Agenda - City of Fremantle Commit… · mixed use development) - (cj et01/18) 98 pc1806 -7...

Agenda

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 6 June 2018, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 6

June 2018 in the North Fremantle Community Hall, located at 2 Thompson Road, North

Fremantle commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Garbett Director Strategic Planning and Projects 1 June 2018

Table of Contents

Contents Page

1. Official opening, welcome and acknowledgement 1

2. Attendance, apologies and leaves of absence 1

3. Disclosures of interests 1

4. Responses to previous questions taken on notice 1

5. Public question time 1

6. Petitions 1

7. Deputations 1

8. Confirmation of minutes 2

9. Announcements by presiding member 2

10. Questions or personal explanations by members 2

11. Reports and recommendations 3

PC1806 -1 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 1 (LOT 2), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0264/17) 3

PC1806 -2 PARRY STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 440), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (TOURIST ACCOMMODATION, MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, RESTAURANT, LUNCH BAR) - (NB DAP001/18) 18

PC1806 -3 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 346 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO INDUSTRY-SERVICE (BAKERY) OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DA0117/18) 42

PC1806 -4 HALE STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 3), BEACONSFIELD - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0011/18) 48

PC1806 -5 BLINCO STREET, NO. 44 (LOT 10), FREMANTLE - FOUR, TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS - (NB DA0090/18) 57

PC1806 -6 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 126 (LOT 73), NORTH FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR DA0515/11 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY WITH UNDERCROFT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) - (CJ ET01/18) 64

PC1806 -7 HENDERSON STREET NO.8-10 (LOTS 374 AND 375), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR DAP80010/13 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A FIVE STOREY OFFICE AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT) - (JL ET02/18) 71

PC1806 -8 NEWMAN COURT NO.2 (LOT 1), WILLIAM STREET NO.10-14 (LOT 2) AND HENDERSON STREET NO.20 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - CLEARANCE OF CONDITION FOR PLANNING APPROVAL VA0016/17 (JL) 76

PC1806 -9 SAT SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION - HENDERSON STREET, NOS. 31-41 AND 45 (LOTS 2073 AND 535) - FIVE (5) STOREY HOTEL, CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS (NB DAP007/17) 80

PC1806 -10 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW 92

PC1806 -11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 93

12. Motions of which previous notice has been given 94

13. Urgent business 94

14. Late items 94

15. Confidential business 94

16. Closure 94

Agenda Attachments 1

PC1806 -1 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 1 (LOT 2), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0264/17) 4

PC1806 -2 PARRY STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 440), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (TOURIST ACCOMMODATION, MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, RESTAURANT, LUNCH BAR) - (NB DAP001/18) 16

PC1806 -3 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 346 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO INDUSTRY-

SERVICE (BAKERY) OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DA0117/18) 58

PC1806 -4 HALE STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 3), BEACONSFIELD - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0011/18) 63

PC1806 -5 BLINCO STREET, NO. 44 (LOT 10), FREMANTLE - FOUR, TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS - (NB DA0090/18) 81

PC1806 -6 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 126 (LOT 73), NORTH FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR DA0515/11 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY WITH UNDERCROFT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) - (CJ ET01/18) 98

PC1806 -7 HENDERSON STREET NO.8-10 (LOTS 374 AND 375), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR DAP80010/13 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A FIVE STOREY OFFICE AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT) - (JL ET02/18) 104

PC1806 -8 NEWMAN COURT NO.2 (LOT 1), WILLIAM STREET NO.10-14 (LOT 2) AND HENDERSON STREET NO.20 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - CLEARANCE OF CONDITION FOR PLANNING APPROVAL VA0016/17 (JL) 125

PC1806 -9 SAT SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION - HENDERSON STREET, NOS. 31-41 AND 45 (LOTS 2073 AND 535) - FIVE (5) STOREY HOTEL, CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS (NB DAP007/17) 177

PC1806 -10 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW 217

PC1806 -11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 219

Agenda - Planning Committee 6 June 2018

Page 1

CITY OF FREMANTLE

Planning Committee

Agenda

1. OFFICIAL OPENING, WELCOME AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to acknowledge this land that we meet on today is the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Whadjuk people as the custodians of the greater Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Whadjuk people today.

2. ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVES OF ABSENCE

There are no previously received apologies or approved leave of absence.

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS

Elected members must disclose any interests that may affect their decision-making. They may do this in a written notice given to the CEO; or at the meeting.

4. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

There are no responses to public questions taken on notice at a previous meeting.

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Members of the public have the opportunity to ask a question or make a statement at council and committee meetings during public question time. Further guidance on public question time can be viewed here, or upon entering the meeting.

6. PETITIONS

Petitions to be presented to the committee.

Petitions may be tabled at the meeting with the agreement of the presiding member.

7. DEPUTATIONS

7.1 Special deputations

A special deputation may be made to the meeting in accordance with the City of Fremantle Meeting Procedures Policy 2018.

7.2 Presentations

Elected members and members of the public may make presentations to the meeting in accordance with the City of Fremantle Meeting Procedures Policy 2018.


Page 2

8. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Officer’s recommendation

That the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 2 May 2018 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PRESIDING MEMBER

The presiding member may make announcements to the meeting

10. QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS

Elected members may ask questions or make personal explanations on matters not included on the agenda.


Page 3

11. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Deferred items

PC1806 -1 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 1 (LOT 2), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0264/17)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development plans

2: Site photos 3: Heritage comment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single house at No. 1 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application was originally presented to Planning Committee (PC) on 4 October 2017, where it was resolved to: Defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee, at the applicant’s request. The plans originally presented to Planning Committee sought the following discretions:

Primary street setback and streetscape

Building height (external wall height)

Solar access for adjoining sites

Building design and heritage

Lot boundary setback (boundary walls)

Boundary fence

Visual privacy Amended plans were submitted which have significantly reduced the discretions sought, including amendments that ensure overshadowing now meets the deemed to comply requirements, the proposal complies with streetscape requirements and the design is supported by heritage officers. The amended plans have addressed a number of key concerns with the proposal and have reduced the number of discretions sought, however building height has not been addressed to an acceptable extent and the application is still recommended for refusal.


Page 4

PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for upper floor additions and alterations to the rear of the existing Grouped dwelling at 1 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. At the Planning Committee of October 2017, the applicant requested that the Committee defer the application so as to give them time to amend their plans. A number of revisions have been submitted to officers for review, and extensive discussions have occurred with the Planning and Heritage departments, culminating in a final set of plans dated 1 May 2018. The amendments include the following:

Reduction of finished floor level of the ground level of the rear addition and detached workshop by 340mm.

Reduction in the overshadowing by 7.3% (29.5m2).

Increase the setback of upper floor setback by 100mm.

Upper floor bedroom addition setback from roof ridge by 4m (previously 1.8m).

Removal of rear balcony.

Rear terrace FFL reduced by 340mm and associated wall on boundary reduced in height.

Alterations to roof form.

Removal of awning over front deck. A copy of the revised plans is included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 29 May 2017 Owner name: Ian and Annika Kramer Submitted by: Nathan Steele Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


Page 5

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil Community The original application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations), and one (1) submission was received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Boundary walls and screening will result in overshadowing of garden and outdoor living area.

Excavation and construction works will impact on neighbouring properties.

Development exceeds maximum roof pitch and should be considered a wall.

Privacy from upstairs bedroom, terrace and balconies.

Shadow is not accurate.

Shadow impacts living spaces and active outdoor living areas of property. As the proposal has substantially changed, the application was readvertised. The following issues were raised in two (2) submissions:

Visual privacy and intruder access from rear planter section. Submitter advised they have spoken to owner of No. 1 and discussed boundary fencing to address concerns.

Overshadowing – dispute over method of calculation, specifically “natural ground level”. Submitter disagrees with calculation, but acknowledges that there is an alternate way of calculating that means that the diagram provided by the applicant could be correct.

No screening shown on rear terrace which would mean overshadowing calculation would be greater.

Height will have negative impact on primary outdoor living and indoor living area – will be visual impact and loss of winter sun.


Page 6

Accept boundary wall at rear.

Floor level of proposed workshop being lowered will result in risk to damage to their property.

Privacy from rear terrace a concern. In response to the above, the following advice is provided from officers:

Visual privacy from the rear terrace is no longer a concern as the floor level has been lowered to comply.

Officers are satisfied that the diagram provided by the applicant is correct. An additional diagram has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate how they have calculated the shadow.

No screening is required on the terrace as visual privacy complies.

Notwithstanding that the shadow meets deemed to comply requirements, the area of shadow thrown by the addition does affect the central courtyard. Assessment of the amenity impact of the additional height is discussed in the report below.

Planning approval, if issued, is only for works to the subject site. Any incidental impacts on adjoining sites should be avoided and are dealt with via separate legislation, such as the Building Act.

OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant 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 in the plans presented to Planning Committee previously, the areas outlined below did not meet the Deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design principles:

Primary street setback and streetscape.

Building height (external wall height).


Building design and heritage.

Lot boundary setback (boundary walls).

Boundary fence.

Visual privacy. In lodging revised plans, the outstanding discretions sought are as follows:

Building height (external wall height).

Lot boundary setback (boundary walls).

Boundary fence.

Visual privacy. The above matters are discussed below. Background


Page 7

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The site is zoned Residential and has a density of R25. The site is on the City’s Heritage List and also on the Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Level 3 management category. It is also located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The application was presented to the PC at its meeting on 4 October 2017, where it was resolved to: defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee, at the applicant’s request. The plan previously presented to Planning Committee, included the following discretions and was recommended for refusal:


Building height (external wall height)


Building design and heritage

Lot boundary setback (boundary walls)

Boundary fence

Visual privacy A number of discussions were held between officers and the applicant, with significant improvements made to the plans. Amended plans were submitted with a number of changes as detailed in the Details section of the report above. The applicant has confirmed that they do not wish to make any further amendments to the plans. Building height

Element Requirement Provided (original)

Provided (revised)

Variation

External wall height

5.5m 6.4m 6.5m 1m

Roof pitch (maximum)

33 degrees 75 degrees 19 degrees Complies

This site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 as prescribed by Schedule 8 of LPS4. Although LPP DGN13 – Thompson, Alfred, Rule and Harvest Road Local Area permits a 5.7m external wall height, as there is an inconsistency in these provisions, the requirements of LPS4 prevail. As previously discussed in the report to Planning Committee in October 2017, the proposed development did not meet the requirements of Schedule 8, and the proposal is therefore required to be assessed against clause 4.8.1.1 of LPS4 as follows: Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following In order to trigger the use of this clause, the primary requirement is for there to be a building greater than the height depicted in Schedule 8 (i.e. 5.5m) on a site adjacent to the development. In this instance, the property to the south being 1a Thompson Road has an external wall height of approximately 5.7m and the ability to use the clause is


Page 8

therefore triggered. Notwithstanding this, the following criteria must also be satisfied for Council to support the proposed development’s building height.

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

Recent revisions to the plans have reduced the amount of shadow to meet the deemed to comply requirements; however there will still be an impact on the southern property. The two storey addition has not been designed to protect the outdoor living area of the southern property’s access to northern sunlight. The southern site is quite unusual, in that it has a portion of public open space abutting its rear, and Thompson Road and Harvest Road abutting two other sides. The northern elevation is the only one abutting another property, and is the most private area of the site. While existing development does impact the outdoor living area to an extent, the proposed additions will worsen the impact for the neighbour by obstructing access to sunlight for this area and affecting the large windows for the living area. Notwithstanding the impact on the immediately adjoining neighbour, the impact on the streetscape has been significantly improved with the most recent set of revised plans. The addition has been setback further from the street and altered in its form, to take a greater amount of influence from the existing form of the dwelling.

(b) Degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality

Figure 1: Heights of the two properties adjoining the property (original plans -NTS)


Page 9

Figure 2: Heights of the two properties adjoining the property (revised plans - NTS)

The standard interpretation of graduation would be to continue the height pattern transition from the highest point to the lowest, by picking the average height between No. 1a and No. 3 Thompson, meaning a height of approximately 4.57m. At most, a maximum scheme compliant height of 5.5m may be considered to satisfy the graduation requirement. The above diagram demonstrates that the height visible from the street even in the revised plans, does not graduate the height from highest to lowest, rather it creates a peak in the height pattern. The following diagram demonstrates the height pattern of buildings in the locality. It shows that many of the properties are single storey developments with wall heights between 3 to 4m. While there are some two storey buildings in the locality, there is not a particularly clear pattern of graduation. It is noted that many of the single storey buildings are heritage listed, and the height pattern is therefore unlikely to change significantly in the area over time.


Page 10

Figure 3: Heights of buildings in the locality

(c) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and The proposed development includes an upper floor addition that makes alterations to the existing roof form. The revised proposal includes a second storey addition set a distance of more than four metres behind the main roof ridge of the house. Although the roofs of the addition will be visible when the house is viewed from the street, it is considered that they will not overwhelm the original single storey house and the house will therefore retain its original contribution to the streetscape.

(d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. The revised plans now meet the requirements of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape policy as discussed in the report below. Additionally, DGN 13 outlines criteria for assessing discretionary building height, as well as general principles for development. In summary, the proposed building height is not considered to meet the requirement of the policy for the following reasons:

The additions result in an unreasonable amount of overshadowing on the southern site.

The proposed external wall height is not consistent with wall heights of adjoining properties.

The revised proposal is much improved on the previously lodged plans from a heritage perspective, with the design and location of the upper floor addition considered to have little impact on the heritage significance of the place.


Page 11

In overall terms however the proposed height discretion is not supported against the requirements of 4.8.1.1, particularly on the basis on criterion (b) above. Further to the above, the applicant has provided the following diagrams as justification for their design –

Figure 4: Rear elevation illustrating proposed design and a 33º pitch roof envelope


Page 12

Figure 5: Street elevation illustrating proposed design and a 33º pitch roof envelope



Provided (revised)

Variation

Upper floor setback

4m from main roof ridge

1.9m 4m Complies

Viewed as single storey house from street

Upper floor visible

Upper floor setback further into site

Detailed heritage assessment required

*It is noted that in the previous report for this application, Officers noted the upper floor setback as being a variation however this is an error. The plans further increase the upper floor setback ensuring it remains compliant with clause 1 of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape policy (LPP 2.9). LPP 2.9 provides another element of protection to existing heritage properties. This is done by requiring that upper floor additions are setback behind the main roof ridge and retain the impression of a single storey building from the street. In this case, the upper floor should be setback even further behind the prescribed setback distance of 7m. To vary this requirement, the policy notes the following:


Page 13

Variations to the requirements of clause 5.1 above may be considered, at Councils discretion subject to an assessment of the proposed developments compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property. As the property is listed as level 3 on the MHI, much of its significance is due to its contribution to the streetscape. Previously, the alterations to the roof form and location of the addition of a modern design directly over the existing dwelling, the level of separation was not considered to be appropriate and the addition was assessed to have a direct impact on the significance of the place. The City’s heritage assessment concluded that there was an unacceptable level of impact the existing heritage place, and that it is not sympathetic in terms of its siting, bulk, form and scale. Substantial changes to the plans were suggested, to ensure the additions were setback behind the existing roof ridge line. In lodging the revised plans, there have been substantial amendments to the form of the roof and the location of the upper floor setback. The upper floor has been setback to now be 4m behind the main roof line and the design of the roof and upper floor is supported as its impact on the heritage significance of the place is minimal. Solar access for adjoining sites


Provided (revised)

Variation


25% (100.5m2) 32.3% (130m2) 25% (100.5m2)

Complies

Previously the application sought a design principle assessment against the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes which was not supported. The revised plans now demonstrate a level of shadow that meets the deemed to comply requirement and therefore must be supported. Building design and heritage In considering the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the place, in accordance with clause 67 (a) of the Regulations, Council shall have due regard to the following-

(a) The aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area.

(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area. (k) The built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance. (l) The effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance of the area in which the development is located (m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the 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 development

Other relevant provisions of the scheme are detailed throughout this report however two of the aims of the Scheme state the following - (f) protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique heritage


Page 14

(g) ensure all development complements and contributes to the community’s desired identity and character for Fremantle Local planning policy DGN13 also outlines requirements for new development, including emphasising that any new development (including additions) has careful consideration of the impacts on the heritage significance of a site. The revised plans lodged for the proposed development are considered to be appropriate due to its siting, bulk, form and scale which no longer pose a negative impact on the subject site or the streetscape in which it sits. It is noted that there are a number of heritage listed properties in the vicinity, and the property falls within the North Fremantle Heritage Area as designated by LPS4. Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls)


Provided (revised)

Variation

North (Workshop and terrace)

1m Nil Nil 1m

South (workshop and terrace)

1m Nil Nil 1m

The proposed boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP 2.4 for the following reasons:

Much of the wall is excavated in, to be below natural ground level. Due to this excavation, they do not provide much more impact than a boundary fence, and in essence are an extension to the balustrade around the terrace.

The walls are to the rear of the site and abut the rear backyard space of the adjoining properties.

The walls will not restrict access to ventilation or direct sunlight for adjoining properties.

While the southern boundary wall will project shadow, it is to an area of the adjoining site which is open to the street and park, and is not a sensitive area of site.

The bulk of the walls are not significant.

Screening is provided to protect the privacy of occupants of the development and adjoining properties.

Further to the above, it is noted that the revised plans have reduced the overall height of the boundary walls, which is a further improvement to the proposal. Boundary fence


Provided (revised)

Variation

Rear fence Visually permeable above 1m

Solid to 1.8m Solid to 1.8m 0.8m

The property to the rear is an open space reserve under LPS4. While the proposed fence is of a compliant height, it is not visually permeable above 1m.


Page 15

The policy does not include specific variation criteria for fencing that abuts open space reserves. To ensure surveillance to and from the terrace at the rear over the open space, it is considered appropriate that the fence be visually permeable above 1m from the terrace level. It is noted that in the instance of an approval this could be dealt with via the imposition of a condition. Visual privacy


Provided (revised)

Variation

Terrace (south) 7.5m 2.5m Less than 500mm above NGL

Complies

Terrace (north) 7.5m 3.2m Less than 500mm above NGL

Complies

Balcony – Bed 1 (south)

7.5m 5.6m 6.6m (screening along southern elevation) – overlooking over front setback

Complies

Balcony – Bed 1 (north)

7.5m 2.5m 3.6m (screening along northern elevation) – overlooking over front setback

Complies

Bed 1 (north) 4.5m 2.6m 5.2m + balcony screening

Complies

Living (north) 6m N/A 5.6m 400mm

Balcony – Living (South)

7.5m 2.6m Balcony deleted

The changes made through the latest revisions to the plans, ensure that the proposal meets deemed to comply requirements for the vast majority of openings and outdoor areas. The only exception to this is the living window on the northern elevation which has the potential to overlook the adjoining property. It is noted that in the instance of an approval this matter could be dealt with via the imposition of a condition. Demolition The existing rear addition is proposed to be demolished in order to make way for the two storey addition. In accordance with clause 4.14 of LPS4, as the existing rear additions do not contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the place or character of the locality and are considered to be of little or no significance, they are supported for demolition. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.


Page 16

1. An existing mature tree is being removed as part of the works on site. 2. The removal of vegetation from site is exempt from the need to obtain

development approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil CONCLUSION

It is acknowledged that the applicant has amended the proposal to address officer’s heritage concerns and reduce the impact of the development on the streetscape and adjoining property. It is also noted that the design principle assessments for fencing and visual privacy could be addressed through conditions of approval. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development does not comply with the discretionary assessment for building height under LPS4 in terms of impact on adjoining properties and graduation of scale between existing developments in the immediate context. For these reasons the application cannot be supported. It is noted that further modifications could be made to the roof form of the addition. The two roof forms of the addition result in an increased wall height which does not graduate the scale of development either side of the site and adversely impacts on the neighbouring southern property. These impacts could be reduced if the upper roof form was modified to be part of the lower roof form, noting that openings in the form of skylights could be incorporated into the roof plane to increase access to light, which is likely to reduce the wall height of the development and the subsequent impacts on the adjoining property. In this regard the Committee could consider an alternative recommendation to not determine the application at this time to allow the applicant to amend the proposal to reduce the wall height of the proposed addition. Such a recommendation could be considered as follows:

1. Advise the applicant that the Planning Committee is not prepared to grant planning approval to the application for two storey additions and alterations to existing Single house at No. 1 (Lot 2) Thompson Road, North Fremantle based on the current submitted plans, and invite the applicant, prior tol the next Planning Committee Meeting, to consider amending the proposal to comply with the external wall height requirements of the North Fremantle Planning Area in Schedule 8, being 5.5m.

2. Should the application be revised to comply with the external wall height

requirements of the North Fremantle Planning Area in Schedule 8 prior to the July 2018 meeting of the Planning Committee, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to approve the application under Delegated Authority.


Page 17

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, two storey additions and alterations to existing Single house at No. 1 (Lot 2) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 1 May 2018, for the following reasons:

a) The proposal is inconsistent with the external wall height requirements of the North Fremantle Planning Area in Schedule 8 of the Local Planning Scheme No. 8.

b) The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements for fences abutting open space reserves in the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.8 Fences Policy.

c) The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential

Design Codes in respect to visual privacy.


Page 18

Committee delegation

PC1806 -2 PARRY STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 440), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (TOURIST ACCOMMODATION, MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, RESTAURANT, LUNCH BAR) - (NB DAP001/18)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development Plans

2: Schedule of Submissions 3: Applicant’s Letter of Justification for Design 4: Design Response to DAC 5: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a four storey Mixed Use development comprising:

18 Multiple dwellings

19 Tourist Accommodation units

Restaurant (40m2)

Lunch Bar (juice bar – 7m2). The lot is currently vacant and the site is located within the West End Conservation Area near the Fremantle Prison. The proposed building is four storeys and includes a 6m wide, predominantly unroofed, corridor running through the centre of the development with the object of allowing sunlight and ventilation to the interior units. The applicant has opted to have the application determined by the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). The City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR) is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) for comment. The application seeks to develop the site at a density increased from the scheme base coding of R35 to R60 utilising clause 4.2.5 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), however, the actual plot ratio sought for the residential portion of the building results in a density closer to R80. The application has been considered against the City’s draft LPP 2.21: R60 development under clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s draft Design WA guidelines, both of which are considered to be seriously entertained planning instruments. The development seeks discretion against the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and local planning policies for:

plot ratio

building height

boundary walls

land use


Page 19

parking The above issues are discussed in the Officer’s Report below. The development is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a four storey Mixed Use development comprising:

18 Multiple dwellings

19 Tourist Accommodation units

Restaurant (40m2)

Lunch Bar (juice bar – 7m2). The applicant has submitted several sets of amended plans responding to concerns raised by City officers and the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC). The most recent set of plans deleted two units in order to create an open space and outdoor living area to provide adequate sunlight and ventilation to the southern units of the first and second floors. The amended proposal also reduces the effective plot ratio sought from R100 to approximately R80. The most recent amended plans are conditionally supported by the DAC and City officers. Site/application information Date received: 13 February 2018 Owner name: Mft Investments (WA) Pty Ltd Submitted by: Motus Architecture Scheme: Mixed Use – ‘R35’ Heritage listing: West End Conservation Area Heritage Area Existing land use: Vacant lot Use class: Multiple Dwellings, Restaurant, Lunch Bar, Tourist

Accommodation Use permissibility: A, A, A, A


Page 20


The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: SUPPORT the Officer’s Recommendation to:

APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/18/01374 and accompanying plans A0-01, A1-01, A1-02, A2-01, A2-02, A2-03, A2-04, A2-05, A2-06, A2-07, A3-01, A3-02, A3-03 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), subject to the following conditions:

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

approved plans dated 4 May 2018. 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 storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

3. This development approval does not relate to any works within the road

reserve of Parry Street, other than awnings for weather protection and signage.

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

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


Page 21

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the following is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee:

(i) Final details, including a sample board, of external materials,

finishes and colours is to be submitted. (ii) Final details of the design and materials of the ground floor

north facing screen is to be submitted. Details are also to demonstrate how the screen facilitates ventilation and maintains an outlook from the rooms while ensuring security and enabling privacy.

(iii) Air conditioning condensers are not to be located on the balconies of the apartments or rooms. Details of the location of all condenser units is to be submitted.

(iv) The internal layout of apartments 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 15 is to modified to relocate the openings of bathrooms so that they do not directly open into Living/Dining areas.

(v) The maintenance gate and walkway between the courtyards of apartments 7 and 8 is to be removed, a central fence to be provided and the resultant additional area be for private outdoor living space. Apartments 7 and 8 will then assume the responsibility for maintaining the southern-most planter that flanks their courtyards.

(vi) Additional measures such as screening or off-setting openings are to be incorporated into the design of the development to improve the privacy for occupants between the following elements of the proposal:

the bedrooms of apartments 7 and 8,

the bedrooms of apartments 16 and 17

the bedrooms of apartments 16 and 17 to the courtyards of apartments 7 and 8 located on the floor below.

(vii) The store/services room being relocated from level 3 so that the eastern end of the atrium on level 2 below is open to the sky. The eastern walkway of level 2 is to be moved further to the west, aligned with the entry door to apartment 14 and requiring the relocation of the entry gate to apartment 15, to allow more access to the sky and sun for apartments 6 and 15.

(viii) A landscaping plan including details of soil depths, species selection and maintenance measures is to be submitted.

6. Prior to occupation, the approved landscaping is to be installed and

maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the

development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:


Page 22

a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

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

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

8. Prior to issue of a building permit, a waste management plan is to be submitted for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the owner shall contribute a monetary amount equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm consistent with LPP2.19: Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works and to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $7.7 million the contribution to be made is $77,000.

10. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 4.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary walls located on the north, east and south boundaries shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

• coloured sand render, • face brick, • painted surface, • other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

14. 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


Page 23

an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the 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 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.

ADVICE NOTE:

i. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of infrastructure within the verge or park area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge and park areas from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

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

Food Safety Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected].

iii. It is recommended that the applicant engages the City’s Environmental

Health department to determine their obligations in obtaining an alfresco dining permit. The City’s Environmental Health department can be contacted on 9432 9999 or alternatively via email at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]



Page 24

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 26 (Lot 440) Parry Street, Fremantle

Development Description: Four Storey Mixed Use Development (Tourist Accommodation, Multiple Dwellings, Restaurant, Lunch Bar)

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: Motus Architecture

Owner: Mft Investments (WA) Pty Ltd

Value of Development: $7.7 million

LG Reference: DAP001/18

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

DAP File No: DAP/18/01374

Report Due Date: 8 June 2018

Application Received Date: 13 February 2018

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans 2: Schedule of Submissions 3: Site Photos

Officer Recommendation: That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to:

1. APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/18/01374 and accompanying plans A0-01, A1-01, A1-02, A2-01, A2-02, A2-03, A2-04, A2-05, A2-06, A2-07, A3-01, A3-02, A3-03 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 4 May 2018. 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 storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

3. This development approval does not relate to any works within the road reserve of

Parry Street, other than awnings for weather protection and signage.

4. 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.

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the following is to be submitted to the

satisfaction of the City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee:


Page 25

(i) Final details, including a sample board, of external materials, finishes and colours is to be submitted.

(ii) Final details of the design and materials of the ground floor north facing screen is to be submitted. Details are also to demonstrate how the screen facilitates ventilation and maintains an outlook from the rooms while ensuring security and enabling privacy.

(iii) Air conditioning condensers are not to be located on the balconies of the apartments or rooms. Details of the location of all condenser units is to be submitted.

(iv) The internal layout of apartments 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 15 is to modified to relocate the openings of bathrooms so that they do not directly open into Living/Dining areas.

(v) The maintenance gate and walkway between the courtyards of apartments 7 and 8 is to be removed, a central fence to be provided and the resultant additional area be for private outdoor living space. Apartments 7 and 8 will then assume the responsibility for maintaining the southern-most planter that flanks their courtyards.

(vi) Additional measures such as screening or off-setting openings are to be incorporated into the design of the development to improve the privacy for occupants between the following elements of the proposal:

the bedrooms of apartments 7 and 8,

the bedrooms of apartments 16 and 17

the bedrooms of apartments 16 and 17 to the courtyards of apartments 7 and 8 located on the floor below.

(vii) The store/services room being relocated from level 3 so that the eastern end of the atrium on level 2 below is open to the sky. The eastern walkway of level 2 is to be moved further to the west, aligned with the entry door to apartment 14 and requiring the relocation of the entry gate to apartment 15, to allow more access to the sky and sun for apartments 6 and 15.

(viii) A landscaping plan including details of soil depths, species selection and maintenance measures is to be submitted.

6. Prior to occupation, the approved landscaping is to be installed and maintained on

an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the development

shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

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

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

8. Prior to issue of a building permit, a waste management plan is to be submitted for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.


Page 26

9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the owner shall contribute a monetary amount equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm consistent with LPP2.19: Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works and to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $7.7 million the contribution to be made is $77,000.

10. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 4.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary walls located on the north, east and south boundaries shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

• coloured sand render, • face brick, • painted surface, • other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

14. 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 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 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.

ADVICE NOTE:

i. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of infrastructure within the verge or park area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge and park areas from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

ii. The premises must comply with the Food Act 2008, regulations and the Food Safety

Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health


Page 27

Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected].

iii. It is recommended that the applicant engages the City’s Environmental Health department

to determine their obligations in obtaining an alfresco dining permit. The City’s Environmental Health department can be contacted on 9432 9999 or alternatively via email at [email protected].

Details: outline of development application

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City

TPS: Mixed Use

Insert Use Class: Tourist Accommodation (‘A’), Multiple Dwellings (‘A’), Restaurant (‘A’), Lunch Bar (‘A’)

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 1,106m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant lot

Approval is sought for a four storey Mixed use development comprising the following:

ground floor and fourth floor Tourist Accommodation (19 units)

first and second floor Multiple Dwellings (18 units)

ground floor Restaurant (40m2) and Lunch bar (7.3m2)

34 vehicle bays utilising car stackers The site is zoned ‘Mixed use’ with a density coding of R35. The site is located in the Fremantle Local Planning Area and is subject to the provisions of Schedule 12 (Sub Area 2.3.2) of LPS4. The development seeks discretion for the density to be increased to R60 under clause 4.2.5 of the scheme (further discussed below). The application also proposes landscaping works to Queens Square. These works are outside of the lot boundaries and do not form part of this application. Works to Queens Square are subject to a separate agreement and/or future application between the applicant and the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Services. It is noted that the City’s Management Orders for Queens Square do not permit leasing to third parties. Any change to the orders requires the approval of the Council and the Minister, and may be the subject of future discussions between the applicant and the City. Background: The subject site is located on the east of Parry Street between High Street and Holdsworth Street in Fremantle. The land slopes upwards approximately 1.5 metres from the street to the rear. To the north, the site abuts a portion of the Queens Square reserve and a small portion of land containing a commercial building. Abutting the rear of the site is a single storey lodging house comprising nine units. The site to the south is the Fremantle Dental Clinic. The clinic is currently for sale by the City of Fremantle and the site is required to be redeveloped as a condition of sale. The subject site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List, but is located within the West End Conservation Area Heritage Area and is also noted as being adjacent to the following sites contained on the State Heritage List:

Terrace cottages (18-30 Holdsworth Street, Fremantle)

Fremantle Prison (1 The Terrace, Fremantle).




Page 28

The site is outside of the Convict Establishment Area and not located within the 2003 Fremantle Prison Heritage Precinct Masterplan. The previous building on-site has been demolished. The relevant history of the site is as follows:

On 12 December 2014, JDAP conditionally approved a four storey plus basement Mixed use development comprising Offices, Shops, Restaurant and 8 Multiple dwellings.

On 12 June 2015, JDAP conditionally approved amendments to the internal configuration and height of the above development.

The approved development applications have not been acted upon but are still valid for four years from the date of approval. The subject proposal has been amended three times in response to City officer concerns. The most recent plans have deleted one unit each from the first and second floors in order to provide further access to sunlight and ventilation for the building, as well as creating an additional outdoor area for four of the units. The amendments are considered to adequately address the City’s local planning scheme, R-Codes, and planning policies and are recommended for conditional approval. Legislation & policy: Local Planning Scheme Provisions: The following additional Scheme provisions are considered relevant in the consideration of this variation planning application:

Clause 4.2.5 – Residential Design Codes

Clause 4.7.2 - Vehicle Parking Requirements

Clause 4.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking Requirements

Clause 4.7.6 – Design and Layout of Parking Areas

Clause 4.8.1 - Variation to height requirements

Schedule 12 Development requirements – Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle – 2.3.2 State Government Policies

State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes

State Planning Policy 7 – Design of the Built Environment (DRAFT)

o Design WA - Apartment Design - Volume Two of State Planning Policy No. 7.3

Residential Design Codes (DRAFT) Local Planning Policies

LPP 1.3 – Public notifications of planning proposals

LPP 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles Of Design

LPP 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines

LPP 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements

LPP 2.19 – Contributions for Public Art

LPP 2.21 – R60 development under clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 (DRAFT)

LPP 3.1.5 – Precinct 5 Consultation: Public Consultation


Page 29

The planning application was identified as a significant application as set out in LPP1.3. The application was advertised for a period of 28 days, concluding on 16 April 2018 and comprised the following:

a sign being placed on the development site

letter to owners and occupiers within 100m of the site

advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website

the Precinct Groups were informed of the proposal

two notifications were placed in the Fremantle Gazette

a community information session was held on 22 March 2018. At the conclusion of the advertising period, the City received six submissions comprising one submission of support and five objections to the proposal. The submissions are summarised below and a Schedule of Submissions is included in Attachment 2 and concerns raised are addressed in the report below.

Issue Raised Officer’s comments

External appearance is not compatible with the area

Appearance is conditionally supported

Objections to plot ratio Plot ratio (as amended) is supported

Objections to the building bulk and scale Bulk and scale are supported

Objections to parking shortfall Parking shortfall is supported – site is located near public transport

Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants State Heritage Office (SHO) The application was referred to the SHO as the site is located within 100 m of two state registered heritage places. SHO advised that “the proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of Fremantle Prison and Seven Terrace Houses.” Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The application was referred to the FPA, who advised that the building requirements of LPP 2.3 for Area 2 should be applied to the development as a condition of any approval. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) Clause 78B(6)(b) of LPS4 requires Council to establish and have regard to the recommendations of the DAC for applications meeting specific criteria. The application was presented three times to the City’s DAC. At its first two meetings the DAC raised concerns regarding the external styling of the development and the internal layout of apartments and rooms. Following these meetings the applicant amended the proposal to reduce the number of apartments and improve the internal amenity of the remaining apartments and rooms. These plans were presented to the DAC on 14 May 2018, where the Committee resolved to recommend the following:

The DAC acknowledges to the revisions made to the development to improve the amenity of the units and rooms.

The DAC maintains its reservations about the external styling of the development and the missed opportunity to further enhance the external appearance of the northern and western elevations.

Final Recommendation:


Page 30

The Design Advisory Committee, having considered the revised plans dated 4 May 2018 in response to the DAC comments of March 2018 and 9 April 2018 advises that the amended proposal is supported subject to the following conditions and design modifications:

1. Final details, including a sample board, of external materials, finishes and colours is to be submitted.

2. Final details of the design and materials of the ground floor north facing screen is to be

submitted. Details are also to demonstrate how the screen facilitates ventilation and maintains an outlook from the rooms while ensuring security and enabling privacy.

3. Air conditioning condensers are not to be located on the balconies of the apartments or

rooms. Details of the location of all condenser units is to be submitted. 4. The internal layout of apartments 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 15 is to modified to relocate the

openings of bathrooms so that they do not directly open into Living/Dining areas. 5. The maintenance gate and walkway between the courtyards of apartments 7 and 8 is to be

removed, a central fence to be provided and the resultant additional area be for private outdoor living space. Apartments 7 and 8 will then assume the responsibility for maintaining the southern-most planter that flanks their courtyards.

6. Additional measures such as screening or off-setting openings are to be incorporated into

the design of the development to improve the privacy for occupants between the following elements of the proposal:

• the bedrooms of apartments 7 and 8, • the bedrooms of apartments 16 and 17 • the bedrooms of apartments 16 and 17 to the courtyards of apartments 7 and 8 located

on the floor below. 7. The store/services room being relocated from level 3 so that the eastern end of the atrium

on level 2 below is open to the sky. The eastern walkway of level 2 is to be moved further to the west, aligned with the entry door to apartment 14 and requiring the relocation of the entry gate to apartment 15, to allow more access to the sky and sun for apartments 6 and 15.

8. A landscaping plan including details of soil depths, specie selection and maintenance

measures is to be submitted. Details illustrating compliance with the above conditions are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee prior to the issue of a Building Permit. The conditions and design modifications recommended by the DAC are considered to improve the design of the development and the amenity for future occupants. Details in regard to the developments compliance is discussed in this report, however it is recommend that the above conditions be imposed on any approval. It is noted that though the DAC has reservations about the external appearance of the building, there is little guidance within the City’s planning policies or scheme on the direction such appearance should take (See also LPP 3.1.5 below). The external form meets the requirements of the relevant legislation and policies.


Page 31

The applicant’s design justification and local architectural context is included as Attachments 3 and 4. Planning assessment: Local Planning Scheme

Item Requirement Proposal Compliance

Plot Ratio 0.7 (R60) 1.06 (R80) Supported - Discretion sought under the R-Codes, the scheme, and draft LPP 2.21

Wall Height 4 storeys (14.5 m) plus additional scheme requirements

4 storeys (14.5 m)

Supported - Discretion sought under cl. 4.8.1 and Sch. 12 cl. 2.3.2 of the scheme

Boundary walls Boundary walls will be permitted only where the Council is satisfied that both the following criteria are met: (a) the elevation presents as an integral part of the overall aesthetic of the building, and (b) the walls are sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

Northern, eastern and southern boundary walls

Supported

Car Parking 18 Multiple dwelling bays 5 Multiple dwelling visitor bays 6 Restaurant bays 19 Tourist Accommodation 2 Lunch Bar 50 TOTAL

20 Multiple Dwelling 14 Commercial 1 Visitor 35 TOTAL

Supported - Discretion sought under cl. 4.7.3 of the scheme

Land Use Multiple Dwelling (A) Restaurant (A) Lunch Bar (A) Tourist Accommodation (A)

Discretionary land uses

Supported - Discretion sought

Open Space 45% (497.7m2) 39% (436m2) Supported - Discretion sought under R-Codes

LPP 2.21 R60 development under clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 (DRAFT) Draft LPP 2.21 has been advertised for comment by the City and will be presented to Council for final adoption in due course. As such the policy is considered to be a seriously entertained proposal. Where variations from the policy are sought they are shown in the table below and discussed elsewhere in this report.


Page 32

Item Requirement Variation

3.4.2 Parking provision for residential dwellings shall be in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for the density of development sought, including visitor parking.

5 bay visitor shortfall

3.6.2 A Deep Planting Zone is to be incorporated into the development at a minimum size of 12% of the development site area.

Includes vegetation throughout site and on external and internal trellises but no large external tree canopy

3.6.4 Achievement of privacy requirements through the full screening of balconies will not be supported: a minimum of 25% of the perimeter of each balcony must remain unscreened.

Includes 2m, full length operable privacy screens to balconies facing the internal corridor.

3.6.5 Fully internalised habitable rooms will not be supported.

Contains fully internal habitable rooms.

4 Increases in plot ratio beyond the deemed-to-comply requirement of the R-codes for R60 will not be supported.

Includes an increase in plot ratio to approximately R80.

Design WA - Apartment Design - Volume Two of State Planning Policy No. 7.3 Residential Design Codes (DRAFT) Design WA is anticipated to be gazetted in mid 2018 and is therefore considered to be a seriously entertained proposal. Variations from the requirements are shown in the following table and further discussed below.

Item Requirement Proposal

2.5 Ensure that development aligns with the optimum capacity of the site and the desired development intensity of the local area.

The development seeks additional discretion for plot ratio beyond that provided for in clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 but aligns with the desired development of the area.

3.4.1 Deep soil areas support healthy plant and tree growth.

Includes vegetation throughout site and on external and internal trellises but no large external tree canopy.

3.5.2 Communal open space is designed to allow for a range of activities, respond to site conditions and be attractive and inviting.

Informal meeting and sitting areas but no dedicated communal open space such as barbecue areas, etc.

3.6.2 Site and building design elements increase privacy without compromising access to light and air and balance outlook and views from habitable rooms and private open space.

The screens used to protect privacy on the outdoor living areas of the southern units impact the sunlight and ventilation to those same units.

4.1.1 To optimise the number of apartments receiving sunlight to habitable rooms, primary

The one-bedroom units lack openings in the bedroom walls.


Page 33

window and private open space.

4.1.2 To optimise daylight access for habitable rooms.

See above.

4.2.1 All habitable rooms can be naturally ventilated.

The one-bedroom units lack cross ventilation.

4.2.2 The number of apartments with natural cross ventilation is maximised to create a comfortable indoor environment for residents.

See above.

Officer Comments Schedule 12 of LPS4 - Height

Item Required Provided Compliance

Wall Height (Sch 12, cl. 2.3.2, and cl. 4.8.1 of LPS4)

14 m subject to upper floor being setback so as not to be visible from the street and compliance with cl. 2.2

Additional 0.5m of height under cl. 4.8.1

14.5 m

Complies (with application of cl. 4.8.1)

Schedule 12, sub-area 2.3.2 of LPS4 sets out the height requirements as follows:

2.3.2.1 Despite the general height requirements outlined in 2.1 above, building height shall be limited to a maximum height of three storeys (maximum external wall height of 11* metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plain pitch of 33 degrees). Council may consent to an additional storey subject to –

(a) the upper level being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site,

(b) maximum external wall height of 14* metres, (c) compliance with clause 2.2 above.

*Inclusive of roof parapet and spacing between floors. Note: ‘Visible from the street’ will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle from the subject land’s lot boundary into the adjoining street for the width of the street and 1.6 metres above ground level. For the purposes of this clause for this sub area: Queens Square will be considered to be a street with an assumed width of 20 metres; High Street is deemed to be 13 metres wide; and Parry and Ellen Street are deemed to be 18 metres wide.


Page 34

Further, cl. 4.8.1.2 of LPS4 states:

4.8.1.2 Where there is a variation in ground level over a development footprint of greater than one metre, Council may increase the specific height requirements of Schedule 8 subject to—

(a) no portion of external wall of the building exceeding the maximum external wall height requirement of Schedule 8 by greater than 0.5 metres, and

(b) no portion of external wall of the building that exceeds the maximum external height requirement of Schedule 8 being situated on the higher side of the development footprint as measured from natural ground level.

As indicated on the survey plan, the ground level varies by over 1 m beneath the proposed development footprint and otherwise complies with 4.8.1.1 (a) and (b) above. The additional 0.5m of height is therefore supported. The development seeks discretion for the fourth floor and a wall height of 14.5 metres. In accordance with clauses 2.3.2.1 (a) and (b) above, the upper floor has been set back so as not to be visible from the street and the development does not exceed the maximum wall height (when accounting for the additional 0.5 m granted under clause 4.8.1.2). Clause 2.3.2.1 (c) requires the development to comply with cl. 2.2, which states:

2.2 In granting consent to the maximum heights prescribed Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following—

(a) that the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally,

(b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area, (c) the proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for the

site and locality generally, and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

These sub-clauses are discussed in turns below.

(a) that the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally,

Sub Area 2.3.2 of LPS4 is a small area that encompasses five lots on the eastern side of Parry Street between Ellen Street and Holdsworth Street (see Figure 1 below). Though the sub area was added to the scheme in 2011, no lots within the sub area have yet been redeveloped to take advantage of the additional permitted height. Additionally, the lots directly to the east are within Local Planning Area 2 and have a maximum height of 7.5 m.


Page 35

Figure 1: Sub Area 2.3.2

It is clear that the intent of the creation of Sub Area 2.3.2 was to provide opportunities to increase the scale of developments within the affected lots. Not only does the Sub Area permit greater height than the surrounding areas, it also requires reduced front setbacks and encourages consideration of nil side and rear setbacks. These scheme provisions were intended to achieve an appropriate sense of urban enclosure and definition to the eastern edges of Queens Square through redevelopment. The proposal is considered to have minimal impact on the amenity of the area as discussed elsewhere in this report and, based on the permitted height provisions and lot boundary setbacks within the scheme, the development is consistent with the desired future built form of the area. Further, the site is situated near the bottom of a steep hill that slopes up towards the east and includes the high walls of the Fremantle Prison. When taking this topography into account, the development can be considered consistent with the existing height patterns of the general locality.

(b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area, The adjoining southern lot is owned by the City of Fremantle and is currently for sale with the requirement that it be redeveloped. It is anticipated that any future development on that lot will take full advantage of the height and setback requirements within the Scheme and will be able to respond appropriately to the bulk and setbacks of the proposed development. The buildings immediately to the rear are single storey and located well below the top floor of the proposed development. The permitted height of three storeys will have the most noticeable impact on these properties, with the discretionary additional floor having minimal additional impact. The steep slope of Holdsworth Street results in a lesser impact to sites further east and up the hill from the subject site. The site is not within or abutting one of the major view corridors as shown in LPP 3.1.5 and will not obstruct views of significance. The proposed development is not considered detrimental to the amenity of the area.


Page 36

(c) the proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for the site and locality generally,

There are no specific conservation objectives for the site, however, the lot is located within the West End Conservation Area and in close proximity to the Fremantle Prison, though it does not sit within the original Convict Establishment Area. The State Heritage Office has provided advice stating they have no objections to the development and this criteria is therefore considered to be satisfied.

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the relevant local planning policies as discussed below. Lot boundary setbacks Schedule 12, cl. 2.3.2.3 of LPS4 states:

Boundary walls will be permitted only where the Council is satisfied that both the following criteria are met:

(a) the elevation presents as an integral part of the overall aesthetic of the building, and

(b) the walls are sympathetic to the surrounding environment. The adjoining northern lot comprises the Queens Square reserve, while the adjoining southern lot is a lot currently for sale by the City with a requirement for any buyer to redevelop the property. The boundary walls are therefore considered to present as an integral part of the development and be sympathetic to the surrounding environment. Density The subject site is zoned Mixed use and has a density of R35, however, cl. 4.2.5 of LPS4 states:

Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 4.2.3 residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Schedule 1 of LPS4 defines ‘Mixed use’ as:

means, when used in relation to a Planning Application, a combination of one or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 1 - Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development.

The development complies with definition of Mixed use development within the scheme and therefore can be considered against clause 4.2.5 of LPS4. Council has recently drafted and advertised for comment a policy (LPP 2.21) providing guidance on how to assess applications seeking discretion under the above clause, to determine whether they are detrimental to the area. LPP 2.21 is considered a seriously entertained planning instrument and is further discussed in the following section. The “bonus” provided by clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 is for a density of R60, which has a prescribed plot ratio of 0.7 under the R-Codes. The proposed development has a plot ratio of 1.06, which is approximately the equivalent of a R80 density and therefore requires an assessment under cause 6.1.1 of the R-Codes, which states:


Page 37

Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built form of the locality.

The development is at the desired bulk and scale of the area as discussed in regards to clause 2.2(a) above and in the context of clause 4 of LPP 2.21 below. LPP 2.21: R60 development under clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 (DRAFT) Draft LPP 2.21 recently finished advertising to the community and is considered a seriously entertained instrument. The proposed development has been assessed against the clauses of the policy. Where the proposal seeks variations against the policy, such clauses are set out below. 3.4.2 Parking provision for residential dwellings shall be in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for the density of development sought, including visitor parking. The development has an 8 bay car parking shortfall, which is considered acceptable as discussed in “Car Parking” below. 3.6.2 A Deep Planting Zone is to be incorporated into the development at a minimum size of 12% of the development site area. The development contains a number of green spaces, including internal courtyards and trellises. The applicant has indicated that 32.9% of the site area is vegetated (inclusive of vertical trellises). The proposal is also located directly adjacent to the Queens Square reserve, which contains a number of large, established trees. The sub area provisions also require developments on the lot to be nearly hard-edged to the street, which precludes the planting of large trees along the street front. 3.6.4 Achievement of privacy requirements through the full screening of balconies will not be supported: a minimum of 25% of the perimeter of each balcony must remain unscreened. The internal balconies of units 16 and 17 on Floor 2 have been provided with 2 m high operable privacy screens on each side of their balconies. With both screens closed it will increase privacy at the expense of direct sunlight and completely enclose the balcony, however, as the screens are operable, the occupants will be able to adjust to their preference. The remainder of the units have at least 25% of their balconies unenclosed and therefore comply. 3.6.5 Fully internalised habitable rooms will not be supported. With the 6 m wide internal corridor open to sunlight and ventilation, the majority of the units have openings to permit access to sunlight and ventilation in all habitable rooms. The south-eastern units on the first and second floors (Units 6 and 15) have fully internalised bedrooms. The balconies of each unit span the entire width of the unit, and the bedrooms are equipped with sliding doors to permit light from the balcony (‘borrowed’ via the living area adjoining the balcony) to enter the bedroom. These units have a depth of approximately 8 m from the balcony to the far wall of the bedroom, which will permit adequate sun and ventilation to reach the entire unit. 4 Increases in plot ratio beyond the deemed-to-comply requirement of the R-codes for R60 will not be supported. The application seeks discretion for a plot ratio of 1.06 in lieu of 0.7, which is a density approximating R80.


Page 38

Plot ratio, by itself, has much less of an impact on the potential bulk and scale of a development than height, setback and other building form controls, particularly in regards to Mixed use developments. A fully commercial development, in which plot ratio is not applicable, could be of a greater bulk and scale than a residential development that is compliant with the required plot ratio. For Mixed use developments, plot ratio is often a better determinant of amenity within the development than external to the development. With the subject proposal, the amended plans reducing the number of units have reduced the plot ratio to the point where in most respects it has minimal impact on the internal amenity. The draft policy presumption against plot ratio exceeding the R-Codes deemed-to-comply standard was intended primarily to eliminate plot ratio excesses in the context of existing neighbouring buildings and where such proposals were surrounded by, and may have negatively impacted, existing residential land uses. In this case the existing site is vacant and the adjacent southern site (currently non-residential) is required to be redeveloped as a condition of sale. Further, the greater height and reduced setbacks permitted by the scheme for this sub area demonstrate the City’s clear intent to increase density for the subject sites. Design WA - Apartment Design - Volume Two of State Planning Policy No. 7.3 Residential Design Codes (DRAFT) Design WA forms part of State Planning Policy 7.3 and encompasses a revision to part 6 of the R-Codes. This is considered a seriously entertained planning instrument which is expected to be gazetted this year. Where the proposed development does not meet the design principles or design criteria of Design WA, such discrepancies are discussed below. 3.4.1 Deep soil areas support healthy plant and tree growth. Does not meet the deep soil requirement as discussed above. 3.5.2 Communal open space is designed to allow for a range of activities, respond to site conditions and be attractive and inviting. The communal open space consists of small, isolated seating areas, water and vegetation but does not provide for a range of communal uses such as patios or barbecue areas. This is not considered to be overly detrimental as the development is located immediately adjacent to Queens Square public space and less than 200 m from the Fremantle Oval, which is open to the public. 4.1.1 To optimise the number of apartments receiving sunlight to habitable rooms, primary window and private open space. Two corner units do not have access to direct sunlight as discussed above. 4.1.2 To optimise daylight access for habitable rooms. Two corner units do not have access to direct sunlight as discussed above. 4.2.1 All habitable rooms can be naturally ventilated. Two corner units do not have access to direct sunlight as discussed above. Considering that the Design WA document is still in draft form, it would be difficult to refuse the development solely because it does not strictly comply with a policy that may yet change prior to implementation. City officers have had due regard to the draft policy and have used it to improve internal amenity. The original application was submitted with light wells being the sole source of sunlight and ventilation for 8 of the 10 southern units. The layout has been reconfigured to permit sunlight and ventilation to a majority of units without reliance on light wells, resulting in a better internal outcome. The applicant is encouraged to come up with a design solution to provide direct light


Page 39

and ventilation to units 6 and 15 whilst acknowledging there are currently no requirements to provide this. Land Use The application proposes the following land uses with permissibility in a Mixed use zone in brackets:

Multiple Dwelling (A)

Restaurant (A)

Lunch Bar (A)

Tourist Accommodation (A) The land uses have been assessed against the Matters to be considered of the Deemed provisions, and the objectives of the zone under cl. 3.2.1(e) of LPS4, which states:

Development within the mixed use zone shall— (i) provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and cottage

industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones

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

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

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

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

development. The remaining land uses are supported for the following reasons:

The Multiple Dwellings are well served by public transportation and will increase the amount of residents living near the City Centre, consistent with the City’s strategic objectives.

The Tourist Accommodation is adjacent to the City Centre and major tourist attractions such as Fremantle Prison. This is likely to support increasing visitors to the City Centre and activating the area consistent with the City’s strategic objectives.

Adequate separation and security is provided to prevent internal land use conflicts between the residential and non-residential components of the development.

The Restaurant has a floor area of 40.2m2 and the Lunch Bar (shown as a juice bar on the plans) has a floor area of 7.3m2. The small size of these services will ensure they remain small scale premises compatible with the area and not detrimental to the functions of other zones.

Providing a combination of uses that operate across 24 hours will help reduce the amount of undesirable activity in the adjoining Queens Square by creating more “eyes on the street” and reducing the isolation of the site.


Page 40

Car Parking

Item Required Provided Shortfall

Multiple dwellings 18 bays 20 bays Complies

Visitor bays 5 bays 1 bay 4 bays

Tourist Accommodation 19 bays

14 bays 13 bays

Restaurant 6 bays

Lunch Bar 2 bays Complies

TOTAL 50 bays 35 bays 15 bays

Delivery Bays 1 bay 1 bay Complies

The parking shortfall is supported under cl. 4.7.3 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The subject site is located within close proximity to public transportation including numerous bus routes and the Fremantle Train Station.

The development is less than 40 m from a public car park near the prison and less than 200 m from the Queensgate carpark.

The café and juice bar are small and therefore designed to primarily serve the local area. Based on the plot ratio of the land uses, only two bicycle racks are required to be provided for the Restaurant under the requirements of the scheme. LPP 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements The development is required to achieve an energy efficiency rating of not less than a 4 Star Green Star. A condition is recommended to be imposed on any approval in this regard. LPP 2.19: Public Art Contribution The development is required to contribute at least 1% of the estimated development cost for the contribution of public art. A condition is recommended to be imposed on any approval in this regard. LPP 3.1.5: Precinct 5 The subject site is located on the eastern boundary of Area C, with architectural styles being described in the policy as:

Area C exhibits no strong unifying character, except for the large mid 20th century developments such as the Myers Building and the Westgate Mall complex. Rather the area is comprised of buildings of a variety of architectural styles associated with different construction periods and different land uses. The buildings are generally of low architectural quality and thus make a limited contribution to legible streetscapes or to a coherent area overall.

The desired character of the area is one of:

Progressive environmental sustainability

A vibrant cultural and artistic community that values the importance of social life in public spaces

A functional and working purpose, rather than being over-refined or decorative, and incorporating the use of robust and utilitarian materials with natural finishes

The coastal setting and strong definition of light and shadow on highly articulated facades.


Page 41

The applicant has provided information showing how the proposed design draws on the design of adjoining buildings, including the Fremantle Prison. While it is hoped that further changes would be made, particularly more reference to the limestone façade of the Fremantle Prison, the design prescribed by the policy is somewhat subjective and relies on interpretation of nearby buildings of predominantly low architectural quality. The current design is considered to meet the policy objectives and improve upon the existing architectural quality of the area. Open Space

Element Required Provided

Open Space 45% (497.7m2) 39% (436m2)

The amended plans improve the sunlight and ventilation to the Multiple dwellings within the building. The open space respects the preferred building form without being detrimental to the amenity of the area. Conclusion: Although the proposal represents an intensive development of the site and some aspects of the design such as internalised bedrooms are less than ideal, in overall terms officers consider the proposed development has been sufficiently amended to comply with the City’s scheme, local planning policies, and the R-Codes (including the draft WA Design requirements for Multiple dwellings) to justify recommending approval. The development is consistent with the desired built form and land use of the sub area and the discretions sought are considered to not detrimentally impact the amenity of the area. The development is therefore recommended for conditional approval.


Page 42

PC1806 -3 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 346 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO INDUSTRY-SERVICE (BAKERY) OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DA0117/18)


2: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for alterations to an existing Office and a change of use to Industry-Service (Bakery). The application is presented to Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions received that cannot be addressed through a condition of development approval. The application seeks discretion against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) in respect to the following:

car parking

land use. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the following alterations to an existing building:

front fence alterations

enlargement of secondary street windows

removal of selected internal walls

kitchen fitout

normal hours of trade from 6am to 3pm

between 1 and 4 employees on-site at any one time

less than 8 deliveries a week

change of use to Industry-Service. A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 20 March 2018 Owner name: Chisholm McCarthy Investments Pty Ltd Submitted by: Daragh Grier Scheme: Mixed Use (R30) Heritage listing: Level 3 and South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Office Use class: Industry-Service Use permissibility: D


Page 43

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as car parking and land use discretions were sought under LPS4. The advertising period concluded on 26 April 2018, and nine (9) submissions were received, with three (3) in full support and a further three (3) that support the use but have other concerns. The following issues were raised:

Parking is already difficult in the area and the bakery will make it worse.

Line of sight pulling out from Scott Street is bad and will be made worse through the provision of the alfresco area.

The bakery operates very early and will create unacceptable noise. There are no fixed structures proposed within the alfresco area, which is located within the road reserve. Alfresco dining applications are dealt with as a separate process through the City and are not included in the subject application. The remaining comments are discussed below.


Page 44

OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant Council local planning policies and seeks discretion for the following:

car parking

land use. The above matters are discussed below. Background The site is located in a Mixed Use zone on the south-east corner of Scott Street and South Terrace in South Fremantle. The site located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area and is improved by a commercial building, which is listed as Level 3 on the City’s Heritage List. The applicant/owner currently operates the bakery out of a small commercial unit located approximately four blocks to the south of the subject site on South Terrace. A review of the City’s database reveals the following relevant development approvals:

On 2 September 2011, the City approved a Partial Change of use to Exhibition Centre (Art Gallery), Signage and External Painting of Existing Shop (DA0274/11).

On 25 March 2014, the City approved External Signage (DA0119/14).

On 14 April 2014, the City approved Retrospective planning approval for change of use from Shop and Exhibition Centre to Office and proposed partial change of use to Multiple dwelling and external painting to building (DA0117/14).

On 31 March 2015, the City approved External treatment (painting of a mural) to existing building (DA0137/15).

Land use An Industry-Service use is a ‘D’ (discretionary) use under the City’s Scheme, which means that the use is not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. The proposed use has been assessed against the objectives of the zone within the scheme and the matters to be considered of the Deemed provisions and is supported for the following reasons:

The development provides for a mix of land uses within a small scale premise that will not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of other zones.

The nature of the operation revolves around small scale bread and pastry baking for on-site and takeaway consumption serving the local area. It is not proposed to be a commercial bakery for large scale off-site deliveries.

The bakery comprises approximately 100m2 of food preparation areas (pastry room, dishes, bakery, food area) and 56m2 of customer floor space. This small serving area will limit the amount of customers on the premises at any one time.

The proposed development is sympathetic with the existing and desired character of the area.

The development conserves a place of heritage significance.


Page 45

The early morning noise will be confined to the interior of the site, and the shop doors are oriented towards South Terrace rather than the residential zone further east along Scott Street.

The site is located within a Mixed use zone and the buildings on the opposite side of South Terrace are occupied by various businesses. The bakery contributes to the extension of the commercial uses along this strip of South Terrace.

The application is recommended for conditional approval. Heritage The building is Level 3 heritage listed and removal of some internal walls is proposed. The internal changes will have no impact on the streetscape appearance. However, it is recommended a condition be imposed to require sufficient evidence of the removed internal walls to remain so as to allow the layout of the rooms to be legible. This is to preserve the historical “reading” of the original walls of the heritage listed corner shop. The only changes that will have an impact on the exterior of the building would be those to the existing windows facing Scott Street, where it is proposed to increase the existing opening sizes by lowering the sill level of the windows. These changes will have minimal impact on the building’s contribution to the streetscape and the urban context and are supported. Car Parking

Use Required Bays Proposed Discretion

Approved Use

Office 1:30m2 GLA = 10 bays

Nil 11 bays

Multiple Dwelling 1 bay Nil

Delivery bays (1:500m2)

1 delivery bay Nil 1 delivery bay

Bicycle racks 4 racks Nil 4 racks

Proposed Use

Industry-Service 1:50m2 = 9 1 8 bays

Delivery bays 1 delivery bay Nil 1 delivery bay

Bicycle racks Nil bicycle racks Unknown number of racks proposed

Nil

Though the development plans show two garages, the easternmost garage does not meet the minimum internal dimensions as per AS2890.1. Although the applicant may choose to use it as a garage, the City cannot formalise approval for such use. Similarly, the applicant proposes utilising the crossover in front of the two proposed garages as a loading bay. Such a setup is not supported and cannot be formalized by the City. The car parking shortfall is supported for the following reasons:

The proposed development reduces the existing car parking shortfall for the currently approved office use by three bays.

The Fremantle CAT bus has a stop around the corner from the subject site.

The building is heritage listed and cannot be modified to supply sufficient parking.


Page 46

The development proposes additional bicycle racks to support alternate modes of transportation.

There are a number of public parking bays along the street and within Marine Terrace parking lot, which is less than 200 m away. While it is acknowledged that street parking is currently difficult in the locality, due to the significant heritage restraints of the area there is limited availability to add additional off-street parking.

Most car-based visits, particularly on weekdays, are likely to be of short duration, resulting in a high rate of turnover for street bays, which reduces the pressure on parking availability.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2:

APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the Alterations and Change of Use to Industry-Service (Bakery) of an Existing Commercial Building at No. 346 (Lot 1) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


approved plans, dated 19 March 2018. 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. This development approval does not relate to any works within the road reserves of Scott Street or South Terrace.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, details to be provided to show

how sufficient evidence of the removed walls within the heritage building are to remain so as to allow the layout of the rooms to be legible, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

4. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which

does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building other than the internal changes indicated on the approved


Page 47

plans. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTE:

i. A Building permit is required for the proposed Building Works. A certified BA1 application form must be submitted and a Certificate of Design Compliance (issued by a Registered Building Surveyor Contractor in the private sector) must be submitted with the BA1.

ii. It is recommended that the applicant engages the City’s Environmental

Health department to determine their obligations in obtaining an alfresco dining permit. The City’s Environmental Health department can be contacted on 9432 9999 or alternatively via email at [email protected].

iii. The applicant/owner be advised that the alfresco as proposed may not have

the necessary clearance from the edge of the kerb for pedestrians. Please liaise with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate at [email protected] or 9432 9999.

iv. The premises must comply with the Food Act 2008, regulations and the

Food Safety Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected]





Page 48

PC1806 -4 HALE STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 3), BEACONSFIELD - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0011/18)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development plans

2: Site photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for additions and alterations to an existing Grouped dwelling at No. 12 Hale Street, Beaconsfield. The application is presented to Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions received that cannot be addressed through a condition of development approval. The application seeks discretion against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in respect to the following:

Building height


Primary street setback (upper floor addition)

Primary street fence (visual permeability)

Sightlines

Primary street setback (Carport)

Open space

Visual privacy While there are some elements of the proposal that are supported by officers, it is considered that there are fundamental issues with the proposal, particularly in regards to building height and overshadowing that are not supported. The application is recommended for refusal. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for additions and alterations to an existing Grouped dwelling at No. 12 Hale Street, Beaconsfield. The development proposes an upper floor addition to an existing single storey Grouped dwelling and also includes the addition of a carport and primary street fence. Revised plans were lodged on 12 April 2018, that reduce the overall building height by 500mm at the rear of the building and up to 900mm at the front of site, by altering the roof form. Another set of revised plans were lodged on 11 May 2018, that increase the setback of the wall of the sitting room, which increased the size of the balcony.


Page 49

Site/application information Date received: 12 January 2018 Owner name: Kaye Johns Submitted by: Matt Harvey Design Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Grouped dwelling Use class: Grouped dwelling Use permissibility: D

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as discretions were sought against local planning policies and the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 22 February 2018, and one (1) submission was received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Building height will impact on streetscape.

Building bulk is excessive. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant 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


Page 50

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:

Building height



Primary street fence (visual permeability)

Sightlines

Primary street setback (Carport)

Open space

Visual privacy The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hale Street, Beaconsfield within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The site is zoned Residential R25 and is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. The dwelling is one of two on its strata and is located at the front of the site. Building height

Element Required Proposed Discretion

External wall height (concealed roof)

7m 6.3-8.5m Nil-1.5m

The proposed section of building height that exceeds the deemed-to-comply requirement of 7m is located towards the front of the site, which slopes down with approximately a 2m fall from the rear to the street boundary. The design principles of the R-Codes provide quite specific guidelines for considering proposals that exceed the deemed-to-comply height. Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains:

Adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces

Adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and

Access to views of significance. The slope of this site and the properties in its vicinity provide views over Beaconsfield and Fremantle, as well as out to the ocean which can reasonably be considered to be a view of significance.. Additionally, the requirement lists “no adverse impact” on the amenity of adjoining properties – these additions will change the outlook of the properties to the rear, possibly to their detriment. The application also seeks discretion against the solar access (overshadowing) requirements, which as explained further will have some impact on the southern properties’ amenity.


Page 51

It is acknowledged by officers that the applicant has made a positive attempt to reduce the impact of building height by altering the roof form of the development (see dotted line of previous skillion roof on plans), however is constrained toward the front of the site by the intention to retain the existing house and still provide compliant floor to ceiling heights. It is also noted that there is space within the site to expand the addition further away from the street which may give the applicant the option of complying with building height. Alternatively the upper floor addition could be reduced in size to the portion that does comply. Solar access for adjoining sites


Shadow cast on southern neighbour

25% (126.5sqm) 39% (197.4sqm) 70.9sqm

For the purposes of calculating overshadowing, Grouped dwellings must be assessed using the parent lot. This means for this proposal, the shadow thrown by No. 12a Hale Street (existing house to the rear of the subject site), must also be considered in the calculation. In assessing the proposal against the design principles of the R-Codes, while the design does meet some of the design principles, the proposal is not supported for the following reasons:

The additions to the existing house obstruct an existing lower level terrace from northern sunlight by creating a bedroom in this location. The bedroom does however have a proposed window on the northern elevation and is proposing an upper floor balcony which will have some access to solar.

There will be some impact on the southern property’s existing openings on its northern elevation. The semi-basement level windows are unlikely to be further impacted given their small setback (approximately) and low level meaning they are currently impacted by the single storey dwelling. The larger windows on the level above are partially impacted currently by the existing dwelling; however shadow cast from the upper floor addition will impact these openings further.

Outdoor living areas are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed upper floor addition.

There is no evidence of roof mounted solar collectors on the neighbouring property.



Upper floor 10m 7.3m minimum 2.7m


Page 52

Figure 1: Portion of upper floor outside prescribed 10m setback highlighted in yellow 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 The existing prevailing streetscape, as defined by the policy, is as follows:

Property Storeys/Height Setback

No. 6 Hale Street Single storey, 4m high external wall

4.7m

No. 8 Hale Street Two storey, unknown height

9m

No. 10 Hale Street Single storey, 4.8m external wall height

8.4m

No. 14 Hale Street Two storey, unknown height

8m setback

No. 16a Hale Street Two storey, 6m external wall height

6.6m setback

No. 16b Hale Street Two storey, 6m external wall height

7.3m setback

As detailed in the table above, all properties within the prevailing streetscape have a lesser setback than the 10m required for a wall of greater than 4m. One of the properties has a setback less than proposed, with three of the others (two to the south, and the property immediately to the north) are approximately within a 1m of what is proposed at No. 12.


Page 53

While the setback is not dissimilar to that existing on neighbouring properties, it is considered that a setback of 8m or greater may provide greater consistency with the existing streetscape.

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 The road and/or lot layout is not unusual and does not assist in reducing the impact of the addition.

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.

The setback of the building is not proposed to retain a tree.

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or Not applicable as streetscape is established.

v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

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

The subject site does not adjoin a corner lot.

In addition to the discretionary criteria of LPP 2.9, Council must also be satisfied that the proposed addition meets the design principles of the R-Codes. Many of these design principles are consistent with the discretionary criteria of the policy, and they are not all considered to be met for the following reasons:

While there is some variation in the existing streetscape, it is considered that the reduced setback proposed by the applicant is proposed to be closer than most to the street as outlined in the local planning framework (LPP 2.9).

A setback of 8m or greater is likely to provide more consistency and is less of an intrusion into the established streetscape.

The upper floor addition does not result in reduced open space on site.

There is sufficient space in the front setback area for services, parking and landscaping.

The building is articulated and has open balconies to assist in reducing the bulk and scale of the building in the streetscape area.

In conclusion, the discretion is not supported as it will result in a projecting element into an established streetscape. Primary street fencing There is a notation on the plan that indicates that the portion above the 700mm solid element of fencing is to have “visually permeable screen inserts”. The plan itself does not appear to match the definition, and therefore in the instance of an approval, a condition would be recommended to ensure compliance.


Page 54

Sightlines


Primary street fence Reduced in height to 0.75m (or truncated) within 1.5m

1.8m high pillar (0.4m wide) and remainder fence will infill

Height and truncation

Given the slope downward of the parking area (proposed Carport) and the footpath being hard against the boundary line, clear sightlines should be provided to ensure pedestrian and motorist safety when reversing out of this site. In the instance of an approval, the provision of a truncation on reduction in the height of the fence would be recommended. Primary street setback (Carport)


Carport Setback in line with or behind the front wall of the house

In front of the house Required

Where the property is not on the Heritage List, carports may be located in front of the dwelling where the development meets all of the following criteria:

The carport is open on all sides with no door. COMPLIES

The carport is constructed from timber or steel vertical supports no greater than 150mm in width in any direction.

COMPLIES

The carport does not exceed an average of 2.8 metres in height above natural ground level.

COMPLIES

The carport is located so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street.

COMPLIES

The maximum width of the carport is to be 6 metres on a property with a frontage of 12 metres or greater.

COMPLIES

The carport is setback one metre or greater from any side boundary. COMPLIES

The carport is therefore supported. Open space


Open space 50% (198.5sqm) 45% (180sqm) 18.5sqm

While the ground floor footprint of the building is not altering, the addition of the carport decreases the overall open space sought on site. The reduction in open space is supported for the following reasons:

At ground level, the development meets the requirements of the local planning framework (LPP 2.9).

There are sufficient setbacks around the building which provide sunlight access for the building.

There is no discretion being sought on density, and the reduction in open space is as a result of existing hardstand parking area being covered by a carport.

There is a large open area at the front of the property which is indicated to be landscaped which will assist in providing a positive contribution to the streetscape.


Page 55

There is sufficient space for outdoor living and activities on site.

There is sufficient clearance around the building for the provision of external fixtures and essential facilities.

Visual privacy


Balcony 7.5m 5.1m (south) 2.4m

Sitting 6m 5.1m (south) 0.9m

It is not considered necessary to provide screening to the south for the following reasons:

There is minimal direct overlooking of habitable spaces as much of the areas overlooked fall within the front setback.

Other areas overlooked, including a balcony on the front of No. 14, are screened from view by a full height brick wall. There are no major openings on this portion of the building and the setback area is narrow (approximately 1m), meaning it is unlikely to be used for outdoor living.

The design of the addition assists in preventing much of the direct view. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle Green Plan 2020

1. No trees are shown to be removed FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, additions and alterations to existing Grouped dwelling at No. 12 (Lot 3) Hale Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 11 May 2018, for the following reasons:

a) The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to external wall height (concealed roof), solar access for adjoining sites and vehicle sightlines.

b) The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy for the upper floor setback.


Page 56

c) The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.8 Fences Policy in regards to the visual permeability of the fence.


Page 57

PC1806 -5 BLINCO STREET, NO. 44 (LOT 10), FREMANTLE - FOUR, TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS - (NB DA0090/18)


2: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for four Grouped dwellings consisting of two storeys each. The application is presented to Planning Committee (PC) due to the discretion sought against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies, and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in respect to the following:

front setback (upper and lower)

lot boundary setbacks

building height

site works. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for four Grouped dwellings consisting of two storeys each. Two dwellings (Lots A and B) are located with Blinco Street (to the south) as their primary street, and the other two (Lots C and D) are located with Wood Street (to the west) as their primary street. Site/application information Date received: 6 March 2018 Owner name: MPG Property Development Pty Ltd Submitted by: Veris Limited Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Vacant lot Use class: Grouped dwellings Use permissibility: D


Page 58

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretion was sought against LPS4, the R-Codes and local planning policies. The advertising period concluded on 24 April 2018 and no submissions were received. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant 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 or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design principles:

front setback (upper and lower)

lot boundary setbacks

building height

site works. The above matters are discussed below.


Page 59

Background The subject site is a large corner lot on the northeast corner of Blinco Street and Wood Street in Fremantle. On the opposite side of the street is the Development Area to which the approved Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan applies. The site slopes downwards approximately 3.5 m from southeast to northwest. The previous buildings on-site have been demolished and the land has been cleared. The site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25 under LPS4 and is not heritage listed nor in a heritage area. On 4 April 2018, the Western Australian Planning Commission granted conditional approval for a four lot survey strata subdivision in line with the proposed development. Front Setback

Element Required Proposed Variation

Ground Floor C 5 m

4.7 m 0.3 m

Ground Floor D 4.7 m 0.3 m

Upper Floor C 7 m

3.8 m 3.2 m

Upper Floor D 3.8 m 3.2 m

The ground and upper floor setbacks of dwellings A and B are fully compliant with Local Planning Policy 2.9: Residential Streetscape. Clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 provides for variations where at least one of the following is met:

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.

The front setbacks of dwellings C and D (fronting Wood Street) are supported for the following reasons:

As per sub-clause (i), approving the setback of Lot C for the reasons set out below would result in the dwelling of Lot D being consistent with the approved street setback within the newly created prevailing streetscape.

As per sub-clause (ii), the lot is located one block north of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan Area (KSESP), which allows for buildings to front Wood Street with minimal setbacks. For example, the recently approved Mixed use “Nightingale” development across from the subject site on the southwest corner of Blinco and Wood Street has a portion of building with a nil setback to Wood


Page 60

Street. The reduced setbacks of the proposed development are considered to not result in a projecting element, as the desired streetscape within the KSESP is one of multiple reduced setbacks.

As per sub-clause (iv), there is currently no prevailing streetscape. The only other lot with a boundary to Wood Street within the same street block contains a house that fronts High Street and is owned by Main Roads. It is likely to be demolished at some point in the future for any Stirling Hwy/High St street upgrades. The subject application would therefore create a prevailing streetscape. Variations to the front setbacks of these lots will have a limited “flow on” effect as there are no other lots within the prevailing streetscape to impact.

As per sub-clause (v), Lot C is directly adjoining the future corner lot of Lot B. The R-Codes permit a 1.5 m secondary street setback for Lot B, which in turn allows a reduced primary street setback for Lot C.

Lot boundary setback

Element Required Proposed Variation

Alfresco C 1 m

0.6 m 0.4 m

Alfresco D 0.6 m 0.4 m

The lot boundary setback variations are supported under clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The alfresco areas are single storey and will have minimal adverse impact on building bulk to the adjoining lot.

The adjoining lot has a screen wall to their own alfresco and pool areas to ensure visual privacy and, in any event, the proposed alfresco areas are not raised above natural ground level and therefore present no visual privacy variations.

Building to within 600mm of the boundary makes more effective use of space without compromising the amenity of the adjoining lot.

Wall height

Element Maximum Proposed Max. Variation

Dwelling A

7 m

6.7 m - 7.6 m 0.6 m

Dwelling B 6.7 m - 7.3 m 0.3 m

Dwelling C 6.8 m - 7.8 m 0.8 m

Dwelling D 6.8 m - 7.6 m 0.6 m

The wall height variations are supported under clause 5.1.6 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The wall height variations are primarily a result of the steep slope of the lot.

The floor levels of lots A and B are both beneath the ground level at the street front, which reduces the apparent building bulk to result in no adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining lots.

The dwellings on lots C and D step up internally with the level of the land to minimise required fill or excavation, thereby respecting the natural ground levels.

The height variations have minimal impact on permitting adequate daylight into habitable rooms of the dwellings on adjoining lots in the same street block.


Page 61

Site works

Element Maximum Fill Permitted

Maximum Proposed

Maximum Variation

Lot A 0.5 m 1.38 m 0.88 m

Lot B 0.5 m 1.0 m 0.5 m

The site fill variation is supported under clause 5.3.7 for the following reasons:

The additional fill is necessary due to the extreme slope of the two lots.

The resultant ground level is the minimum required in order to level the lot while maintaining levels near the street boundary sufficient to adequately grade the driveways.

The fill does not result in lot boundary setback variations from these lots.

The maximum fill proposed is to locations within the interior of the site, not against the adjoining eastern boundary.

State Planning Policy 5.4: Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning The development boundary is located less than 50 m from the intersection of High Street and Stirling Highway, which are both major roads carrying considerable traffic volumes. At subdivision stage, Main Roads has required that a notice be placed on the title advising prospective owners of transport noise. It is therefore advised that the developments be assessed against, and demonstrate compliance with, the Quiet House Design principles of the policy prior to the issue of a building permit. The application is recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25


Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



The Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2:

APPROVE , under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the four, two storey Grouped dwellings at No. 44 (Lot 10) Blinco Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


approved plans, dated 14 May 2018. It does not relate to any other


Page 62

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 City of Fremantle.

3. This development approval does not relate to any works within the road reserves of Blinco Street or Wood Street.

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the development shall be

required to do one of the following as set out in the State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4), to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle:

a) incorporate noise mitigation ‘Quiet House Design Acceptable Treatment Package A’, or

b) engage a qualified acoustic specialist to otherwise address the requirements of SPP 5.4.

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary

Street setback areas shall be visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level as per clause 5.2.4 C4 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of dwellings C and D, the boundary wall located on

the southern elevation of each respective survey strata boundary shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

coloured sand render,

face brick,

painted surface,

other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the occupation of each development, vehicle crossovers shall

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

8. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTES:

i. In regards to the front fence condition, visually permeable is defined by LPP 2.8 Fences Policy as:


Page 63

Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has:

Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width occupying not less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or

A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

ii. It is recommended that the applicant liaise with then northern and eastern adjoining property owners regarding the possible retention or replacement of the existing dividing fence along the common lot boundary. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act 1961 for the rights and responsibilities of land owners regarding dividing fences. Information is available at the following website: http://buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bid/Dividing_Fences.aspx.

iii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iv. Any new crossover associated with the hereby approved development must receive separate approval from the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate.

v. New crossover(s) shall comply with the City’s standard for standard crossovers, which are available on the City of Fremantle’s web site. Prior to commencing construction of the crossover(s), the developer is to contact the Engineering Project Officer on 9432 9999 to arrange an inspection or alternatively via [email protected].

vi. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure by:

a. a minimum of 3.0 metres in the case of the verge tree in front of Lot A

b. a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture),

c. a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and directional signs,

d. in the case of the Lot B crossover, crossover is to be clear of SEP/drainage infrastructure on Blinco Street.

vii. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be

uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.


Page 64

PC1806 -6 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 126 (LOT 73), NORTH FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR DA0515/11 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY WITH UNDERCROFT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) - (CJ ET01/18)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Application for extension

2: Original approval DA0515/11 3: Site photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought to extend the term of development approval DA0515/11, for the demolition of existing building and the construction of a three storey (with undercroft) mixed use development at No. 126 (Lot 73) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The request has been assessed against the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and local planning policies. The proposed request does not satisfy Clause 3.2 (a) of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 – Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals as there have been material changes to LPS4 and Local Planning Policies, as well as the introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, since Planning Approval was granted on 12 July 2012. The request is recommended for refusal. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought to extend the term of Planning Approval DA0515/11 for the demolition of existing building and the construction of a three storey (with undercroft) Mixed Use development (Office and Multiple dwellings) at No. 126 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle which was due to have substantially commenced by 12 July 2016. A two year extension of time was issued in July of 2016, which extended the time until 12 July 2018. The applicant is seeking an additional four (4) year extension to the term of the planning approval to substantially commence before 12 July 2022. The request has been lodged by the applicant, who has advised the following: As a consequence of the downturn in the Perth property market and corresponding oversupply of apartments we have been unable to feasibly commence the development within the timeframe provided for in the approval.


Page 65

Whilst we are wholeheartedly committed the development of the site and are excited to participate in the gentrification of this precinct the prevailing market conditions have prevented us from doing so. As such we request a four year extension to the planning approval in order to commence marketing, achieve the necessary pre-sale, secure bank funding, obtain the necessary building licence and permits and appoint a building company, all of which is required to commence development. Site/application information Date received: 6 March 2018 Owner name: Harlech Nominees and Blair, Francis and Heath Gerrard Submitted by: Lachlan Gerrard Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Warehouse/Office Use class: Office and Multiple Dwelling Use permissibility: P and A

CONSULTATION

External referrals The application has not been referred to Main Roads WA, as the application is recommended for refusal. Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and/or Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3).


Page 66

OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant Council local planning policies and is discussed below. Background The site is zoned Mixed Use with a density coding of R25 under LPS4 and is located within the North Fremantle local planning area. The site is 729m2 in area and located in the street block bounded by Coventry Parade, Stirling Highway, Pamment Street and Thompson Road. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage list; however it is located within a prescribed Heritage Area. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to this application:

Application for development lodged 19 October 2011 (DA0515/11).

Processing of the application included two DAC presentations, culminating in a condition of approval.

The application was advertised with no submissions received.

The key discretions were as follows:

o Building height

o Street setback

o Side and rear setbacks

o Landscaping

o Visual privacy

o Solar access for adjoining sites

Approval was granted by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 4 July 2012.

Application to extend the term of approval lodged on 4 July 2016, citing the need for further time to “obtain the necessary pre-sales and funding required to commence development”. A time frame was not specified.

Approval for a two year extension was issued under delegation on 12 July 2016. Extension to the term of development approval Clause 77 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provides local governments with the authority to amend a development approval -

(1) An owner of land in respect of which development approval has been granted by the local government may make an application to the local government requesting the local government to do any or all of the following –

(a) to amend the approval so as to extend the period within which any development approved must be substantially commenced Furthermore,

(2) An application made under subclause (1) – (a) Is to be made in accordance with the requirements in Part 8 and dealt with

under this Part as if it were an application for development approval; and (b) May be made during or after the period within which the development

approved must be substantially commenced.


Page 67

In dealing with the proposal as if it were an application for development approval, all current statutory provisions and seriously entertained documents must be taken into account. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) Since the original approval of 2012, the Regulations have been gazetted. Clause 67 requires local government to have due regard to a number of matters prior to issuing approval for development. As noted in clause 77 above, a proposal to extend the substantial commencement date for this approval must be reviewed with consideration of changes to the statutory framework. Notwithstanding the detailed assessment required against this clause in relation to the design of the proposed development (traffic, impact of bulk, land use etc.), the proposal is not considered to be consistent with clause 67 of the Regulations, by way of the following matter to be considered:

The requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving

In regard to orderly and proper planning, there have been a number of decisions in the State Administrative Tribunal which have considered a request to extend the term of an approval against various iterations of clauses and policies that allow extensions to the term of approval. In these cases the tribunal has established a test for considering the orderly and proper planning of such a requested, being:

Whether the planning framework has changed substantially since the development approval was granted.

Whether the development would likely receive approval now.

Whether the holder of the development approval has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development approval.

As discussed throughout this report, it is established that the planning framework has changed significantly since 2012. Although it is noted that the changes to legislation would not prohibit a similar development on the subject site, relevant changes have occurred that may improve design quality of the development or restrict the built form somewhat. A detailed assessment would be required which is not the intent of this application. An extension of time should only be permitted in the instance another assessment is not required because there is no significant change in planning requirements, In addition to these changes, it is also noted that, to the City’s knowledge, the applicant has not actively pursued the implementation of the development consent nor have they provided substantive evidence that demonstrates this. In this regard an application for a Building Permit has not been received with the application having previously had one extension of time. The applicant has advised they are yet to get finance or commence pre-sales also and have requested a period of four (4) years to commence their development.


Page 68

Draft SPP7 Design of the Built Environment and SPP7.3 -Apartment Design Codes The state government has released a draft document designed to guide the development of multiple dwellings i.e. a replacement for part 6 of the current Residential Design Codes. The document has been out for public advertising and is due for release in early 2018 according to the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage website and could be considered to be a seriously entertained document. The document includes a significantly greater number of criteria, not only relating to the building’s interaction with neighbours and the streetscape, but also the internal amenity of the proposed apartments. There is a significant change to the assessment required in comparison with the current R-Codes. Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Since the approval of 2012, the R-Codes have been amended three (3) times. Detailed assessment would be required to determine the combined effect of the changes on the proposed development and while likely to be minor, in combination with other changes will contribute to the significant change in assessment needed. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) As part of Amendment 49 to LPS4, a mandatory requirement was introduced for developments of 11m or greater to be referred to the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) for advice. Matters were also introduced to assist the Committee in determining the design quality of the development (clause 78(6)(c)) in January 2013. It is noted that the original application involved referral to the DAC, which was established under the general Advisory Committee provisions of the Scheme, however 78(6)(c) did not exist at the time of the approval in July 2012. LPP 1.1 – Amendment and extension to the term of planning approval The City’s local planning policy states: 3.1 Where an extension is granted, a period of up to a further two years will be granted. The applicant has advised that they require a period of four years to commence, not two, meaning the request is inconsistent with the requirements of the policy. The current request for another extension will effectively extend the approval term of the original application an additional six (6) years since the original expiry date of 12 July 2016. 3.2 In considering a request for an extension to the term of a planning application under clause 10.5.2 of the Scheme, Council may have regard to the following factors;

(a) whether the scheme or relevant planning policy has changed in a material way since the planning approval was granted

(b) whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in relation to the scheme or policy requirements; and

(c) whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the planning approval relates or the surrounding locality since the planning approval was granted.

In relation to 3.2a) above, there have been a number of material legislative changes since Planning Approval was granted for DA0515/11, including the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. This report details the changes where relevant.


Page 69

In relation to 3.2b), a number of discretions were exercised in the original application that required advertising. In relation to c) there is now a Single house on the property to the south of the site which did not exist at the time of the original approval which involved discretionary assessments, including a reduced southern lot boundary setback. LPP1.9 Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design In addition to the Scheme amendment undertaken in 2013, the Council adopted a local planning policy to guide the DAC and officers in principles of design. This policy was adopted in June of 2013, after the July 2012 approval of the development. Draft LPP 2.21 R60 Development under Clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 Significant discretion was sought against the requirements of the scheme for the original approval of the application, mainly the issuing of approval under the R60, Mixed Use bonus clause:

Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 4.2.3 residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Since this time, a local planning policy has been approved by Council for advertising to elaborate on what is meant by protecting “amenity”. This requires assessment in greater detail than previously undertaken. At the time of writing this report, officers were preparing a report for an upcoming Strategic Planning and Transport Committee to report back on the outcome of advertising and make a final recommendation on adoption of the policy. Given the advanced stage of progress reached with preparation of the policy, officers consider it should be treated as a ‘seriously entertained’ policy proposal for the purposes of determination of the application which is the subject of this report. CONCLUSION Based on the above factors, it is considered that there have been a number of legislative changes to the City’s LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s local planning policies, as well as changes to the land use and built form of the adjoining, southern property, since planning approval was granted. It is therefore considered that granting an extension is not in accordance with orderly and proper planning and the request should not be supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25


Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Increase the net lettable areas of office space

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle

Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.


Page 70

1. It appears that some vegetation would need to be removed to accommodate the development.

2. Planning Approval is not required for the removal of trees on private land. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



The Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, extension to term of Development Approval granted on 12 July 2012 at No. 126 (Lot 73) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, for the demolition of existing building and construction of three storey (with undercroft) Mixed Use Development (Office and Multiple Dwellings), for the following reasons:

a) The proposal is inconsistent with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 clause 67 Matters to be considered and 77 Amending or cancelling development approval.

b) The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 3.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 – Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals, as there has been material changes to, or the introduction of:

a. The Residential Design Codes; b. The City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4; c. LPP 1.9 Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design and d. Residential development on adjoining sites, specifically to the

south.


Page 71

PC1806 -7 HENDERSON STREET NO.8-10 (LOTS 374 AND 375), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR DAP80010/13 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A FIVE STOREY OFFICE AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT) - (JL ET02/18)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Applicant’s Request for Extension to term of Planning

Approval 2: Planning Approval for DAP80010/13 3: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought to extend the term of development approval DAP0010/13, for the demolition of existing building / public carpark and construction of a five storey office and retail development at No. 8-10 Henderson Street, Fremantle. The request has been assessed against the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and relevant Local Planning Policies. The proposed request is considered to satisfy Clause 3.2(a) of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals and therefore the request to extend the term of planning approval is recommended for approval. PROPOSAL

Detail On 19 March 2014 the South West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) granted planning approval for DAP80010/13 for the demolition of an existing building / public carpark and the construction of a five storey office and retail development. The applicant is seeking a two year extension to the term of the planning approval to substantially commence before 18 March 2020. This is the first extension to the term of planning approval sought by the applicant for this development. The extension is sought as a result of the proponent being unable to achieve substantial commencement of the approved development within the four year period specified in Condition 1of the original DAP approval, which is due to expire on 19 March 2018. A full copy of the applicant’s justification for the extension is set out in their covering letter (see Attachment 1) and a copy of the original planning approval (see Attachment 2) of this report. Site/application information Date received: 19 March 2018


Page 72

Owner name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: Element Scheme: City Centre Heritage listing: Historic and Archaeological site Existing land use: Public Carpark and Shop Use class: Shop and Office Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and / or Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant Council local planning policies and is discussed below. Background The site is zoned ‘City Centre’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (LPA 4) – Sub area 1.3.2 as prescribed in


Page 73

Schedule 8 of LPS4. The site comprises two lots which equate to a total of 2,834m2 in area and are located on the south west corner of William Street and Henderson Street, Fremantle. Both sites are adopted under the City’s Heritage List as Historic / Archeological Sites and also are nearby to the following State Heritage Registered places:

No. 7- 29 Henderson Street, Fremantle (commonly referred to as ‘the Warders Cottages’).

No. 64 South Terrace, Fremantle, being the Sail & Anchor building.

No. 74 South Terrace, Fremantle, being the Fremantle Markets building.

No. 45 Henderson Street, Fremantle, being the Fremantle Police Station and Courthouse.

Furthermore, the subject site falls within the West End Conservation Area which is a prescribed heritage area under Schedule 2 clause 9 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The subject site contains an existing building with a floor area of approximately 617m2, operating as a Shop while the rest of the site is utilized as vehicle parking and public access to the adjacent Paddy Troy Mall. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to this application:

At its meeting of 5 March 2014, the Council’s then Planning Services Committee (now known as Planning Committee) recommended to the JDAP that the application DAP80010/13 be granted conditional Planning Approval for the original development.

On 13 March 2014, the South West Joint Development Assessment Panel granted conditional approval for DAP80010/13.

Although the existing term of approval expired on 19 March 2018 as this application for a further extension was received on 19 March 2018, the current term of Planning Approval will not expire until this application has been determined. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) Extension to the term of development approval Clause 77 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provides local governments with the authority to amend a development approval -

(1) An owner of land in respect of which development approval has been granted by the local government may make an application to the local government requesting the local government to do any or all of the following – (a) to amend the approval so as to extend the period within which any

development approved must be substantially commenced Furthermore,

(2) An application made under subclause (1) – (a) Is to be made in accordance with the requirements in Part 8 and dealt with

under this Part as if it were an application for development approval; and (b) May be made during or after the period within which the development

approved must be substantially commenced.


Page 74

In dealing with the proposal as if it were an application for development approval, all current statutory provisions and seriously entertained documents must be taken into account. Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (LPP1.1) Clause 3.1 – 3.3 inclusive of LPP1.1 states:

3.1 Where an extension is granted, a period of up to a further two years will be granted.

3.2 In considering a request for an extension to the term of a planning approval under clause 10.5.2 of the Scheme, Council may have regard to the following factors; (a) whether the scheme or a relevant planning policy has changed in a

material way since the planning approval was granted; (b) whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in

relation to the Scheme or policy requirements; and (c) whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the

planning approval relates or the surrounding locality since the planning approval was granted.

3.3 Where a request to extend the term of a planning approval is approved, a letter will be issued advising the applicant of this. No new approval will be issued and all other conditions of the approval will remain unchanged.

With regards to cl3.1 the applicant is seeking a two year extension to the proposal. Since the original determination of this application the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) have been gazetted. The Regulations are a major part of WA’s planning reform agenda and make changes to permitted development and other planning processes. These regulations sit separately to any applicable town / local planning schemes and have effect throughout Western Australia. It is not considered these Regulations will materially affect how development on this property is considered in their current form. In determining the original application and assessment against cl 3.2(b) above, discretionary assessments were supported against the following aspects of the proposal:

Building height Schedule 8 LPS4, and

On-site Vehicle Parking. Apart from the gazettal of the Regulations, no other legislation changes have been introduced that would materially affect the assessment of the original application and as such the above discretionary assessments would not have altered. With regards to cl3.2 (c), no material changes have occurred to the subject site, but there have been changes to the immediate surrounding locality. Particularly, the adjacent northern site (No.10 William Street, 2 Newman Court and 20 Henderson Street) are currently under demolition. However these built form changes to the immediate locality again do not materially affect the assessment of the original application.


Page 75

Overall, the proposed extension of time for Planning Approval is considered to be consistent with the provisions contained within City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals. Consequently, taking all of the above into consideration an extension to the term of approval for DAP80010/13 is supported for another two years in accordance with the maximum term stated in L.P.P1.1. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the net lettable areas of office space

Increase the net lettable area of retail space FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



The Planning Committee acting under delegation 2.1:

APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 extension to the term of approval for a period not exceeding two years from the date of 19 March 2018, for the demolition of existing building and development of a five storey office and retail development at No.8 and 10 (Lot 374 and 375) Henderson Street, Fremantle, subject to the same terms and conditions as stated on the Approval to Commence Development notice, reference DAP80010/13, dated 19 March 2014.


Page 76

PC1806 -8 NEWMAN COURT NO.2 (LOT 1), WILLIAM STREET NO.10-14 (LOT 2) AND HENDERSON STREET NO.20 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - CLEARANCE OF CONDITION FOR PLANNING APPROVAL VA0016/17 (JL)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Revised awning drawings (South Campus)

2: Form 2 JDAP Determination letter and Plans SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for the Planning Committee to consider details of the design of ground level external awnings on the south campus building of Sirona’s Kings Square redevelopment. This design detail did not form part of the approval granted by the City of Fremantle on 24 November 2017 to variations to the original development approval for the whole Sirona development. The applicant seeks Council’s approval that the revised south campus awning design (shown on the plans in Attachment 1 to this item ) complies with condition 1.2(a) requirements for VA0016/17. Notwithstanding that the Design Advisory Committee has not expressed support for the design of the awning additions as currently proposed, these features are not considered to be an integral structural element of the buildings. Officers consider they can be regarded as a relatively minor design element which is ephemeral in nature, and could and most likely will be modified in the future to respond to changing functions of the ground level part of the buildings. Officers do not consider these awnings materially affect the previous assessment of the overall design of the development as being of exceptional quality befitting its location. Accordingly the awning design is recommended for approval. PROPOSAL

Detail The applicant is seeking Councils confirmation that the amended plans (refer to attachment 1) are acceptable and comply with the requirements of planning condition No.1.2 (a) of VA0016/17. Condition 1.2(a) reads as follows:

Notwithstanding condition 1.1 a) the ’arched’ shaped awning proposed to the Newman Court (south of Tidal Lane) and William Street elevations does not form part of this approval and a revised design of these awnings, illustrating a simplified form, are to be submitted, prior to the issue of a Building Permit to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, upon advice from the Design Advisory Committee.

Site/application information Date received: 30 May 2018 Owner name: Sirona Capital Management Pty Ltd ATF Submitted by: Sirona Capital Management Pty Ltd ATF


Page 77

Scheme: City Centre Heritage listing: Historic/ Archaeological Site Existing land use: Shop, Office, Public Car Park (existing) and Restaurant Use class: Shop, Office, Public Car Park (existing) and Restaurant Use permissibility: P, P, A & P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil Community A request to clear a condition of Planning Approval is not required to be advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and / or Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant Council local planning policies. Background On 9 February 2017 the South West Joint Development Assessment Panel granted planning approval for the demolition of existing building, partial demolition of existing building and construction of two (2) five storey commercial developments and alterations


Page 78

to existing building at No. 2 (Lot 1) Newman Court, Fremantle, No. 10-14 (Lot 2) William Street, Fremantle and No. 20 (Lot 3) Henderson Street, Fremantle. On 24 November 2018 the City granted planning approval for variations to DAP0006/16, subject to conditions including condition 1.2(a) as referred to above in the ‘Proposal’ section of this report. Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the variation determination letter and plans. Design Advisory Committee advice The proposed awning amendments have been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on several occasions with the most recent being 14 May 2018. At this meeting, the DAC advised:

The DAC did not support the awning proposition from the outset and does not agree with the genesis of the development of the form and presentation of these awnings. If the Project Team seeks the DAC’s support for the awnings proposed in the submission additional details including the construction methodology, lighting details, signage locations, drainage details, more details on the proposed finishes and views of the underside of the awnings.

In response to the applicants’ submission which included images of examples of the proposed materials and additional elevation and plan details the DAC advises that it does not support the proposed awning design for the following reasons:

The details provided do not adequately demonstrate that the awning structure will be of a quality that is equivalent or higher than that quality of the development which was judged to be of ‘exceptional design quality’ by the DAC and the Council. The details do not adequately resolve the DAC’s previous concerns relating to drainage, lighting and signage.

The DAC advises as per its original advice that the awnings are not considered to be befitting of this civic location and will not contribute to the considered and restrained architecture of the development. Officer assessment

The applicant has advised that the material and design of awnings is to promote/market and clearly differentiate the office and retail/entertainment functions of the buildings. Although it is acknowledged that the DAC has not expressed support for the design of the awning additions on the basis of details provided to date, these features are not considered to be an integral structural element of the buildings. Officers consider they can be regarded as a relatively minor design element which is ephemeral or transitional in nature, and could and most likely will be modified in the future (possibly within a few years) to respond to changing functions of the ground level part of the buildings and changing marketing and retail trends. Officers do not consider these awnings to materially affect the previous or original assessment of the overall design of the development as being of exceptional quality befitting its location.


Page 79

The revised awnings are considered to provide necessary weather protection to Newman Court and William Street and draw interest to the ground floor of the development and its retail/entertainment offerings. Having regard to the ability to change or replace these features in the future, on balance, the proposed awnings are not considered to adversely affect the overall external design of the buildings or their relationship with the Kings Square public realm. Conclusion Again whilst acknowledging the views of the DAC regarding the design of the awnings the revised design and modifications are, on balance, considered by officers to be supportable. Accordingly officers recommend that the attached plans of the revised awnings design are approved as satisfying the requirements of condition 1.2(a) of VA0016/17. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



The Planning Committee acting under delegation 2.1: Approve plans dated 29 May 2018 for the modified south campus awning for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of condition 1.2(a) of planning approval VA0016/17.


Page 80

PC1806 -9 SAT SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION - HENDERSON STREET, NOS. 31-41 AND 45 (LOTS 2073 AND 535) - FIVE (5) STOREY HOTEL, CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS (NB DAP007/17)

Meeting Date: 6 June 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: JDAP Attachments: 1: Previous Responsible Authority Report

2: Development Approval (DAP007/17) SUMMARY

Approval is sought to amend or delete three conditions of approval imposed on the approved development for a five (5) storey Hotel, Change of Use to Tavern and Restaurant, and Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings on the old Police Station site at Nos. 31-45 Henderson Street, Fremantle. The application was determined by the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) and is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) for a recommendation prior to being referred back to JDAP for a reconsideration in accordance with section 31 (s.31) of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Act 2004, as ordered by SAT. The development was conditionally supported by Planning Committee at the 7 March 2018 meeting and subsequently conditionally approved by JDAP on 19 March 2018. On 10 April 2018, the applicant submitted an appeal to SAT seeking to delete condition 17 and amend conditions 15 and 18. The original conditions imposed are as follows:

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an updated environmental acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required to achieve an compliant internal noise level for all the proposed Hotel rooms located within Blocks D, E and F is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

17. Prior to occupation of the development, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle and registered against the Certificate of Title(s) to notify owners and prospective purchasers the land may be affected by activities and noise from existing surrounding land uses, including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. All costs and incidentals relating to the preparation of and registration of the Section 70A notification, including related City of Fremantle Solicitors’ costs, shall be met by the owner of the land.


Page 81

18. Prior to occupation of the development, a Hotel Management Plan to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The management plan is to include information about parking and alternative transport options, specific details as to how the hotel operator will inform guests about potential noise from activities and events at nearby sources including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. The approved Management plan is to be implemented, thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

With approved Advice Note (ii) stating:

ii. With regard to the condition for an updated acoustic consultant report, the applicant is advised that they are strongly encouraged to investigate methods of noise attenuation for the Hotel rooms that would achieve a higher level of attenuation above the minimum standard.

During the course of the SAT mediation, JDAP and the City agreed to review amended conditions of approval. These amendments to the above conditions are the subject of the current report. It is recommended that condition 17 be deleted, and that conditions 15 and 18, and Advice Note (ii) be amended as follows:

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an updated environmental acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required for the hotel bedrooms to achieve 35-40 dB(A) for general ambient noise is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

18. Prior to the occupation of the Hotel development hereby approved, a

Business Management Plan for the proposed Hotel including details on parking and alternative transport options, noise management, deliveries and waste management shall be submitted for approval and thereafter implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

Advice Note:

ii. With regard to the condition seeking an updated acoustic consultant report:

The updated acoustic report is to be based on the method of reporting as detailed in the applicant’s Acoustic Report (Ref 17104190-01.docx).

The applicant is advised that they are strongly encouraged to investigate methods of noise attenuation for the Hotel rooms that would achieve a higher level of attenuation above the minimum standard.

The above matters are discussed in the Responsible Authority Report below.


Page 82

PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought to delete condition 17 and amend conditions 15 and 18 of the determination. Site/application information Date received: 10 April 2018 Owner name: Silverleaf Investments Pty Ltd Submitted by: PTS Town Planning Pty Ltd Scheme: City Centre Heritage listing: Level 1A, West End Conservation Area, Convict Grant Existing land use: Vacant buildings, carpark Use class: Hotel, Tavern, Restaurant, Shop, Office Use permissibility: A, A, A, P, P


The Planning Committee acting under delegation 1.2: SUPORT the Officer’s recommendation that JDAP:

Reconsider its decision dated 19 March 2018 and approve DAP Application reference DAP/17/01316 and accompanying plans DA4 –DA30, DA32, DA34, DA36, DA38, DA40, DA42, DA43 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to


Page 83

the same terms and conditions of plans approved 19 March 2018 except whereby modified below: A. Condition 17 be deleted.

B. Conditions 15 and 18 be modified as follows:

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an updated environmental

acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required for the hotel bedrooms to achieve 35-40 dB(A) for general ambient noise is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.



C. Advice Note (ii) be amended as follows:

ii. With regard to the condition seeking an updated acoustic consultant

report:




Page 84

State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration

Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: Nos. 31-41 (Lot 2073) and No. 45 (Lot 535) Henderson Street

Development Description: Five (5) storey Hotel, change of use to Tavern and Restaurant, and additions and alterations to existing buildings

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: PTS Town Planning Pty Ltd

Owner: Silverleaf Investments Pty Ltd

Value of Development: $10 million

LG Reference: DAP007/17

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

DAP No: DAP/17/01316

Report Date: 12 February 2018

Application Received Date: 24 October 2017

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Previous Determination Notice and Plans

Officer Recommendation:

That the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel, pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 84 of 2018, resolves to:

Reconsider its decision dated 19 March 2018 and approve DAP Application reference DAP/17/01316 and accompanying plans DA4 –DA30, DA32, DA34, DA36, DA38, DA40, DA42, DA43 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the same terms and conditions of plans approved 19 March 2018 except whereby modified below:

Conditions:

A. Condition 17 be deleted.

B. Conditions 15 and 18 be modified as follows:

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an updated environmental acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required for the hotel bedrooms to achieve 35-40 dB(A) for general ambient noise is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved


Page 85

acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.



C. Advice Note (ii) be amended as follows:



The applicant is advised that they are strongly encouraged to investigate methods of noise attenuation for the Hotel rooms that would achieve a higher level of attention above the minimum standard.

Details: outline of development application

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City Zone

TPS: City Centre Zone

Insert Use Class: Hotel ‘A’, Tavern ‘A’, Restaurant ‘A’, Shop ‘P’, Office ‘P’

Insert Strategy Policy: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Insert Development Scheme: 7819m2

Insert Lot Size: Vacant buildings

Insert Existing Land Use: Central City Zone

Approval is sought to delete condition 17, and amend conditions 15 and 18 of the approval granted 19 March 2018. The original conditions are as follows:



18. Prior to occupation of the development, a Hotel Management Plan to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 86

The management plan is to include information about parking and alternative transport options, specific details as to how the hotel operator will inform guests about potential noise from activities and events at nearby sources including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. The approved Management plan is to be implemented, thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Amended conditions 15 and 18 are proposed as follows:


18. Prior to the occupation of the Hotel development hereby approved, a Business

Management Plan for the proposed Hotel including details on parking and alternative transport options, noise management, deliveries and waste management shall be submitted for approval and thereafter implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

To provide additional clarity in regards to condition 15, Advice Note (ii) is recommended to be amended as follows:




The approved development proposed changes to the use and additions and alterations of the former Courthouse, Police Station and Warders Cottages (W2) at 31-45 Henderson Street, Fremantle, comprising the following:

five (5) storey Hotel comprising 62 rooms

demolition of selected buildings and structures

conservation works to existing heritage buildings

additions and alterations to existing heritage buildings

change of use as follows:

o Hotel – ‘A’ use

o Tavern – ‘A’ use

o Restaurant – ‘A’ use

o Shops (exempt from development approval under Schedule A of LPS4)

o Offices (exempt from development approval under Schedule A of LPS4)


Page 87

Background: The site consists of two separate lots, being Nos. 31-41 (Lot 2073) and No. 45 (Lot 535) Henderson Street, Fremantle. The lots are bound by Parry Street to the east and south-east, William Street directly to the south, Henderson Street to the west, and Holdsworth Street to the north. The site directly abuts the Artillery Drill Hall, an existing state heritage registered building approved as a live music venue that is proposed to be reactivated in late 2018. The site is also located across the road from the Fremantle Markets to the southwest and the Fremantle Oval to the southeast. On 19 March 2018, the JDAP approved the five (5) storey Hotel, change of use to Tavern and Restaurant, and additions and alterations to the existing buildings (Ref: DAP/17/01316). On 10 April 2018, the applicant lodged an appeal with SAT seeking the deletion of condition 17 and amendments to conditions 15 and 18 of the approval. These changes to the conditions of approval are the subject of this report. Legislation & policy: Legislation Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions)

67. Matters to be considered by local government Local Planning Scheme No. 4

3.2.1 (b) Objectives of the Zones – City Centre zone

Table 1 Zoning

Schedule 8: Sub area 1 City Centre State Government Policies

Nil Local Policies

LPP 2.18: New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone - Noise from an Existing Source

Consultation: Public Consultation No public consultation was required to be carried out as a result of the proposed amendments/deletions of the conditions. Planning assessment:


Page 88

Officer Comments Deletion of Condition 17 Condition 17 of the original approval states:


The requirement for the notification on title arose from Council’s policy LPP 2.18, which requires such a notification to be put on the title of all residential uses within the City Centre to notify owners of potential urban centre noise. In respect to this condition, the applicant contends that:

the land use of Hotel is not considered a residential land use as defined by the Residential Design Codes and, therefore, LPP 2.18 does not apply

the JDAP is not a ‘Public Authority’ for the purposes of requiring a section 70A notification on title and has no legal ability to do so.

A case regarding whether the JDAP has legal ability to impose the condition is currently being decided by the Supreme Court and is, in any event, a legal question not addressed in this report. City officers accept the fact that a Hotel use is not defined as a residential land use and it would likely be difficult to require the condition to remain from a legal perspective. Further, a notification on title is for the benefit of the landowner and is not something a hotel guest or other on-site commercial operators would ever see. In terms of efficacy in alerting guests to the fact that the Hotel is located within a busy urban hub and providing noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the building, condition 17 has no impact. For the intended purpose of reducing land use conflict in relation to noise, conditions 15 and 18 are better suited. Should a change of use to a residential use be proposed in the future within the site, the change will require development approval. At that point, it would be considered proper and more legally defensible to require a notification on title as a condition of that approval. It would also better fit the intended purpose, which is to alert any new landowners to an existing noise issue. Further, should the land be subdivided in the future, the City may consider imposing a notification on title as a condition of subdivision, where there may be more solid legal ground for support. It is recommended that condition 17 be deleted. Amending Condition 15


Page 89

The approved condition states:


Advice Note (ii) stated:

ii. The applicant is advised that they are strongly encouraged to investigate methods of noise attenuation for the Hotel rooms that would achieve a higher level of attenuation above the minimum standard.

The condition is necessary to ensure that the Hotel can achieve the levels required by the noise regulations due to the Hotel being located within a busy central city area. The preliminary acoustic report provided by the applicant included recommendations to ensure the development would comply with the noise regulations, but also advised that a further report would be necessary once more details of the development were known. The applicant’s acoustic report concluded, in part:

During the detailed design, separate acoustic reports will be undertaken in order to comply with the criteria and these can be made available to the City of Fremantle. It is envisaged the reports will consist of: …

Ambient Noise Assessment Report

This report will quantify existing noise levels on the site, including those that currently exist over the weekend. Some noise sources such as the Drill Hall music venue and this development itself will not exist and therefore assumptions, as per this DA report will be made for these.

City officers accepted the report’s conclusions and supported the fact that any future reporting was to make assumptions about noise to Hotel rooms from the other land uses within the proposed subject development as well as potential noise from adjoining sites including the Fremantle Oval, Fremantle Markets, and the Drill Hall. However, the applicant raised concerns that the approved condition did not provide certainty as to how the future noise levels would be assessed and may result in further delays to the process. In response, City offers agreed to amend the condition to clarify the expectations for the future acoustic reporting based on the recommendations of the applicant’s own preliminary report to ensure that the desired dB readings in line with the regulations are achieved. The amended condition provides more definite requirements without compromising the acoustic compatibility of the Hotel rooms with existing and future land uses.


Page 90

The amended condition is appended with an amended advice note. The amendments are proposed as follows:


ADVICE NOTE:




Amending Condition 18 The approved condition states:

18. Prior to occupation of the development, a Hotel Management Plan to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The management plan is to include information about parking and alternative transport options, specific details as to how the hotel operator will inform guests about potential noise from activities and events at nearby sources including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. The approved Management plan is to be implemented, thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The condition was imposed for the following reasons:

The application sought significant parking discretion and the City wanted to ensure parking, transportation and deliveries were able to be managed successfully.

The City wanted to ensure that noise from the subject site was suitably managed so as not to be detrimental to the amenity of hotel guests.

As the land use of ‘Hotel’ was discretionary, the City wanted to be satisfied that the hotel was prepared to handle potential amenity issues that may occasionally arise due to the location of the site within a busy entertainment hub.

The proposed condition has been amended to be more consistent with the condition imposed on the other set of Warders Cottages at Nos. 19-29 Henderson Street (DAP005/17: Change of use to Hotel and additions and alterations to existing buildings). The condition is necessary and considered to have a valid planning purpose as the application sought significant discretion against the City’s parking requirements, and was proposing a discretionary land use for which the City wanted to ensure that any amenity issues arising from the central city location could be adequately addressed. The amended condition states:


Page 91

18. Prior to the occupation of the Hotel development hereby approved, a Business Management Plan for the proposed Hotel including details on parking and alternative transport options, noise management, deliveries and waste management shall be submitted for approval and thereafter implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

The requested management plan will confirm that the Hotel operator has considered the location of the Hotel in regards to potential issues that may arise from adjoining land uses. Conclusion: Amended conditions 15 and 18 and the accompanying advice note provide clarity to the applicant without compromising the City’s objectives of ensuring the discretionary land use of Hotel will be compatible within the subject site in regards to noise and amenity. Deleting condition 17 will have little or no impact in regards to the approved development being able to achieve the desired level of acoustic compliance and may be added in the future should further subdivision or appropriate change of use be proposed.


Page 92

PC1806 -10 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

Applications that have been determined by the Metro South-West JDAP and/or are JDAP/Planning Committee determinations that are subject to an application for review at the State Administrative Tribunal are included in the attachment. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the information is noted.


Page 93

PC1806 -11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Under delegation, Development Approvals officers determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications relating to the place and proposals as listed in the attachments.


That the information is noted.


Page 94

Council decision

Nil

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

A member may raise at a meeting such business of the City as they consider appropriate, in the form of a motion of which notice has been given to the CEO.

13. URGENT BUSINESS

In cases of extreme urgency or other special circumstances, matters may, on a motion that is carried by the meeting, be raised without notice and decided by the meeting.

14. LATE ITEMS

In cases where information is received after the finalisation of an agenda, matters may be raised and decided by the meeting. A written report will be provided for late items.

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Members of the public may be asked to leave the meeting while confidential business is addressed.

16. CLOSURE

Agenda - City of Fremantle Commit… · mixed use development) - (cj et01/18) 98 pc1806 -7...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda - City of Fremantle Commit… · mixed use development) - (cj et01/18) 98 pc1806 -7...