varied; an alternative recommendation is included in the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report. Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

Garage - South Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary

behind the front setback line within the following

limits; (b) where the wall is proposed to abut an

existing or simultaneously

constructed boundary wall of similar or greater

dimensions.

7.0m long x 3.0m high on the

southern boundary

See comments.


Page 82

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The boundary wall is positioned so that it does not adversely impact on existing major openings or an outdoor living area on the southern adjoining property at No. 10 Hulbert Street;

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk as it adjoins an area currently used for vehicle parking and access;

The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

Visual privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

Front balcony 7.5m 6.9m (North) 3.8m (South)

6.9m (North) 3.7m (South)

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

The cone-of-vision from the balcony does not impact on any primary outdoor living areas of the adjoining site as views are provided towards the street and over street setback areas;

The predominant outlook from the balcony is predominately towards the street, not towards the affected boundaries;

The cone-of-vision setback is otherwise considered to represent only a minor departure from the deemed-to-comply requirements.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS There are not considered to be any strategic implications arising from the proposal. CONCLUSION The application includes the development of a two storey Single House. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of LPP2.9 in so far as it represents a projecting element into the established streetscape pattern and is of a greater scale than adjoining dwellings. The application is recommended for refusal. Within the wider context of the subject site, it is recognised that there is a great deal of variation between building scales, form and setbacks; particularly at the southern end of Hulbert Street and along Douro Road. Should Council give this variation greater regard, the following alternative recommendation is provided;

That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 8 (Lot 102) Hulbert Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 15 May 2015, subject to the following conditions;


Page 83

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 15 May 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall



face brick;





That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 8 (Lot 102) Hulbert Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 15 May 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of

development within the prevailing streetscape and represents a projecting element into the streetscape pattern. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with clause 1.2 (i) and (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes.

2. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(f), (i), (o), (s) and (w)

of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.


Page 84

PSC1507-13 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 81 (LOTS 9 & 10), FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DAP0001/13 - (JL DAPV005/15)

Form 2 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 17)

Property Location: No. 81 (Lots 9 & 10) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Variation to Previous Planning Approval DAP0001/13 (Demolition of existing commercial building and replacement 5-7 storey (plus 2 basements) multiple dwellings (54) with restaurant (1) development)

DAP Name: Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: Jeff Freeman Architects

Owner: Chris Hall & Helen Hall

LG Reference: DAPV005/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/13/00297

Report Date: 22 July 2015

Application Receipt Date: 6 June 2015

Application Process Days: 50 Days

Attachment(s): 1. Original Determination J-DAP Notice of Determination and elevation plans (DAP0001/13)

2. Original RAR Report 3. Amended Development plans (Overview Plan; Site

Plan; Floor Plan Basement 2; Floor Plan – Basement 1; Floor Plan – Ground; Floor Plan 1st Floor; Floor Plan – 2nd Floor; Floor Plan 3rd floor; Floor Plan – 4th Floor; Floor Plan – 5th Floor; Floor Plan – 6th Floor; Elevations; Elevations; Section; Perspectives Plan; Landscaping Plan and Overshadowing Plan; and

4. Site photos


Page 85

Officer Recommendation: That the South-West JDAP resolves to: 1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DP/13/00297 as detailed on the DAP

Form 2, dated 3 June 2015, is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve DAP Application reference DAP/13/00297 (City of Fremantle reference

DAPV005/15) dated 18 June 2015 and accompanying plans ‘Amended Development Plans (Overview Plan; Site Plan; Floor Plan Basement 2; Floor Plan – Basement 1; Floor Plan – Ground; Floor Plan 1st Floor; Floor Plan – 2nd Floor; Floor Plan 3rd floor; Floor Plan – 4th Floor; Floor Plan – 5th Floor; Floor Plan – 6th Floor; Elevations; Elevations; Section; Perspectives Plan; Landscaping Plan and Overshadowing Plan’, subject to the following conditions:

a) Amend Conditions

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

plans, dated 18 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit the applicant is to provide additional

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

i. Details of materials, colours and textures; and ii. The design of the building fronting Queen Victoria Street being

modified to ensure the expressed main bulk of the building is located on the 3.3m front setback alignment and that any projections forward of the setback are of a well-articulated and lighter construction and/or do not substantially weaken the establishment of a strong urban form on the primary building alignment.

5. That an insurance policy be arranged, in the joint names of the local

government and the owner, indemnifying the local government against any claim for damages which may arise out of the bicycle racks and landscaping located within the Queen Victoria Street and Quarry Street verge in front of the subject site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive, Officer City of Fremantle.

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

star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle


Page 86

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

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

b) a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

17. That a minimum of 28 bicycle racks be provided on site in accordance with

Australian Standard AS2890.3-1993 Parking facilities - Part 3 Bicycle parking facilities.

Additional Condition:

4. The development shall be modified to provide traffic sightlines for vehicles exiting the development, in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Delete Condition:

4. That any landscaping proposed within 1.5m of where the vehicle access adjoins Queen Victoria Street be maintained to a height of no greater than 0.75 metres above ground level to ensure adequate sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting onto Queen Victoria Street in accordance with Design Element 7.3.6 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

BACKGROUND Insert Property Address: No.81 (Lots 9 and 10) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City

LPS: Mixed Use (RAC-3)

Insert Use Class: A – Multiple Dwellings A – Restaurant (Cafe)

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No.4

Insert Lot Size: Lot 77: 204m2 & Lot 78: 204m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant Lots

Value of Development: $13,000 000.00

At its meeting held 27 June 2013 the South West J-DAP granted planning approval subject to conditions for planning application DP/13/00297 which was for the Demolition of the existing commercial building and replacement 5-7 storey (plus 2 basements) Multiple dwellings (54) with Restaurant (1) development at No. 81 (Lots 9 & 10) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle. The approved development included:

Presents as a five storey development as viewed from Queen Victoria Street with two additional storeys setback from the line of sight located above;

Presents as a four storey development to Quarry Street with an additional storey setback from line of sight located above;

The development is separated by a communal courtyard in its central portion located at level 1;

66m2 for the purposes of a ground level Restaurant (cafe) fronting Queen Victoria Street;

54 multiple dwellings comprising: - 29 studios (between 31.03m2 – 34.01m2 internal floor area);


Page 87

- 10 one bedroom apartments (between 35.26m2 – 57.60m2 internal floor area); - 14 two bedroom apartments (between 53.61m2 – 71.54m2 internal floor area); - 1 three bedroom apartment/penthouse (197.13m2 internal floor area); and

Two basement levels primarily comprising car parking with additional car parking located at ground level. The development proposes 63 car parking bays and 23 bicycle racks in total.

For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for original approved development plans.

Details: outline of development application The proposed amended development is the same as previously approved by J-DAP except for:

Decrease from 54 to 40 Multiple Dwelling,

Originally Approved Proposed Variations

29 studios (between 31.03m2 – 34.01m2 internal floor area)

4 Studio apartments – 36m2

10 x one bedroom apartments(between 35.26m2 – 57.60m2 internal floor area)

12 x one bedroom apartments (between 51 – 54m2)

14 x two bedroom apartments (between 53.61m2 – 71.54m2 internal floor area)

22 x two bedroom apartments (between 55 -106m2)

1 x three bedroom apartment/penthouse (197.13m2 internal floor area

2 x three bedroom apartments (100 & 101m2)

Increase in Floor Area of Restaurant Tenancy from 66m2 -100m2,

Change in onsite Bicycle racks from 25 to 28,

Inclusion of 14 Street bicycle racks (7 racks to each street),

Decrease of storerooms from 54 to 40,

Decrease in onsite car parking from 63 to 52 bays (46 residential use & 6 commercial) also deleting original approved 5 Car Stackers),

Deletion/ relocation of balconies and planter boxes of eastern elevations to Level 5 and 6 Queen Victoria Street building,

Minor modification to Queen Victoria Street and Quarry street facades to comply with ‘visible form the street’ requirements of Schedule 12 (e - i) requirements of LSP4,

Relocation of vehicle entry point central boundary on Quarry Street from north western corner of Queen Victoria Street,

Introduction of nil setback for third floor on Quarry Street building, and

Reduction in floor to ceiling heights of the ground floor of Quarry Street building.

See Attachment 3 below for copy of amended development plans.

Legislation & policy: The legislative framework and policy base providing for the original assessment can be viewed in the original Responsible Authority Report (RAR). See ‘Attachment 2’ for copy of original RAR report. Local Planning Scheme Provisions: The following Scheme provisions are considered relevant in the consideration of this variation planning application:


Page 88

Clause 8.3 – Amending or Revoking a Planning Approval

Clause 10.8 Approval subject to later approval of details; and

Clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Development requirements - Local Planning Area 2 Fremantle – Sub area 2.3.1.

State Government Policies

State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes.

Development Control Policy 4.2 Planning for Hazards and Safety. The application has been referred to Department of Mines and Petroleum as it adjoins an existing BP service station as required by the policy (refer below for referral details).

Local Planning Policies: The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:

LPP1.1 – Amendment and Extension to the term of planning Approval See the ‘Planning Assessment’ section below for further discussion in relation to this policy’s requirements.

CONSULTATION

Public Consultation The amended application was not required to undergo further community consultation as the proposed amendments proposed no new discretionary or design principle assessment matters and the external building envelope has not changed. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) (Internal referral) The amended proposal was referred to the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) at its meeting held on 11 May 2015. DAC provided the following comments: 1. CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

CHARACTER While the described intentions underlying the façade design are supported, the proposed design was considered to be rather fragmented. The proponents were encouraged to edit the composition and amplify the key ordering strategies to improve cohesion. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM, EASE OF MOVEMENT, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY, OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY.

The above issues did not arise during the presentation LEGIBILITY The legibility of the Queen Victoria Street residential entrance should be enhanced though emphasising its separateness from the commercial façade through considered architectural detail and planting. APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES


Page 89

The proposed materials and finishes are attempting to be responsive to the Fremantle context and are deemed appropriate. Brick was suggested as another material that could be considered in this setting. GENERAL COMMENTS

The committee supported the design approach on the blank boundary walls while noting that these walls will be built out eventually through boundary development on the adjoining lots.

Consideration needs to be given to the visibility and design of the roof of the Quarry St penthouses as they will incorporate condenser units and toilet vents and not be as simple in design as shown on the current drawings.

2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

The boundary light wells will remain effective if a building is built on the boundary of adjoining properties

The proposed use of the surrounding Fremantle context to inform selection of materials and finishes

The Quarry St elevation generally taking into account and responding to the adjoining residential form

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Queen Victoria St entrance can be further defined as separate from the commercial façade through considered architectural detail and planting.

Removal of internalised bedrooms

Visual and acoustic privacy to bedroom windows facing access balconies and stairs needs to be improved.

Investigate the possibility of the internal courtyard being made wider without compromising scheme height sightlines.

To allow more sun into the courtyard, investigate moving the Quarry St penthouse towards Quarry St without compromising scheme height sightlines.

Increasing the height of the western parapet to the Quarry St penthouses will prevent the units opposite from looking onto a roof but will inhibit morning sun into the courtyard. This and the previous dot point need to be considered together.

Provide details of how aircon units will be screened on balconies.

Look at referencing existing Fremantle industrial elements on QVS such as the use of brick which, in turn, may enable more order and less fragmentation to the façade.

The functional usability of external terraces being only 1.77m wide is questioned and relates to concern about the location of air conditioning condenser units within this small space.

Reconsider the use of the independent piers to Quarry Street.

3. RECOMMENDATION As the design is at concept stage only, the plans have not progressed to a stage where they can be recommended for support or not, however the above suggestions will assist in improving the design. The amended proposal is being presented back to DAC at its meeting Scheduled for 6th July, of which the minutes will not be available at the time of compiling this report. The minutes will be available and included in the final RAR report presented to DAP future meeting. Draft minutes will be circulated to PSC members before the 8 July PSC meeting.


Page 90

Furthermore it’s also noted that whilst DAC’s role is to provide design advice regarding planning proposal’s, when DAC advice is sought and provided regarding a variation applications, the new advice shouldn’t require design modifications to approved design elements of the original proposal. Accordingly, planning condition No.2 of J-DAP original determination requiring specific design modifications is still considered relevant to the determination of this application. Whilst acknowledging that some of these design modifications and/or information have been submitted with this amended application, an amended version of this condition is still considered to be a valid planning condition. Consultation with Fremantle Port Authority The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority as the subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer with comment received on as follows:

It is important that the built form requirements for any developments within this area are achieved, particularly in respect to windows, openings, any air-conditioning systems, quiet house design and roof insulation;

The authority assumes that the development application will be assessed for compliance with these requirements and that any planning approval will condition these requirements accordingly;

It is important that built form requirements and conditions are verified following construction; and

The Council’s buffer policy also requires that a notification or memorial be placed on the titles; again this would preferably be a condition of approval.

The previous Port related conditions remain unchanged from the original approval. Department of Mines and Petroleum The application was again referred to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) as the subject site abuts an existing BP service station. At the time of writing this report DMP had not provided the City with its formal response to the amended proposal, however it’s likely that DMP’s response wouldn’t significantly vary to its original comments raised regarding the approved proposal, which were as follows:

The separation between the existing LP Gas tank and the proposed development exceed the required minimum distance of 10m;

Land use controls for service stations also exceed the requirements for separation, with 15m required for residential populations and 10m required for commercial populations; and

Overall the BP service station appears to comply with the DG regulations with respect to the new development.

Planning assessment: In accordance with the provisions of Council’s LPS4, the R-Codes (2013) and LPP1.1 policy, no development has commenced on site at the time of writing this report in relation to this application and therefore the variation application is warranted under Clause 8.3 of LPS4. Additionally, there have been no substantial changes to the relevant provisions of LPS4 or Council’s relevant local planning policies or to the built form of the immediate locality. However with regards to the original assessment of the proposal against the provisions of R-Codes, it must be noted that since DAP’s original determination of the original application the R-


Page 91

Codes have undergone review of which Part 7 of the 2010 R-Codes was modified. In assessing the proposal against the new provisions of Part 6 – Design Elements for multiple dwellings in areas coded R30 or greater, within Mixed Use development and activity centres of the R-Codes the modified proposal either seeks the same Design Principle (DP) assessment of the same or similar DP criteria of the R-Codes as previously supported by DAP or the proposal has been amended to comply with the relevant Deemed to comply criteria of the R-Codes or relevant planning conditions imposed by J- DAP as part of its original determination of this application. With regards to the proposed relocation of the vehicle access point for the development to Quarry Street, the amended proposal requires a Design Principle assessment against Design Element 6.2.3 – Sightlines provisions of the R-Codes. Alternatively, the applicant is proposing a proximity Sensor sign for internal vehicle movements due to the proposed singular lane access point, but the amended proposal currently fails to provide an alternative treatment to the ‘Deemed to comply’ provision of the R-Codes regarding the street truncations. The City’s Technical Service Department have reviewed and raised concerns to lack of information provided with the variation application specifically associated with the safety of vehicle and pedestrian movements along Quarry Street road reserve. A Design Principle assessment isn’t supportable as the current design doesn’t provide unobstructed sightlines that safeguard a sufficient level of visibility, ensuring safe vehicle / pedestrian movements within Quarry Street road reserve and within the development. Accordingly, a new planning condition (No.4) is recommended. With regards to original planning conditions imposed by J-DAP for this application, planning conditions Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 17 require minor modification as the applicant has either amended the proposal to comply with the relevant planning conditions original imposed or has provided the required additional information as set out in these condition. Accordingly, modified versions of these planning conditions have been included in the Officers recommendation. Planning Condition No.4 of the original planning approval is redundant given the applicant has relocated the vehicle access point for the site to Quarry Street, and no landscaping is now proposed within Queen Victoria Street road reserve. Accordingly this condition is deleted. Overall, the proposed amendments have been assessed and comply with the relevant statutory requirements of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council’s Local Planning Policies or planning conditions have been imposed as part of the determination of this application to ensure compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Conclusion: Overall the variation application request is supported as the amendments to the original Planning Approval issued on 17 July 2014 are considered minor and consistent with the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (L.P.P1.1). Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the same terms and conditions on the J-DAP’s Notice of determination dated 27 June 2013 for DP/13/00297, except whereby modified in the recommendation above.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the South-West JDAP resolves to: 1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DP/13/00297 as detailed on the

DAP Form 2, dated 3 June 2015, is appropriate for consideration in


Page 92

accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve DAP Application reference DAP/13/00297 (City of Fremantle

reference DAPV005/15) dated 18 June 2015 and accompanying plans ‘Amended Development Plans (Overview Plan; Site Plan; Floor Plan Basement 2; Floor Plan – Basement 1; Floor Plan – Ground; Floor Plan 1st Floor; Floor Plan – 2nd Floor; Floor Plan 3rd floor; Floor Plan – 4th Floor; Floor Plan – 5th Floor; Floor Plan – 6th Floor; Elevations; Elevations; Section; Perspectives Plan; Landscaping Plan and Overshadowing Plan’, subject to the following conditions:

a) Amend Conditions

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

approved plans, dated 18 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit the applicant is to provide

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

i. Details of materials, colours and textures; and ii. The design of the building fronting Queen Victoria Street being

modified to ensure the expressed main bulk of the building is located on the 3.3m front setback alignment and that any projections forward of the setback are of a well-articulated and lighter construction and/or do not substantially weaken the establishment of a strong urban form on the primary building alignment.

5. That an insurance policy be arranged, in the joint names of the local

government and the owner, indemnifying the local government against any claim for damages which may arise out of the bicycle racks and landscaping located within the Queen Victoria Street and Quarry Street verge in front of the subject site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive, Officer City of Fremantle.

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

green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall


Page 93

submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle

a) a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of

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

b) a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

17. That a minimum of 28 bicycle racks be provided on site in

accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.3-1993 Parking facilities - Part 3 Bicycle parking facilities.

Additional Condition:

4. The development shall be modified to provide traffic sightlines for vehicles exiting the development, in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Delete Condition:

4. That any landscaping proposed within 1.5m of where the vehicle access adjoins Queen Victoria Street be maintained to a height of no greater than 0.75 metres above ground level to ensure adequate sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting onto Queen Victoria Street in accordance with Design Element 7.3.6 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 94

PSC1507-14 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 16 (15), FREMANTLE - STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE- (CJ DA0094/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 July 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1505-6 (6th May 2015) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Applicant Justification

Attachment 2 – Previous Item (PSC 1505-6) Date Received: 11 June 2015 Owner Name: Michael Fisher Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 95

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered an application for additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 16 Solomon Street, Fremantle and resolved to approve the application subject to five (5) conditions. Condition No. 4 was for visual privacy screening to the verandah and roof deck on the southern elevation. Subsequently, an application for review was lodged to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the imposition of Condition No. 4. A SAT Directions Hearing is scheduled for 14 July 2015. The matter is presented to the PSC for reconsideration of the condition. As a result of discussions with the applicant and further information presented, it is recommended that the condition for visual privacy screening be deleted. BACKGROUND

On 6 May 2015, PSC considered an application for additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 16 Solomon Street Beaconsfield and resolved: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 16 (Lot 15) Solomon Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 17 April 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 0.5m metres from verge trees.

4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0094/15, on plans

dated 17 April 2015 the roof garden and verandah extension on the south elevation shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

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

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


Page 96

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

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the south boundary shall be of

a clean finish in either;


face brick;




The applicant subsequently lodged an application for review of Condition 4 with SAT. A directions hearing was scheduled by SAT for 1 July 2015. The Directions Hearing date was rescheduled to 14 July 2015, as the applicant was unable to make the previous date. City staff and the applicant met to discuss the screening on Tuesday 16 June, 2015, with City staff agreeing to refer a report to PSC in preparation for the Directions Hearing. DETAIL

Plans have not been altered from those approved by PSC on 6 May 2015. Further justification regarding the removal of the visual privacy screening requirement has been provided by the applicant, along with photographs, and has been included in this report as Attachment 1. In summary, the applicant has noted:

A 1.6m screen in strict compliance with the R Codes, would not necessarily greatly improve the privacy to No. 18 Solomon Street;

18 Solomon Street is entirely open to the street, without privacy, although it is elevated from the footpath;

It is a subjective opinion but I believe that the 1.6m high screen would materially detract from the streetscape and also the character of my 1915 limestone cottage from the perspective of the street;

The view from my home will be materially degraded by a 1.60m screen, as would value of my property as a consequence of the loss of view

Precedents have been set by the examples of two neighbouring properties to waive the strict adherence to the privacy provisions of the R-Codes.


The plans have been reconsidered against the statutory planning requirements for visual privacy and are considered to meet the Design Principles. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for a more detailed assessment.


Page 97

CONSULTATION

Community

During the processing of the original application for the site (DA0094/15), the application was advertised to surrounding landowners, with one submission received regarding the southern boundary wall.

The submitter was notified of the SAT application via letter as per the requirements of Local Planning Policy 1.4 - Application for Review of Town Planning Decisions and Written Directions. A phone conversation between the submitter and Planning Officer occurred on Tuesday 16 June 2015, with an email requesting comment on the proposal to remove visual privacy screening also sent on this date. The following comments were received from the neighbour:

Will end up with a straight 23m of his building walls, mostly 2 storey , on my northern boundary;

Will be able to overlook everything from that deck on the boundary.

PLANNING COMMENT

Visual Privacy

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

Deck (7.5m)- South east 200mm 7.3m

The City’s previous report to PSC recommended the imposition of screening of the roof top deck on the southern elevation. Further consideration has been given to this requirement, as well as further photographs from the applicant (see attachment 1); and the deck is now supported without screening for the following reasons:

The existing verandah is not screened;

The open space on the southern lot is currently open and highly visible to the street;

An additional outdoor living area is available on the subject site, to the rear of the property, which will reduce the frequency this area will be used;

The neighbouring property has an outdoor living area to the rear of the existing house, that will allow for a private space;

The area overlooked by the proposed deck, is partially occupied by a driveway and garage.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: The proposal will improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes.


Page 98


That the State Administrative Tribunal and the applicant be advised that the Planning Services Committee reconsiders its decision dated 12 May 2015, and approves DA0094/15 and accompanying plans dated 17 April 2015, subject to the deletion of condition 4.


Page 99

PSC1507-15 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - 8 JULY 2015

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


That the information is noted.


Page 100

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 101

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND 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 102


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 103


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 104

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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


Page 105

AGENDA - City of Fremantle...Agenda - Planning Services Committee 8 July 2015 Page 1 DEFERRED ITEMS...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - City of Fremantle...Agenda - Planning Services Committee 8 July 2015 Page 1 DEFERRED ITEMS...