MINUTES - City of Fremantle · Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2016 Page 4...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 23 March 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 4

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 5

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 5

TABLED DOCUMENTS 5

LATE ITEMS NOTED 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS 6

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE 1 MARCH 2016 6

AC1603-1 ADOPTION OF THE 2015 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 6

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 2 MARCH 2016 13

PC1603-9 SCHEME AMENDMENT 68 INITIATION REPORT - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 68 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS TO THE MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE 13

PC1603-10 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 66 (CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND MODIFICATION TO THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS TO PART OF THE LOCAL CENTRE ZONE AND MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD, SOUTH FREMANTLE 40

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 9 MARCH 2016 61

SPD1603-1 DEFERRED ITEM - PRINCIPLES OF A SCHEME AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE GREATER HOUSING DIVERSITY - UPDATE ON DRAFT CONTENT 61

SPD1603-2 INFORMATION REPORT - SUSTAINABLE EVENTS GUIDELINE AND CHECKLIST 91

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 16 MARCH 2016 93

FPOL1603-7 ADVERTISE PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD CLOSURE PORTION OF MEWS ROAD, FREMANTLE FOR AMALGAMATION WITH THE ADJOINING RESERVE NO. 27807 MANAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (DOT) 93

FPOL1603-8 PROPOSED DEDICATION AS PUBLIC CITY OF FREMANTLE OWNED RIGHT OF WAY NO. 7 COMBEN PLACE, NORTH FREMANTLE (KW) 99

FPOL1603-9 DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION - FREO CLUB 104

FPOL1603-10 INFORMATION REPORT - CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION (CEFC) LOAN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST 108

FPOL1603-11 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016 110

FPOL1603-3 APPROVAL OF LEASE FOR ENKEL - NAVAL STORES, CANTONMENT HILL 118

FPOL1603-4 FLY BY NIGHT CLUB REQUEST FOR DEBT RELIEF AND APPROVAL OF LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 136

FPOL1603-5 AWARD OF TENDER FCC461/15 - FREMANTLE TOWN HALL EXTERNAL CONSERVATION WORKS 147

FPOL1603-6 KNUTSFORD DEPOT SITE REDEVELOPMENT - BUSINESS CASE 157

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 164

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 164

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 164

COUNCIL ITEMS 164

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 165

FPOL1603-12 OFFER TO PURCHASE - 73 HAMPTON ROAD, FREMANTLE 165

CLOSURE OF MEETING 166

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2016

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 23 March 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.04 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward (arrived 6.28pm) Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Mr Pete Stone Acting Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Lionel Nicholson Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Mr Sam Bryce Manager City Assets Ms Beverley Bone Manager Community Development Mr Tom Griffiths Manager Economic Development Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Ms Tahnee Bunting Strategic Planning Officer Ms Jennifer Valesini Senior Project Officer – Community Engagement Ms Gena Binet Heritage Project Officer Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary Ms Chantelle Blight Public Relations Officer (observer)


Page 2

There were approximately 12 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Summary of question by Tony Toledo, Co-Chairperson Fremantle Residents Ratepayers Association in relation to item FPOL1603-3

1. Is the Council comfortable entering into a long term legal agreement as a lease with Enkel?

2. Is the Council happy with Enkel’s business plan? 3. Is their any relationship between Councillors and Council with any of the Enkel

Staff and/or employees? 4. Is the Council comfortable with Enkel’s operating history both here in WA and over

east?

Summary of question by Tony Toledo, Co-Chairperson Fremantle Residents Ratepayers Association in relation to item FPOL1603-12

1. Have all the repairs been carried out on the property? 2. Have all the potential owners been notified on the issues of the property? 3. Is there a building report available to potential buyers and to ratepayers?

Summary of response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

I will respond to the Enkel questions, tonight we are not authorising leases we are merely authorising staff to start negotiating one. That is the process and that lease will come back to Council. I think those issues that you have raised will be covered in the lease negotiations and that covers those questions. Summary of response from Glen Dougall, Director City Business

Regarding Hampton Road any repairs that are required to the building have been undertaken in the form of maintenance. I am not sure what other repairs you may be referring to, certainly the works out the back have been completed. We haven’t


Page 3

undertaken a building report on that site, prospective purchasers have been advised they will need to purchase the property as it is and undertake a building report for themselves. The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item FPOL1603-3 and SPD1603-1: Andrew Loudikis Summary of question and comment by Rob Boston in relation to item PC1603-9

I would like to make some comments today on the Agenda. Firstly we had a look at the Agenda the specific development controls area and turning up here tonight I see there is an amendment proposed to that.

1. My question here tonight is why are those properties now excluded? 2. In relation to the amendment we do not have too much of an issue other than this

change here tonight with the inclusions of the properties we did not have a problem with this other than a discussion with Main Roads regarding setback could be discussed.

Public consultation - I didn’t attend the meeting in September 2014 when the parties discussed we should be doing something with that area and there really hasn’t been communication since then. I would like to compliment the Council for what they have put forward this time is not a bad idea and why was there a last minute change in the Agenda notes? Summary of response from Paul Garbett, Manager Strategic Planning

I think the change the gentleman is referring to is a notice of a proposed amendment by Cr Sullivan which has been tabled to change the areas subject to the amendment from what is proposed to the Officer’s Recommendation and that is contained in the Additional Documents. I anticipate if Cr Sullivan does move that amendment the reason for it will come out in the debate. The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1603-9: Kevin Broughton The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item FPOL1603-3: Peter Van Schke

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Nil


Page 4

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr B Jones request for a leave of absence from 28 April to 29 May 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 8/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr D Hume attended on Saturday 19 March the Hilton Junior Cricket Club awards which was well attended and they also won the sporting organisation of the year from Fremantle which was a great achievement. It was a huge turn around by the Committee in twelve months. Approximately 58% increase of participants in boys and girls this year resulting in a wonderful increase of any organisation in one year. Cr D Hume also commended officers of the City of Fremantle on the work they had contributed to the event.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 February 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume


Page 5

CARRIED: 8/0

For Against


ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil


Page 6

COMMITTEE REPORTS

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE 1 MARCH 2016

AC1603-1 ADOPTION OF THE 2015 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN

ECM Reference: 102/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: OCM 23 March 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Melody Foster, Governance Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Auditors Summary Report

Compliance Audit Return 2015 Confidential Auditors full report (under confidential cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to receive the 2015 Compliance Audit Return (CAR) and adopt the return to be submitted to the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Communities prior to the 31 March 2016.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the Act, each local government authority is required to carry out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December of each year as instructed by the department. The return consists of 87 questions relating to the local government’s compliance with the requirements of the Act and its Regulations, concentrating on areas of compliance considered “high risk”. Questions are generally asked in a positive phrase where a ‘yes’ response indicates compliance and a ‘no’ response indicates non-compliance in the majority of cases or ‘NA’ if not applicable. The audit and risk committee is required under section 14 (3A) of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 to review the completed compliance audit return and report the results to council, prior to the return being adopted by council and submitted to the department by 31 March 2016. The past three returns have been conducted in-house, therefore this year the City engaged an independent consultant to undertake the CAR for 2015 and Brendan Peyton from Peyton Consulting was appointed as the auditor for this process. Using an independent consultant ensures the process is transparent and more rigorous than a self-assessment may be. Any issues identified for correction are brought to the city’s attention along with recommendations for improvement.

COMMENT

The CAR contains 87 questions based on compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 and its Regulations as approved by the Minister. The 2015 CAR questions have changed slightly from 2014 with the removal of one question from the


Page 7

Finance section and an additional 10 questions to the Tenders for Providing Goods and Services section (Q’s 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24). As per the auditor’s report, the following table details the 4 questions of non-compliance and a response from the officer.

Section Question Detail

Disclosure of Interest (Question 6)

Was an annual return lodged

by all continuing elected

members by 31 August 2015.

One elected member’s annual

return remains outstanding.

Officer response: The outstanding annual return has now been completed and

received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016. This will be noted in the CAR.

Disclosure of Interest (Question 7)

Was an annual return lodged

by all designated employees

by 31 August 2015.

Five (5) annual returns lodged

after 31 August 2015, one (1)

annual return lodged without

signature

Officer response: The returns lodged after the due date, were all received by the 4th

September 2015. The return that was submitted incomplete was due to an

administration error and has now been rectified. The city has identified changes that

need to be made to the administrative processes for receiving returns and changes have

been implemented to improve this.

Information sessions will be held for Officers and Elected Members prior to the next

annual return period, to provide education on the requirements for completing annual

returns.

Tenders for Providing Goods and Services (Question 1)

Did the local government

invite tenders on all

occasions (before entering

into contracts for the supply

of goods or services) where

the consideration under the

contract was, or was

expected to be, worth more

than the consideration stated

in Regulation 11(1) of the

Local Government (Functions

& General) Regulations

(Subject to Functions and

General Regulation 11(2)).

A number of accounts in the

‘Accounts Payable’ list show

payments exceeded $100,000

during 2015. Examples

West Coast Turf 179,860.25

(New tender to be called in

2016)

Paramont Security $205,959

(unexpected increase in

security events)

Sheok’s Landscaping

$252,236 and Horizon West

$$365,308 (Both these involve

large number minor contracts

– to be reviewed 2016)


Page 8

Officer response: The City will undertake a review of processes and procedures

relating to procurement. A recent restructure within the organisation has provided the

opportunity of a senior contract and procurement position. This officer will be reviewing

procedures to improve issues such as this.

Tenders for Providing Goods and Services (Question 25)

Does the local government

have a current purchasing

policy in relation to contracts

for other persons to supply

goods or services where the

consideration under the

contract is, or is expected to

be, $150,000 or less.

Policy still under consideration

Officer response: The City's purchasing policy is currently under review to include recent changes made within the Act. This policy will be presented to the Audit and Risk Management Committee for consideration and will be presented to Council for formal adoption.

The table above reveals the City’s 2015 CAR has recorded 4 non-compliance answers from a total of 87 questions. This represents a 4.6% non-compliance result or 95.4% compliance achieved. The auditor’s findings shows that the our compliance rate has declined by 2% compared to the previous return were we achieved 97.4% (undertaken in-house). Two of the areas of non-compliance were the same as the previous year (in relation to Annual Returns) however this year the City failed to comply with 2 additional questions within the Tenders for Providing Goods and Services section. The City acknowledges that process and procedural improvement is required to reduce the risk and address all issues that have been raised from this review. As part of the City’s recent internal restructure, the City has identified areas of the organisation which require improvement and therefore have appointed various positions to ensure appropriate changes are made. The City will take the auditor’s comments and recommendations into consideration when resolving our compliance issues. It will be recommended that the City engage an independent auditor to conduct our next CAR as a comparison to gauge the success of changes made from this review.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Nil


Page 9

Legal

In accordance with section 7.13 (i) of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulations 13, 14 and 15 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, local governments are required to carry out an audit of compliance for the period 1 January to 31 December in each year. After carrying out the compliance audit the local government is to prepare a compliance audit return in a form approved by the Minister. A compliance audit return is to be;

(a) presented to the council at a meeting of the council; (b) adopted by the council; and (c) recorded in the minutes of the meeting of which it is adopted.

The return is to be signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer and is to be submitted to the Executive Director of the Department of Local Government and Communities by 31 March next following the period to which the return relates. Operational

Any areas of improvement that are highlighted within the audit process will be discussed with relevant departments and addressed as required. This may result in changes to our processes and procedures within the organisation. Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

Of the 87 questions contained in the 2015 CAR, 4 questions have been answered as non-compliant which represents a 95.4% compliance rate. The City is continuously monitoring areas of non-compliance, however in some cases non-compliance is out of our control. The City will continue to make improvements and changes to internal processes to ensure compliance where possible and recommends that Council approve to engage an

independent auditor to undertake the next CAR, to ensure transparency and provide a comparison to gauge the success of changes made from this review.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required


Page 10

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Wilson SECONDED: Cr D Thompson 1. Council receive the 2015 Compliance Audit Return (attached to the agenda) and

approve Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and submit to the Department of Local Government and Communities prior to 31 March 2016.

2. Council approve the City to engage an independent auditor to undertake the 2016

Compliance Audit Return to ensure improvements identified in this return have been appropriately addressed.

Cr J Wilson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include an additional part 3 to read as follows: 3. A report will be brought back to the Audit and Risk Management Committee

with recommendations on actions taken to rectify the four items identified in the CAR by June 2016 including;

A presentation and special meeting to complete the primary returns.

Set a date earlier than the statutory deadline for completion of the primary returns.

Development of policies, procedures, and automated systems (possible software) to assist in the decision making and record keeping process for gift and other relevant disclosures.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Josh Wilson Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jeff McDonald Mr Phillip Draber

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Audit and Risk Management Committee want new processes in place to ensure that appropriate action is taken prior to the next CAR.


Page 11

Cr J Wilson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include an additional part 4 to read as follows:

4. The Audit and Risk Management Committee undertakes a review of governance and risk management policies and frameworks for the City of Fremantle operations, starting with the preparation of a calendar of statutory obligations.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Josh Wilson Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jeff McDonald Mr Phillip Draber

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Increase the Audit Committee's focus on risk management. Cr J Wilson MOVED the amended Officer's Recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Wilson

1. Council receive the 2015 Compliance Audit Return (attached to the agenda) and approve Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and submit to the Department of Local Government and Communities prior to 31 March 2016.

2. Council approve the City to engage an independent auditor to undertake the

2016 Compliance Audit Return to ensure improvements identified in this return have been appropriately addressed.

3. A report will be brought back to the Audit and Risk Management Committee with recommendations on actions taken to rectify the four items identified in the CAR by June 2016 including;

A presentation and special meeting to complete the primary returns.

Set a date earlier than the statutory deadline for completion of the primary returns.

Development of policies, procedures and automated systems (possible software) to assist in the decision making and record keeping process for gift and other relevant disclosures.


Page 12

4. The Audit and Risk Management Committee undertakes a review of governance and risk management policies and frameworks for the City of Fremantle operations, starting with the preparation of a calendar of statutory obligations

SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 8/0

For Against



Page 13

Cr D Coggin arrived at 6.28 pm prior to consideration of the following item.

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 2 MARCH 2016

PC1603-9 SCHEME AMENDMENT 68 INITIATION REPORT - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 68 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS TO THE MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 218/073 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 March 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments:


Page 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) to modify and introduce new provisions to Schedule 12. The Schedule 12 provisions will introduce a new sub-area (4.3.7) and cover the Mixed Use zoned sites on the western side of Hampton Road between Douro Road and Cockburn Road; broadly the lots adjoining Brockman Place. The proposed Scheme amendment reflects a similar approach which was taken for the Strang Street area as part of Scheme amendment 43 which provides direction for the revitalisation and redevelopment of the Strang Street locality. Scheme amendment 43 relates to land which is on the opposite side of Hampton Road from the land subject to the proposed scheme amendment 68. It is proposed the provisions maintain the existing base density coding of R25 for the Mixed Use sites while providing additional development standards that can achieve increases to density and height. These additional development standards will relate to access, ground floor activation and land uses. Subject to additional development controls, the permissible height of development in the amendment area is proposed to be increased to 17.5m and up to 24.5m for larger development sites. Similarly the density of sites is proposed to be increased to R160 and up to R-AC3 for larger sites to compliment the additional development height. Further development controls are intended to restrict any additional vehicle access to Hampton Road, provide incentives to redevelop larger sites and provide opportunities for active ground floor non-residential uses. It is recommended that the proposed scheme amendment be advertised for public comment. BACKGROUND Site Context The Brockman Place area is considered to be an area capable of supporting more intensive development, in line with the adjoining development capabilities of the Strang Street area and the future use of Hampton Road as a possible Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. The Brockman Place area has prominent frontage to Hampton Road, is within close proximity to general amenities such as the public open space of Clontarf Hill, future open space within the Lefroy Road Quarry Structure Plan as well as South Beach and the shopping facilities offered by the South Fremantle Marketplace. In addition to the immediate surroundings of the site, Brockman Place is also well located at approximately 2.5km from the Fremantle City Centre and is well serviced by the existing road network and public transport. It is therefore envisioned that this area could support a mix of land uses, including a relatively dense residential population.


Page 15

The Brockman Place area is currently zoned Mixed Use under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) which has resulted in a mix of land uses including; manufacturing, distribution and commercial uses. The lots within the area are generally greater than 1000m2 and amalgamation is considered possible due to several of the lots being in single ownership by the same landowners. Several of the lots are currently accessed via Brockman Place, the cul-de-sac which adjoins the majority of the lots within the amendment area. Notwithstanding the existing utilisation of Brockman Place, several of the lots are accessed via Hampton Road. Access via Brockman Place is considered achievable for many of these sites due to the land ownership and potential amalgamation opportunities. Landowners within the Brockman Place area approached the City of Fremantle in 2014 and expressed interest in possible revitalisation opportunities for the area. Initial discussions occurred with several landowners within Brockman Place, west of Hampton Road as well as some interested land owners to the east of Hampton Road. Due to the large interest expressed by those in the Brockman Place area, west of Hampton Road, the boundary identified will account for the existing Mixed Used zoned lots.

Figure 1 – Site Context to Fremantle CBD


Page 16

Relationship to Strang Street The site characteristics identified with the Strang Street area were not dissimilar to those highlighted for Brockman Place. Brockman Place has therefore been approached similarly to Scheme amendment 43, which was finalised and gazetted in 2015. Essentially the development controls proposed for the amendment area have been informed and based upon similar standards used within the Strang Street area as part of Scheme amendment 43. Historically, Strang Street was identified to require service upgrades as a result of the provisions introduced with Scheme amendment 43. Similarly the Brockman Place area has been identified to also need service upgrades with increase to residential development occurring in the area. Additionally, during preliminary discussions with landowners, the potential of land contamination was considered possible within the area due to previous land uses and the close proximity to the former South Fremantle Tip site. Due to the adjoining site’s contamination, potential investigations and remediation may need to be investigated in greater detail for specific sites and their level of contamination. Relationship to Cockburn The subject site is located close to the municipal boundary between the Cities of Fremantle and Cockburn. At the southernmost boundary of the subject site Hampton Road deviates to turn into Cockburn Road and Rockingham Road in the City of Cockburn local government boundary. The existing planning framework in place, within the City of Cockburn, for the area south of the subject site is guided by the City of Cockburn’s Newmarket Precinct Design Guidelines. The intent of the area to the south of the subject site has been identified in the Design Guidelines as a precinct that will “encourage a residential and mixed use focus, with ground floor office and commercial opportunities along Cockburn Road and Rockingham Road”. The proposed scheme amendment works with similar principles to that of the Newmarket Precinct Design Guidelines, specifically in relation to ground floor retail and commercial uses, active frontages and multiple dwellings on upper levels. Additionally the heights prescribed for the Newmarket Precinct locality will not exceed 21m in height and relate similarly to those proposed as part of the Scheme amendment. Hampton Road Corridor The Brockman Place area is considered to be an area capable of supporting more intensive development, in line with the City of Fremantle Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) prepared in February 2015. The strategy identifies the Hampton Road corridor as a significant transport connection between Fremantle and Cockburn Coast as well as a number of other activity centres in the south-west metropolitan area. The ITS notes a likely reduced function of Hampton Road as a freight route under proposals to improve freight access to Fremantle. Subsequently, the reduction in the frequency of freight along Hampton Road and the identified opportunity this corridor provides for a Fremantle/Cockburn connection has encouraged a greater focus on the use of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a short to medium


Page 17

term solution for transportation along this corridor. The ITS highlights the City’s support for the proposed BRT to be introduced along Hampton Road and Cockburn Road as this will provide a short to medium term solution to the connection between Fremantle, Cockburn Coast, Cockburn Central and Rockingham. This route is highlighted as a Secondary Transit Corridor for Fremantle as highlighted in Figure 1. The City has, in the ITS, identified the need for further consideration of the future Light Rail (LR) routes however, the current BRT option provides for immediate opportunities to utilise Hampton Road as a corridor to both the Fremantle and Cockburn areas.

Figure 2 – Fremantle Transit Corridors


Page 18

PLANNING COMMENT

Existing Planning Framework Sites contained within the amendment area are currently zoned Mixed Use and coded R25 pursuant to LPS4. The sites are zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and are not affected by any reservations. The current Mixed Use zoning allows for development to potentially occur at R60 pursuant to Clause 5.2.5 of the Scheme. While this Clause of the Scheme allows for possible development up to R60 to occur, this has not provided enough of an incentive for redevelopment within this area. The redevelopment envisaged for the Brockman Place locality is considered to compliment the surrounding development potential of Strang Street, adjacent to the subject site and the Newmarket Precinct, located within the City of Cockburn municipality to the south. As noted earlier in the report, the Scheme amendment for the Strang Street area has recently been endorsed by the Minister for Planning and allows for properties adjacent to Brockman Place to be developed up to R-AC3 and up to 24.5m in height where specific development standards are achieved. The sites in the Strang Street locality maintain the base density code of R25 while allow for significantly higher development to occur when criteria set out in the additional development standards are met. Scheme Amendment 68 will in principle follow a similar framework with a base density and additional development criteria to be met in order to develop at a higher density. This will provide the area with a similar level of medium to high density ability with coordinated development standards. Sites to the north of Brockman Place are zoned Local Centre and while it is acknowledged that these lots have similar development potential to that of Brockman Place, it is considered that the South Fremantle Local Centre site would require further research and consideration of its future function and desired urban form prior to any amendment of current scheme provisions. The South Fremantle Local Centre has therefore not been included within the subject area for this amendment. In addition to the existing development potential surrounding the subject site, the freight functions currently utilising Hampton Road are anticipated to be reduced over time. It is considered that the reduced freight function of Hampton Road makes redevelopment of existing sites along the corridor more appropriate; particularly for higher density residential development given the relative proximity of sites to services, employment, recreational locations and the Fremantle City Centre. The scheme amendment proposes changes to the density coding and associated development controls contained in Schedule 12 of LPS4 to facilitate redevelopment of sites on the western side of Hampton Road comprising the existing ‘Mixed Use’ zone around Brockman Place, South Fremantle. The proposed amendment encompasses the following sites;

Road Street Number (Lot) Site Area (m2)

Hampton Road

223 (304, 47, 48 & 49) 12208

227 (550) 2248


Page 19

229 (40) 3864

229A (43) 1500

229B (100) 9160

231 (101) 6205

231A (4) 1482

233-235 (5) 4856

Brockman Place

3 (Lot 44) 1473

5 (50) 972

6 (1, 2 & 3) 2166

Total 46,134m2

Brockman Place has been identified as an ideal location to focus more intensive mixed use redevelopment with an emphasis on the delivery of population growth along a future bus rapid transit route: a core principle of providing for Perth’s future population. This objective is consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 which aims to ‘innovate and renew the city and suburban areas’. The current Local Planning Scheme (LPS4) constrains opportunities for more intensive development to occur around Brockman Place and therefore the following provisions will enable redevelopment at a more appropriate level. Proposed Scheme Amendment No.68 Inclusion of Sub Area 4.3.7 South Fremantle LPA and Zoning It is proposed that Brockman Place be designated as a ‘sub area’ within the South Fremantle LPA and provide specific development controls relating to the area within Schedule 12. The area is currently zoned Mixed Use and no changes to the current zoning are proposed as part of the amendment. ‘Mixed Use’ zoning for the area will remain with a ‘base’ residential density coding of R25 – consistent with the current density coding of the area. The existing zoning under LPS4 provides for a wide range of land uses subject to Council’s discretion and compliance with other requirements of LPS4. In particular all the residential use classes, most commercial and entertainment use classes, and light/service industries are permissible. Specific Development Controls The following development provisions, proposed to be included in Schedule 12 of LPS4, are intended to provide an ‘incentive’ based approach for development within the area, critically without the need for Council to coordinate the provisions of infrastructure upgrades through a DCP. Development density The Scheme amendment intentionally excludes Clause 5.2.5 of the Scheme which relates specifically to Mixed Use zoned areas within the City of Fremantle. The Clause allows for an increase in residential density of up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development. The exclusion of this Clause has previously been used in similar development standards (refer to sub area 4.3.5 and 7.3.1) in order to provide incentive to utilise the development provisions at the higher densities.


Page 20

The R25 density coding currently limits the residential redevelopment in this location; the proposed development controls will allow for an increase from the current residential density coding to be achieved where certain development standards are met. A bonus residential density can be achieved up to R160 and R-AC3 which modifies the permitted development standards for the area in accordance with the Residential Design Codes. Therefore, new development controls have been proposed for the area in Schedule 12: of LSP4. These specific development standards relate to; building height and setbacks, vehicle access, ground floor land uses and activated frontages as well as achieving minimum lot sizes. The bonus residential densities facilitate greater dwelling yields whilst not compromising the commercial mix of land uses in the area. This is achieved through the requirement for residential uses to be located on upper levels, ensuring activation of the ground floor with commercial uses and residential development located above. The increase in residential density also allows for a change in development standards allowing greater flexibility in terms of the built form outcomes. The proposed development controls would allow for development generally consistent with the development achievable within Strang Street. Development height

Current scheme height Proposed Additional development standards

7.0m external wall height 17.5m building height 24.5m building height

Potential development outcome

2-3 storey development 5-6 storey development 7-8 storey development

The proposal includes an increase to the prescribed building height for all sites within the scheme amendment area to be permitted when additional development controls are met. Additional criteria for development sites greater than 4,000m2 applies up to a maximum height of 24.5m is proposed. The current lot arrangement (size, position, ownership etc.) means that the additional height criteria are likely to affect only those sites capable of frontage to Hampton Road. Notwithstanding the existing lots over 4,000m2, the lot size requirement for the additional development standards will also encourage potential amalgamation of existing lots to allow for more comprehensive redevelopment of the area. Estimated Dwelling Yield By using the provisions proposed for the scheme amendment as assumptions, a dwelling yield calculation was estimated for the Scheme amendment area. The assumptions take into account a scenario whereby all sites meet the requirements to develop at R-AC3 and develop to a maximum of 24.5m (this would require the smaller lots to be amalgamated for this scenario to be accurate). Should amalgamation of lots not occur the overall dwelling estimate would be less than that stated below.


Page 21

Estimated Dwelling Yield Based on Plot Ratio (@ 2.0)

Total Site Areas Net residential floor area (70% of total plot ratio)

Number of residential units (av 90sqm/unit)

46071 32250 717 Dwellings

The provision of additional housing within the South Fremantle area works to respond to the necessary housing supply for population growth. The provision of additional dwellings is consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 which aims to ‘innovate and renew the city and suburban areas’. Additionally these objectives also reflect the strategic direction of state planning documents such as Directions 2031 and Perth and Peel @3.5 Million. High density residential development, particularly along high-frequency public transport routes is a key objective for future land use development within the greater Perth region. It should also be noted that the estimated dwelling yield is unlikely to meet these numbers immediately and is more likely to progress over a period of time. Primary Street setback For properties fronting Hampton Road, buildings shall be setback a minimum of 15m to provide a coordinated and consistent building line. The setback provision is considered to respond to the potential bulk of development by including a setback distance for buildings viewed from Hampton Road. A similar distance was also introduced under amendment no. 43 in relation to the setbacks and provisions to sites on the opposite side of Hampton Road. The setback provision is considered to also reflect the future interaction with the high frequency bus route. Preliminary discussions with Department of Transport officers has assisted in understanding the potential design likely to guide any long term upgrades. As outlined earlier within the report, Hampton Road will act as an important transport corridor and future upgrades are currently being planned to assist in enhancing the capacity for Bus Rapid Transit services along this route, particularly in association with the LandCorp-led Cockburn Coast project. To date, the Department of Transport have been developing preliminary concept designs which will inform the Bus Rapid Transit upgrades along Hampton Road and Cockburn Road, however exact timeframes for this work have not been made. It has been identified through these conceptual designs that some road widening would need to occur in order to support the extension of dedicated bus lanes along Hampton Road. It is considered the recommended scheme amendment provisions provide enough flexibility for any future redevelopment to be compatible with any upgrades to Hampton Road which the Department of Transport may ultimately implement. Provision of a Public Access Way to Open Spaces


Page 22

While the landfill site is not identified as providing open space, it provides a key link for pedestrians and cyclists a high-frequented dual use access path to South Beach. It has therefore been identified that the potential to provide easy access for future Brockman Place residents would assist with achieving the objectives of the Green Plan and reduces the distance and time taken to access South Beach for those residing, working and visiting Brockman Place. Ground floor activation and land use Hampton Road is noted as an important transport corridor connecting Fremantle and Cockburn Coast. It is important that the corridor provide opportunities for mixed use developments including a mix of local convenience retail and employment opportunities. Provisions requiring ground floor areas to buildings fronting Hampton Road are proposed to all sites, dealing with the following matters;

Ground floor non-residential uses to accommodate retail and employment opportunities;

Ground floor activation to Hampton Road frontages to encourage interest and activity to the street;

A 4.0m first floor plate level and limited ground floor elevation (not more than 600mm above natural ground level) to provide a high quality pedestrian environment at footpath level; and,

To ensure limited breaks in building frontage, a limit of 8m between buildings fronting Hampton Road.

Access to development sites Access to development sites shall be limited to Brockman Place where frontage to Brockman Place can be obtained. Access to Hampton Road shall be limited to where no other frontage and/or access arrangement can be provided. Potential for amalgamation is considered achievable for several lots which will allow for access to be obtained easily from Brockman Place for the majority, if not all, of the lots. By reducing the number of crossovers along Hampton Road the future BRT corridor can be safeguarded from any competing access. Heritage Listed Site The scheme amendment area contains a property registered on the City’s Heritage List, as shown on the figure below; at no. 229B Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Advice from the City’s Heritage Planner is that the heritage listing is unlikely to inhibit future redevelopment within the scheme amendment area. The heritage site listed is the former Atkinson Jockey’s Quarter and Stable which is listed as a level 2 heritage building on the City of Fremantle’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The buildings associated with this former use have been identified to have cultural heritage significance and will therefore be required to be retained as part of any future development. The following excerpt was taken from an assessment of the history of the site


Page 23

“Hampton Road was originally called Prison Road. It derives its name from John Stephen Hampton (1810-1869), the Governor of WA from 1862-68. He was previously Comptroller of Convicts in Tasmania. His son, G. E. Hampton, was Acting Comptroller-General of the Fremantle Convict Establishment. Atkinson's House was on the site now occupied by a petrol station facing Hampton Road. (No 229B) The 'weatherboard' jockeys' quarters remain, along with a portion of the limestone stables.” The Former Atkinson's Jockey Quarters and Stables have cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

The Quarters contributes to the South Fremantle Heritage Precinct as an early twentieth century structure with Federation period detailing;

the limestone north wall of the former stables contributes to the South Fremantle Heritage Precinct as an early limestone wall;

the former Quarters and stables contribute to the story of development of the horse racing industry in South Fremantle; and,

the former Quarters and stables are valued by the horse racing community as demonstrated through inclusion in the City of Fremantle Municipal Inventory, and their inclusion in the South Fremantle Heritage Study (1993).

Figure 3 – Heritage Places within Brockman Place Site Contamination The close proximity to the South Fremantle Land Fill site and the history of manufacturing type land uses within the Brockman Place pose a potential land contamination concern. The potential of contamination is considered to be of importance for landowners and City officers considers it necessary for investigations to be carried out at development application stage to ensure contamination levels are acceptable to


Page 24

the Department of Environmental Regulation and any remediation be carried out by individual land owners. It is also noted that some of the land owners are already in the process of investigating contamination of individual sites within the area. Services and Infrastructure The servicing of Brockman Place, similar to the Strang Street area, has historically had land uses such as manufacturing, light industry, storage and showrooms which, have to date not required the upgrade of servicing that would normally be required for residential land uses. As discussed earlier within the report, Amendment 43 for Strang Street has recently been gazetted. The initial approach to having a Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) implemented across the area was considered to be highly complex due to the fragmentation of land owners. A similar approach to Strang Street has therefore been taken for Brockman Place and a DCP has not been proposed as part of the scheme amendment. The servicing of lots within Brockman Place will essentially be the responsibility of each individual land owner at the time of development. This option takes into consideration the likelihood of amalgamation of lots to occur and for lots to be serviced as part of larger scale comprehensive redevelopment within the area. In relation to the subject site preliminary discussions with Water Corporation indicated the need for duplications to the existing water mains located along Hampton Road would be necessary with any substantial redevelopment due to the width of Hampton Road limiting the ability to link mains. The mains will need to be extended from at least the intersection of Clontarf Road to Lloyd Street in order for individual development sites to be directly serviced. In relation to the existing sewer mains, the subject sites are presently not sewered and therefore would require extensions from the existing sewer on the eastern side of Hampton Road. Servicing investigations are considered to be the responsibility of the respective landowners, similarly to the investigation of contamination of sites, as outlined above. Additionally, the previous study carried out by Opus for the Strang Street area identifies the servicing of power which relates to the existing Hampton Road infrastructure. Currently Hampton Road has substations available with high voltage underground infrastructure. It was identified within the Opus report for Stang Street that potential upgrades would be required. This report indicates upgrades that can reasonably anticipated however due to the report being carried out in 2009 there is still a need for additional discussions with government agencies. This can occur when the amendment is advertised for comment. Public Access and Linkages to existing Open Space Brockman Place has been identified to have close links to Public Open Space areas within Fremantle which is considered to provide opportunity to increase the accessibility to these key destinations sites with future redevelopment. Linkages have been identified as a key objective of the City’s recently adopted Green Plan 2020. Specifically,


Page 25

Brockman Place is located close to various open space and recreational sites, as shown figure 1 which details the specific area surrounding Brockman Place.

Figure 4 – Existing forms of open space surrounding Brockman Place The location of Brockman Place is approximately 500m away from South Beach to the west of the subject site. Currently access to South Beach for pedestrians and cyclists can only be achieved via Hampton Road which meets an existing public access way at the southern boundary of no. 233-235 Hampton Road and runs through the Former South Fremantle Landfill site. The subject site does not have existing public access from Brockman Place which limits direct access and extends the overall distance to South Beach and other forms of open space within the area. The existing dual access path to the south west of the site is considered to provide the best opportunity for linkages with the sites due to the close proximity to western lot boundaries. This location for a Public Access Way (PAW) would link the existing dual use path and could be easily achieved from Brockman Place. The existing dual use path is located approximately 75m from the western boundaries of No. 229B Hampton Road and No. 1/6 Brockman Place. The path is approximately 4m wide and provides linkage to the popular South Beach for pedestrians and cyclists. The amendment proposes to include a ceding of land to the benefit of the City of Fremantle at no cost to the City in order to dedicate land for the use as a Pedestrian Access Way (PAW). This will ensure that access to existing open spaces can be reduced from the existing route that would need to be taken. In addition to the above linkages to the western public open space opportunities, open space opportunities also exist to the eastern side of Hampton Road with the provisions of Strang Street and future planned development of Development Area 7 (Mather Road). The linkages through to both the western and eastern areas surrounding the subject site have been identified as key Green Plan linkages in the City’s Green Plan strategy as shown in Figure 5 below.


Page 26

Figure 5 – Existing Open Space and Green Plan Linkages CONSULTATION

Landowner Consultation Recent correspondence dated 10 February 2016, was made with the landowners of the sites identified for the scheme amendment in the form of a preliminary update on the proposed amendment. This informal correspondence was intended to provide preliminary information prior to the item being presented to Council. Initial discussions and an informal meeting were held for landowners in Brockman Place on 10 September 2014 in order to gauge the level of landowner interest within the area. The meeting was attended by approximately 9 landowners, two City Planning Officers and three Councillors. Overall, officers, councillors and landowners concluded that there was a sufficient level of support for the City to investigate preliminary options for changes to the land use and development framework of the area. Public Consultation Should Council resolve to initiate Amendment 68 to the Scheme, it will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 (the Act), the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals.


Page 27

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to initiate an amendment to LPS4 to modify and introduce new provisions to Schedule 12. The provisions will introduce new height, density and development provisions to Schedule 12 that allow for redevelopment of sites on the western side of Hampton Road around Brockman Place. It is recommended that the proposed scheme amendment be initiated for public comment. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr I Waltham 1. Resolve pursuant to Section 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 4 – SOUTH FREMANTLE

4.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub Area 4.3.7


Page 28

(a) Within sub area 4.3.7, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

(b) Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the

DEC. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land

use will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road.

(d) In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton Road, the

ground floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

(e) Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton

Road, South Fremantle.

Setbacks

(f) Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in the table below:

Site Frontage to: Minimum Street Setback (metres)

Minimum side and rear setbacks

No. 223 Hampton Road

Hampton Road

15 Nil


Hampton Road

15 Nil


Hampton Road

15 Nil

No. 229A Hampton Road

Hampton Road

15 Nil


Brockman Place

Nil Nil

No. 229B Hampton Road

Hampton Road

15 Nil


Brockman Place

Nil Nil


Hampton Road

15 Nil

No. 233-235 Hampton Road

Hampton Road

15 Nil

(g) A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting

Brockman Place, South Fremantle.

(h) To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of


Page 29

the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres.

(i) Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street setback area of any Lot.

Additional development standards

(j) In applying (k) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 4.3.7;

(i) Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply;

(ii) A portion of lot area of 229B Hampton Road, not less than 6m in width, to be provided for the length of the lot only where the common boundary of 1/6 Brockman Place is shared. This portion of the land shall be transferred at no cost to the City of Fremantle to provide an east west linkage between Brockman Place and the Former South Fremantle Landfill site for the purpose of a landscaped dual use path; and

(iii)Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional Development standards

Lot 4 and Lot 5 (231A Hampton Road and 233-235)

a) Where vehicle access of the development site can only be obtained directly from Hampton Road.

b) Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development for development fronting Hampton

Residential density of R100 Permitted building height of 15 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.





Page 30

All locations within Sub Area 4.3.7 (excluding Lot 4 and Lot 5)

a) Where vehicle access of the development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road.

b) For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R160 Permitted building height of 17.5 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.




All locations within Sub Area 4.3.7

a) The development site comprises of a minimum land area of 4,000 square metres.

b) Where vehicle access of the

development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road

c) For development fronting

Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R-AC3. Permitted building height of 24.5 metres. On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 4.1 above apply.

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

3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.


Page 31

4. That the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days commencing on the day on which the notice is published in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area.

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

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to Part 1 of the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to amend area boundary map and remove the prescribed setback for those lots no longer included within the amendment area. 1. Resolve pursuant to Section 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local






Sub Area 4.3.7


Page 32


(b) Investigation of potential site contamination to the

satisfaction of the DEC.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land use will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road.

(d) In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton

Road, the ground floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

(e) Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to

Hampton Road, South Fremantle.

Setbacks





Hampton Road 15 Nil


Brockman Place Nil Nil


Hampton Road 15 Nil




Hampton Road 15 Nil


Hampton Road 15 Nil

(g) A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments

fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle.

(h) To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres.

(i) Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street


Page 33

setback area of any Lot.





(iii) Additional development standards shall be in accordance

with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:



a) For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R100 Permitted building height of 15 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.



a) Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road


Residential density of R160 Permitted building height of 17.5 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the


Page 34

provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.




b) Where vehicle Access of the

Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road

c) For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.







SECONDED: Cr D Hume


Page 35

CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendment makes changes to the amendment area boundary map and removes the prescribed setback for those lots no longer included within the amendment area. The reason for making these changes to the Committee recommendation is to exclude certain key areas that require a more coordinated approach to planning than can be achieved through this scheme amendment. This will allow for further investigation into these larger sites to the north of Brockman Place and the opportunity to consider further the road linkages, Public Open Space and potential green links. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr I Waltham 1. Resolve pursuant to Section 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local







Page 36

Sub Area 4.3.7


(b) Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning,

residential land use will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road.

(d) In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton

Road, the ground floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

(e) Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to

Hampton Road, South Fremantle.

Setbacks




No. 229A Hampton Hampton Road 15 Nil


Page 37

Road




Hampton Road 15 Nil




Hampton Road 15 Nil


Hampton Road 15 Nil

(g) A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments

fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle.

(h) To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres.

(i) Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street

setback area of any Lot.





(iii) Additional development standards shall be in

accordance with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:



a) For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R100 Permitted building height of 15 metres


Page 38

On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.



a) Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road


Residential density of R160 Permitted building height of 17.5 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.




b) Where vehicle Access of the

Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road

c) For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.






Page 39



SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 40

PC1603-10 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 66 (CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND MODIFICATION TO THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS TO PART OF THE LOCAL CENTRE ZONE AND MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD, SOUTH FREMANTLE

DataWorks Reference: 218/073 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 March 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1511-1 (25 November 2015)

SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015) SPC1505-2 (13 May 2015) SPC1403-47 (26 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014) PSC 1403-47 (26 March 2014)

Attachments: 1 – Report to Ordinary Council Meeting SPC1511-1 (25 November 2015) 2 – Schedule of Submissions of proposed modifications (12 December 2015 – 18 January 2016)


Page 41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to adopt amendment no. 66 to the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to include new provisions into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle relating to residential density, building height and vehicle access and design. Scheme amendment 66 was initiated by Council for public consultation in May 2015. After the consultation period during late August to October 2015, Council resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 November 2015, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The previous report presented to Council on 25 November 2015 is contained within this report as Attachment 1. Pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 which came into effect on 19 October 2015, the modifications made to the amendment were required to be re-advertised. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 66, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment without further modification. The modifications made include additional sites to the amendment area, comprising of no. 61, 63, 65 and 69 South Street. Supplementary provisions to the proposed development height were also modified to reduce some of the maximum permissible heights of buildings adjoining existing residential dwellings. The City received a number of submissions during the public consultation period. Concerns raised in the submissions were similar to the previous concerns raised regarding the scheme amendment such as building height and density, vehicle traffic and parking. It is recommended that the Council adopts the amendment with the modifications as advertised. BACKGROUND

On 25 November 2015 Scheme Amendment No. 66 was considered by Council for final adoption; however Council resolved to include modification to the amendment which were considered by City officers to be significant modification and were therefore required to be re-advertised. As a result of submissions received additional sites were included to the amendment area as well as changes to the overall maximum permitted building height. At its meeting of 25 November 2015 (see Attachment 1), the Council resolved to modify scheme amendment 66. The amendment area discussed within this report relates to the originally proposed amendment area as well as sites including in Council’s resolution being no. 61, 63, 65 and 69 South Street, South Fremantle, as referred to in the map above. DETAIL


Page 42

Scheme amendment 66 proposed to amend a number of existing built form controls to Local Centre and Mixed Use zoned sites on the western side of Hampton Road, these included;

A maximum building height of 15.0m above natural ground level – increased from a current limit of 7.0m (wall height);

A minimum building height of 7.0m with activated facades and uses to the ground and first floor;

A street setback of between a zero setback and 2.0m;

Vehicle access being restricted to a maximum of 4.0m wide;

Access to certain lots fronting Hampton Road being limited and restricted to certain locations;

The need for buildings to incorporate active ground floor frontages to Hampton Road and South Street; and,

Criteria specifying a minimum ground floor plate height (4.0m) and floor level (not more than 600mm above the adjacent footpath) to ensure pedestrian amenity and scale at footpath level and to ensure suitability for active non-residential ground floor uses.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 November 2015, further adjustments were proposed to the above provisions which modified the proposed maximum building height provisions. The following reductions to specific lots were considered necessary to include as part of the scheme amendment as a response to concerns raised in relation to the existing residential buildings adjoining the amendment area:

Property address Maximum building height

No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road 7 metres on the part of the lot

within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; and 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street; 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street; and 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to


Page 43

in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street

15 metres on all parts of both lots

No. 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18)

7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 150 Hampton Road; 12 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) above.

The proposed changes to building heights for the amendment area were considered necessary to reduce the impact of building bulk for the existing residential dwellings. These provisions are proposed to the new amendment area as depicted above. CONSULTATION

Community consultation was initially undertaken from 24 August 2015 to 12 October 2015 – 45 days in total for amendment 66, however due to modifications made after this time, further consultation was also undertaken. The readvertising of amendment 66 was carried out from 12 December 2015 – 18 January 2016. Advertising consisted of:

Public advertising notices in the Fremantle Gazette local newspaper – 12 December 2015;

Preparation of an ‘information sheet’ made available with the public inspection of the amendment documents;

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

Notification of the amendment in the public area of City of Fremantle administration building;

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies and government organisations; and,

Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups and to all landowners and tenants within 100m of the sites affected by the amendment.

A total of 18 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. 8 of the submissions were supportive, raised no objection or expressed conditional support to the proposed amendment, while 10 submissions provided clear objections. The comments raised by the objectors are summarised as follows:

The proposed height limit will result in buildings up to 5 storeys in height. This is inconsistent with local character;

The amendment will allow for higher density development that will increase traffic and result in more congestion;

The objections received did not object to the modifications specifically and generally objections were made in relation to the entirety of the amendment.


Page 44

Attachment 2 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response. PLANNING COMMENT

Inclusion of additional sites to amendment area The City reviewed the South Street area during 2014 which identified the opportunity for higher density mixed use and residential development along South Street, one of the City’s public transport routes. The proposed sites to be included along Hampton Road and South Street were initially advertised as shown in Figure 1 (map on left). The additional sites also shown in Figure 1 (map on right) detail the changes to site included in modifications made to the amendment boundary.

Figure 1 – Modification to sites included in the amendment area One submission was received which made specific reference to the additional residential zoned sites. The submission specifically related to the potential overlooking of these developments. The specific detail on future development and potential overlooking is considered to be addressed at the time of a development application and is therefore out of the scope of this amendment. Generally, submissions were received that related to the amendment in its entirety and concern over height, traffic and parking were highlighted, however no clear objections or submissions of support were received in relation to the impact of including the residential zoned properties no. 61, 63 and 65 South Street. In relation to the inclusion of no. 69 South Street, South Fremantle, it is noted that Council resolved to include this site at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 November 2015. The recommendation made by City officers in relation to the inclusion of this site can be found in Attachment 1. Development height A number of submissions received by the City noted the potential impact on local amenity arising from the proposed height of buildings. These concerns were also raised as part of the previous consultation period. Submission received did not raise specific concerns over the modification that reduced in part some of the maximum building


Page 45

heights, with the exception of a submission received on behalf of the owner at no. 69 South Street, South Fremantle. The submission received on behalf of owners at no. 69 South Street related to the limitation of the proposed maximum building height for this property. The submissions received in relation to building height related to the amendment in its entirety and did not exclusively comment on the modifications to those sites that had modifications made to the building height. The height modifications as detailed above reduce the permitted maximum residential heights specifically for properties adjoining existing residential developments. The proposed 15.0m maximum building height for the amendment area and the additional modifications to building heights are considered to accord with the City’s original intent to allow for higher density development at a scale complimentary to the existing smaller scale, mostly residential development nearby to the scheme amendment area. In addition to the above discussion on maximum heights, the submission received on behalf of no. 69 South Street conditionally supported the modifications to the amendment with the exception of the proposed maximum building height. The submission discussed the proposed 7m height limit to the 5 metre portion of the site to the southern boundary. City officers agree with the comments made in relation to the ability for the design to respond to overshadowing of adjoining sites however, the intention of limiting the maximum building height to the southern boundary also relates to the overall impact of building bulk to the adjoining neighbour. The submission assists in demonstrating how overshadowing can be addressed through the design of the development however, it is considered that these design requirements relating to overshadowing will also be captured during the development application stage of a proposal for the site. The R-Codes specifically provide guidance for the assessment of overshadowing which are required to be met in addition to the permissible building heights. The maximum building heights proposed for this site are considered to respond to the existing heritage building on site as well as the adjoining heritage buildings to the south of the site. Building heights were also considered specifically in relation to building bulk and the impact on adjoining neighbours. The ‘staggering’ of maximum permitted building heights proposed are considered to respond appropriately to the existing heritage buildings and assists in reducing the impact of bulk of future development. City officers therefore do not propose changes to these building heights specifically for no. 69 South Street. Therefore no recommendations have been made by City officers to further modify the proposed heights for no. 69 South Street, South Fremantle. Vehicle parking A number of submissions received by the City raised concern about the potential impact on the availability of vehicle parking in the area. This was also a theme highlighted as part of the submissions previously received for amendment 66. As outlined in the previous report to Council (Attachment 1), the provision of vehicle parking is a matter of assessment at the point of a development application; and the


Page 46

particular circumstances of the precinct are to be assessed at such a time, having regard to changes over time. It is anticipated that the scheme amendment will result in the creation of substantially more on-site vehicle parking within the precinct, albeit as a result of a coincidental intensification of activity. Increase in vehicle traffic along Hampton Road Increased traffic was raised during the submission period and related to similar concerns as highlighted with the previous consultation period. The proposed modifications to the amendment in the context of current conditions are considered to represent a minor increase in vehicle trips on Hampton Road and South Street. Accordingly no further modifications to the current vehicle crossover and access provisions have been proposed. Amendment process On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect, replacing certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. This scheme amendment is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment;

Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts.

In relation to significant modifications made to standard scheme amendment additional consolation is required to be undertaken pursuant to the Regulations. The consultation period is required to be no more than 21 days unless otherwise approved by the Commission. As the advertising period was within the Christmas Holiday period City officers requested an extension of time to the Commission in order to allow for additional time for submission to be received. This extension was approved to allow for submission to be received until 18 January 2016. The City has followed a process to date that reflects the process now applicable to a standard amendment (including advertising and consultation requirements). CONCLUSION The purpose of this report is to report on submissions received as part of the consultation period for the significant modifications made to Scheme amendment no. 66.


Page 47

It is recommended that Scheme amendment 66 be adopted with the modifications made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 November 2015 and no further modification. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council –

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 2;

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a) As shown on the map below, amend the Scheme map to apply a residential

density coding of R80 to 95 (Lot 14), 97 (Lot 15), 99 (Lots 16 and 17) and 101 (Lot 22), 103 (Lot 400), 109A (Lot 1) and 109B (Lot 2) Hampton Road, and 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18), South Fremantle;

b) Insert title ‘4.3 Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’ within Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

c) Insert an amended map of Sub Area 4.3.3 as shown below into Schedule

12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle as a result of the removal of properties at 95, 97, 99, 101, 103 and 105B Hampton Road and 61 (Lot 6), and 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street from Sub Area 4.3.3 and their inclusion in a new Sub Area 4.3.6.


Page 48

d) Insert new Sub Area 4.3.6 below, into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 South Fremantle.


Page 49

Sub Area 4.3.6

1. Within Sub area 4.3.6 provisions of clause 5.2.5 do not apply.

Building Height and Setbacks -

2. Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height controls’ does not apply to Sub Area 4.3.6.

3. Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two

levels of active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground level, except for No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road, 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18), where the maximum building height permitted shall be as specified in the table below:


No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the


Page 50

lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street and/or within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 2 Lilly Street;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street and/or within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 2 Lilly Street; and



i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 111 and 111A Hampton Road;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 111 and 111A Hampton Road; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lots other than the parts referred to in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18)

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 150 Hampton Road;

ii. 12 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts


Page 51

referred to in (i) above.

4. A minimum street setback of 2 metres and a maximum street setback

of 3 metres to Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle, in all locations except for the following:

i. No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street where the minimum street setback shall be 2 metres and the minimum average street setback shall be 5 metres; and

ii. The part of No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road at the junction of the lot boundaries to Hampton Road and South Street where the street setback shall be a 10 meter x 10 metre truncation. In all locations the applicable setback shall apply to all parts of any development including basements and external balconies.

5. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be

reduced to 1 metre except where the building adjoins No 59 (Lot 5) South Street, and No 111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

Vehicle Access -

6. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

7. Vehicular access points must be no more than 4 metres in width.

8. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17)

Hampton Road in order to limit the number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road.

9. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular access

point on the southern boundary. Other Development Standards -

10. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road and South Street.

11. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development respects

the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

12. In the part of all development with frontage to Hampton Road and/or South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

13. Notwithstanding the Deemed-to-comply provisions of Parts 5.4.2 and

6.4.2 (Solar access for adjoining sites) of the Residential Design


Page 52

Codes, the local government shall assess whether a development complies with the Design Principles of those parts of the Residential Design Codes on the same basis, irrespective of whether any dwelling on an adjoining property is defined in the Scheme and/or Residential Design Codes as a Single House or a Grouped Dwelling.

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

4. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment

No. 66 as referred to in (2) above.

5. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.

Mayor Brad Pettitt moved an amendment to the maximum building height table in part 2d) of the officer’s recommendation to amend the section referring to No. 69 South St as follows:

No. 69 South Street/146 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18)

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within

5 metres of the southern lot

boundary adjoining No. 150 (Lot 15)

Hampton Road;

ii. 12 metres on the part of the lot other

than parts referred to in (i) above ;

and

iii. The maximum building height

referred to in (i) above may be

increased to 15 metres where:

- It can be demonstrated the

design of the building will result

in lesser overshadowing and/or

sunlight penetration to the

outdoor living areas of Lot 150

Hampton Road, to the

satisfaction of the Council; and

- The height of the Hampton Road

elevation is graduated adjacent

to the southern lot boundary to

protect the scale and bulk of the

heritage buildings on Lot 150


Page 53

Hampton road.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To provide discretion for Council to approve a building up to 15 metres if an acceptable overshadowing impact and design relationship is achieved with the neighbouring property to the south. The Committee then resolved to refer the item to Council at the March OCM to provide an opportunity for officers to prepare additional wording for the section of the recommendation relating to no. 69 South Street, to more appropriately address discretionary provisions relating to building height, design, and relationship to the heritage building on the site. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr I Waltham That Council –

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 2;

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a) As shown on the map below, amend the Scheme map to apply a

residential density coding of R80 to 95 (Lot 14), 97 (Lot 15), 99 (Lots 16 and 17) and 101 (Lot 22), 103 (Lot 400), 109A (Lot 1) and 109B (Lot 2) Hampton Road, and 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18), South Fremantle;


Page 54

b) Insert title ‘4.3 Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’ within Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

c) Insert an amended map of Sub Area 4.3.3 as shown below into

Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle as a result of the removal of properties at 95, 97, 99, 101, 103 and 105B Hampton Road and 61 (Lot 6), and 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street from Sub Area 4.3.3 and their inclusion in a new Sub Area 4.3.6.


Page 55

d) Insert new Sub Area 4.3.6 below, into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 4 South Fremantle.


Page 56

Sub Area 4.3.6

1. Within Sub area 4.3.6 provisions of clause 5.2.5 do not apply.

Building Height and Setbacks -

2. Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height controls’ does not apply to Sub Area 4.3.6.

3. Building height shall be limited to a minimum of 7 metres with two

levels of active building use and a maximum of 15 metres as measured from ground level, except for No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road, 61 (Lot 6), 63-65 (Lots 1 and 2) South Street and 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and 18), where the maximum building height permitted shall be as specified in the table below:


No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street;


Page 57

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 70 South Street; and


No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street and/or within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 2 Lilly Street;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the western lot boundary adjoining No. 59 South Street and/or within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 2 Lilly Street; and



i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the western lot boundary adjoining No. 111 and 111A Hampton Road;

ii. 10 metres on the part of the lot within 15 metres but more than 5 metres from the southern lot boundary adjoining No. 111 and 111A Hampton Road; and

iii. 15 metres on all parts of the lots other than the parts referred to in (i) and (ii) above.

No. 69 South Street/146-148 Hampton Road (Lots 16, 17 and

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres


Page 58

18) of the southern lot boundary adjoining Lot. 150 Hampton Road;

ii. 12 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) above; and

iii. Notwithstanding (i) and (ii) above, Council may permit a maximum building height of 15 metres where Council is satisfied to all of the following: - The existing heritage

buildings on site are to be retained as part of any development on the lot/s;

- The design of any new development is to appropriately address the scale, bulk, materials and textures of the existing heritage listed buildings on site;

- New development must demonstrate the design of any new development will result in lesser overshadowing and/or sunlight penetration to the outdoor living areas of Lot 150 Hampton Road compared with the setbacks described in (i) and (ii) above; and

- The height of the Hampton Road elevation is to be graduated in order to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining southern boundary.


Page 59

4. A minimum street setback of 2 metres and a maximum street setback of 3 metres to Hampton Road and South Street, South Fremantle, in all locations except for the following:

i. No. 61 (Lot 6) South Street where the minimum street setback shall be 2 metres and the minimum average street setback shall be 5 metres; and

ii. The part of No. 101 (Lot 22) Hampton Road at the junction of the lot boundaries to Hampton Road and South Street where the street setback shall be a 10 meter x 10 metre truncation. In all locations the applicable setback shall apply to all parts of any development including basements and external balconies.

5. Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent buildings may be

reduced to 1 metre except where the building adjoins No 59 (Lot 5) South Street, and No 111 and 111A (Lots 1 and 2) Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Development adjoining these properties must be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

Vehicle Access -

6. Vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

7. Vehicular access points must be no more than 4 metres in width.

8. Vehicular access shall be coordinated for No 99 (Lots 16 and 17)

Hampton Road in order to limit the number of crossovers to one along Hampton Road.

9. No 97 (Lot 15) South Street is required to locate its vehicular

access point on the southern boundary. Other Development Standards -

10. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road and South Street.

11. Open space can be reduced up to 30% where development

respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

12. In the part of all development with frontage to Hampton Road and/or South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

13. Notwithstanding the Deemed-to-comply provisions of Parts 5.4.2

and 6.4.2 (Solar access for adjoining sites) of the Residential Design Codes, the local government shall assess whether a development complies with the Design Principles of those parts


Page 60

of the Residential Design Codes on the same basis, irrespective of whether any dwelling on an adjoining property is defined in the Scheme and/or Residential Design Codes as a Single House or a Grouped Dwelling.

1. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

2. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 66 as referred to in (2) above.

3. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin


Page 61

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 9 MARCH 2016

Cr R Pemberton MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SPD1603-1 and SPD1603-2. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


The following item number SPD1603-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1603-1 DEFERRED ITEM - PRINCIPLES OF A SCHEME AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE GREATER HOUSING DIVERSITY - UPDATE ON DRAFT CONTENT

ECM Reference: 218/069 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 March 2016 Previous Item: SPD1502-2 24 February 2016, SPC1409-01 24

September 2014 and SPC1509-4 23 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Previous item SPC1509-4 23 September 2015

This item was deferred at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 February 2016 for further consideration at the Strategy and Project Development Committee meeting in March, including consideration of a number of amendments to the committee and officer’s recommendation proposed by elected members. This report reproduces the 24 February 2016 Council report. An additional planning comment is included at the end to outline each proposed amendment to the committee and officer’s recommendation for Council’s consideration.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In September 2014 Council agreed to a suite of principles on which to base an amendment to the City’s Local Planning Scheme that would effectively allow for smaller housing types to be built in existing lower density suburbs.


Page 62

The Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) modelled the principles in April-June 2015. The modelling used three small dwelling development typologies to test the principles. Using the modelling AUDRC provided feedback on the sorts of development proposals the City could potentially receive if provisions based on these principles were in the Scheme. The modelling was presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 September 2015. The modelling highlighted a number of additional considerations. Based on this, Council resolved to further refine the previously agreed principles to ensure a resultant scheme amendment achieves the purpose of providing diverse and affordable housing types in the city, whilst also retaining the character of the area. The purpose of this item is to report back to Council on those aspects identified as requiring further examination and to recommend how they should be addressed in the final drafting of a formal amendment to the Local Planning Scheme.

BACKGROUND

In metropolitan Perth the majority of new housing is provided on the urban area’s fringe generally through low density (<R30 density coding) suburbs and large ‘family’ homes (e.g. 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, double garage, etc.) on modest sized lots. In recent years State planning policy has recognised that housing on the fringe does not provide well for sustainable growth or a diversity of housing forms, nor does it address the need for additional and more affordable housing within the metropolitan core, close to existing activity centres. Traditionally, the main planning approach available to provide for infill development in established residential suburbs is to increase the density coding of an area to allow for subdivision of single house lots. The downside of such ‘blanket’ up-coding can be development that negatively impacts on the established streetscape and amenity of the neighbourhood as additional driveways are needed, trees are cleared and housing covers former open backyard areas. Whilst there need to be trade-offs, as infill automatically reduces the land area available per dwelling, the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) found certain spatial qualities of suburban precincts are being excessively eroded through this form of infill development. On 24 September 2014 Council considered an alternative planning approach to delivering new moderately sized housing on lower density coded residential land that focused on the built form attributes of the housing, rather than the number of dwellings per land area. At this meeting Council agreed to a suite of principles for an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) that would potentially allow development that does not meet the minimum site and/or minimum average site area requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) where the development complies with all of the following:

Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120sqm A maximum of 1 car bay shall be provided for each new dwelling, unless the

dwelling is existing when a maximum of two car bays would be allowed A maximum of one dwelling in a development, where that dwelling is no larger

than one bedroom/studio size (up to 60 sqm), can be car free Visitor parking shall not be provided for developments of less than 5 dwellings


Page 63

A minimum of 60% open space, as defined by the R-Codes, shall be provided over the entire development site

A minimum of 15% of the development site area shall be provided for a deep planting zone (DPZ). This area shall be uncovered and have a minimum dimension of 3 metres. The DPZ can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50 percent of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear portion of the property.

Minimum of one tree, to Council specification, required to be retained or planted in any DPZ on the site.

The City contracted AUDRC to test these principles and provide feedback on the types of development applications the City could potentially receive if development provisions based on the principles were part of LPS4 and what additional policy provisions would be required to address design and built form issues. Three local architectural practices were invited to model three different ‘scenarios’ using the principles agreed by Council, the relevant R-code design elements and applicable local planning policies. This work was reported back to Council in September 2015 (Refer to previous item SPC1509-4 23 September 2015 in attachment 1). The modelling and further research brought up a number of additional considerations. Based on this, Council resolved to further refine the previously agreed principles to ensure a resultant scheme amendment achieves the purpose of providing diverse and affordable housing types in the city, whilst also retaining the character of the area. Council directed officers to prepare a further report regarding the matters highlighted in Council’s resolution below [highlighting added]. These matters form the basis of this report. Council’s resolution 23 September 2015:

1. Approve the preparation by officers of a revised set of planning provisions for the development of smaller, diverse housing types to refine and/or add to principles previously endorsed by Council in its resolution SPC1409-01 dated 24 September 2014. The revised principles shall address the following matters:

a) i) The provisions shall apply in areas coded R35 and lower, but only in specified areas to be identified in a further report by officers as areas where infill development of smaller dwellings would be compatible with the character and pattern of existing development.

ii) As part of this further report, officers are to identify local areas where this policy could apply [as outlined in the report on pages 19-20], with some discretion permitted for areas outside these zones where appropriate

b) A minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-codes, shall be provided over the entire development site. Council may, at its discretion, permit the minimum open space provision to be varied to not less than 60% in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

c) A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as a Deep Planting Zone. This area shall be uncovered and have a minimum dimension of 4.5 metres. It can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear portion of the site.


Page 64

d) A minimum rear setback dimension of 5 metres, which Council may, at its discretion, permit to be reduced in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

e) Vehicle movements must comply with the R-codes (including provision for vehicles to enter the street in a forward gear when the driveway is over 15m in length).

f) All applications for development of a type enabled under the scheme provisions the subject of this amendment must be considered by a design review body to be established by the Council under the provisions of clause 11.8 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to further investigation of the resource implications of this requirement and/or adoption of a “pre-approved design” mechanism as referred to in g) below.

g) A mechanism to make available to any applicant a choice of dwelling designs commissioned by the City of Fremantle which, if used in a planning application for a diverse dwelling development, would exempt the application from requiring consideration by the design review body referred to in f) above and/or enable Council to exercise discretion to vary other development standards, for example minimum open space area or rear setback requirements.

h) A limit on the maximum number of dwellings that may be built on any single site under the above provisions, based on a sliding scale of maximum dwelling numbers related to site area.

2. Direct officers to prepare a further report to be presented to the next appropriate meeting of the Special Projects Committee regarding the matters set out in (1) above including details of criteria to be used in controlling the matters referred to in points b) [minimum open space requirement], d) [rear setback requirement] and h) [maximum number of dwellings] of (1).

PLANNING COMMENT In accordance with Council’s resolution of 23 September 2015, the purpose of this report is to present back to Council on the matters highlighted in the background section above, i.e.

Scheme amendment area

Open space

Rear setback

Limit on maximum number of dwellings Scheme amendment area

Council resolution 23 September 2015: i) The provisions shall apply in areas coded R35 and lower, but only in specified areas to be identified in a further report by officers as areas where infill development of smaller dwellings would be compatible with the character and pattern of existing development.

ii) As part of this further report, officers are to identify local areas where this policy could apply [as outlined in the report on pages 19-20], with some discretion permitted for areas outside these zones where appropriate.


Page 65

Suspending the R-code minimum site areas and allowing development over and above the existing density in all areas of the city could have unintended effects and impact on the city’s more sensitive areas, for example in heritage areas and/or some suburban areas with relatively intact patterns of single dwelling development and mature, well vegetated streetscapes. Council therefore resolved to apply the amendment to specified areas only and requested officers to identify areas where infill development of smaller dwellings would be compatible with the character and pattern of existing development. Accordingly, officers have prepared maps of the city highlighting various attributes for Council’s consideration. These maps will be displayed at the Strategy and Project Development Committee. The maps highlight:

land coded R35 and lower being the lower density coded land the amendment would be applicable to;

400m ‘ped shed’ from high frequency bus routes and 800m from train stations; and

Heritage areas and heritage listed properties. Officers suggest the following broad criteria to assist Council in identifying targeted areas where the prospective scheme amendment provisions should apply: Exclude:

Heritage areas; areas with a large number of individually listed heritage places. Heritage areas and/or areas with a large number of individually heritage listed properties would be more likely to have streetscapes of significance. Excluding these areas would therefore minimise the risk of this development type adversely affecting areas with significant streetscape character.

Consider:

Areas within a 400m ‘ped shed’ from high frequency bus routes and 800m from train stations The principles for this scheme amendment require less car parking provided on site (e.g. one car bay per each new dwelling) than a standard grouped or multiple dwelling development. Officers therefore consider it reasonable to allow for the possibility of such development close to alternative means of transport.

Areas with a diverse existing streetscape character

Development of the type proposed though the scheme amendment principles is considered likely to have less impact in areas where the existing streetscape is already diverse in character.

Areas with similar existing development types and patterns, e.g. aged person dwellings and 5+ strata lot dwellings on one parent lot. In general residents of a suburb have a perception of the capacity of adjoining properties and wider neighbourhood to develop based on the existing development pattern of the area. In areas where unit-style developments of several dwellings on one ‘parent’ lot (including aged person developments) exist (e.g. areas of Fremantle suburb north of High Street, and White Gum Valley fronting Carrington Street) there is generally a level of tolerance that these development types can be catered for in the area.

Officers therefore recommend that the amendment provisions should initially apply only to specific areas identified in a special control area map in LPS4, similar to the Port


Page 66

buffer area Special Control Area. Five areas have been identified in figure 1 and 2 below. Areas 1-4 are not within heritage areas, area 5 is within the South Fremantle heritage area but is a discrete post-WW2 residential ‘pocket’ isolated by industrial/commercial uses from older residential development more characteristic of the South Fremantle heritage area. All five areas contain few heritage listed places and are mostly within a 400m ‘Ped Shed’ of high frequency bus routes (apart from properties on Carrington Street near the Fremantle Golf Course) and/or have a significant proportion of similar development patterns e.g. 5+ strata lot dwellings on one parent lot.

Figure 1. Possible areas 1-4 to apply a scheme amendment based on the principles

Figure 2 - Possible area 5 to apply a scheme amendment based on the principles


Page 67

Parts of Samson meet the criteria above and have been included in figure 1. Officers however are mindful that Samson, unlike other areas in the City, has not seen any significant infill development since it was established and the suburb retains its original low-density (R15) and relatively large (600-900 sq m) lot layout. Allowing for this alternative development type in the suburb is not anticipated by residents and may reduce the traditional form of the area. For these reasons officers are cautious to include areas of Samson in the amendment area and instead recommend that future development density and patterns in Samson should be considered as part of a comprehensive housing strategy which will be required as part of the review of the City’s Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme programmed for later this year and 2017. In response to Council’s resolution requesting advice on criteria that might be used to guide exercise of discretion to allow individual cases of this development type outside of the recommended areas, officers recommend the following approach: Council may consider properties outside of the special control area subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a. The property is - i. Not heritage listed; and ii. Located within 400m of a high frequency bus route or 800m of a train station,

unless additional parking and/or alternative modes of transport are provided for; and

iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and

b. The proposed development - i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3 Lot

boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; ii. Meets the Deep Planting Zone and open space requirements of the

Scheme. Open space percentage

Council resolution 23 September 2015: A minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-codes, shall be provided over the entire development site. Council may, at its discretion, permit the minimum open space provision to be varied to not less than 60% in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

The R-Codes currently provide a minimum open space requirement for residential development depending on the density coding applicable to the land. The open space requirement and Scheme amendment principles the subject of this report are depicted below in table 1. Table 1 – Open space requirement

Density coding R-codes open space requirement

R15, R20 and R25 50%

R30 – R60 45%

Scheme amendment principles 70%


Page 68

In general, the open space on a ‘typical’ non-subdividable lot in older areas of Fremantle can be 70-80%. Therefore the principles for this possible Scheme amendment include a requirement for 70% open space to limit site coverage/the building footprint and help to maintain the existing open aspects, mature vegetation and permeability on a site. AUDRC also suggest that it would encourage creative re-use of an existing dwelling. Council asked officers to consider requirements to guide discretionary decisions to reduce the minimum open space requirement, expressed through an accompanying local planning policy. Officers suggest these requirements could be based around a higher requirement for outdoor living area to combat the deficiencies in the R-Codes definition of ‘open space’ and limiting the impact of building bulk on adjoining lots. The outdoor living area requirements under the R-codes vary for each density coding and development type is provided below in table 2. The broad definition of open space includes elements of a development such as uncovered parking and driveways. Requiring a larger outdoor living space than provided under the R-codes means that if open space is reduced to 60% it is not to the detriment of the outdoor living space provided for each dwelling. Table 2. Outdoor Living Area requirements of the R-codes

Development type

Density code Outdoor Living Area

Grouped Dwelling

R15 No requirement

R20 – R25 30 – minimum dimension of 4m

R30 – R35 24 – minimum dimension of 4m

Multiple Dwelling

All density codes under R40

At least one balcony or equivalent minimum area of 10 sqm and dimension of 2.4 m

Apart from safeguarding the provision of practical outdoor living area, officers consider a reduced open space requirement would be acceptable where the amenity of the neighbouring property is not affected by building bulk. The side boundary setbacks and building height design elements of the Residential Design Codes deal with factors that contribute to the impact of building bulk on neighbouring properties. The Residential Design Codes’ solar access to adjoining sites design element covers the impact of building bulk on neighbouring properties. Accordingly officers suggest that in order for a development to reduce open space to 60% it must meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes design elements listed below. Officers therefore recommend the following criteria to be used to assess proposals for open space provision of less than 70% – At Council’s discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 60% where -

a. An outdoor living area of at least 35 sqm with a minimum dimension of 5m is provided for each grouped dwelling and a balcony of at least 15m with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for each multiple dwelling; and

b. The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the following Residential Design Codes design elements-

i. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback ii. 5.1.6 Building height


Page 69

iii. 5.4.2 Solar access to adjoining sites

Rear setback

Council resolution 23 September 2015:

A minimum rear setback dimension of 5 metres, which Council may, at its discretion, permit to be reduced in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

Additional to the deep planting zone (DPZ) requirement (a minimum 25% of the development area, uncovered with a minimum dimension of 4.5m and at least 50% located on the rear proportion of the site) a minimum rear setback of 5m is required. The rear setback requirement effectively ensures at least some of the DPZ would be located on the rear boundary. In established suburbs the rear setback, compared to a side setback, is more important as traditionally large backyards adjoin each other and the setback between the rear adjoining boundaries has, in the past, been substantial. The rear setback area is also generally where the mature vegetation on a site is located. The purpose of this requirement is therefore to maintain this pattern. There may be circumstances however, where it would be appropriate to reduce the rear setback. Officers suggest the criteria to be considered could be based on the following scenarios:

the significance of the rear setback is reduced – for example where the neighbouring property has a significantly higher natural ground level than the development site or includes a building on or near the boundary;

greater tree protection can be achieved; and

a better location of the DPZ and/or outdoor living areas can be provided (e.g. improved solar orientation).

Accordingly officers recommend the following be used to form the discretionary criteria in a local planning policy to assess proposals to reduce the rear setback – At Council’s discretion the 5m rear setback requirement may be reduced where -

a. The adjoining property to the rear has: i. A building with a wall of 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the

common boundary; or ii. An existing ground level 1m or more higher than the subject site at the rear

boundary; or b. Greater protection of existing mature trees could be attained than would otherwise

be achieved with the 5m setback requirement; or c. Outdoor living areas and/or some of the Deep Planting Zone would be more

suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for the development.

Maximum number of dwellings

Council resolution 23 September 2015:

A limit on the maximum number of dwellings that may be built on any single site under the above provisions, based on a sliding scale of maximum dwelling numbers related to


Page 70

site area.

A key purpose of the future amendment is to increase the diversity of housing in existing suburbs by providing for the ability to develop smaller housing types. The results of the modelling undertaken by AUDRC however show that under the current scheme amendment principles sites not capable of subdivision under conventional Scheme and R-Codes controls could potentially yield up to six dwellings for a 750 sq m lot (average lot size in R20-R25 areas). Officers have undertaken further calculations based on the new requirements of 70% open space and 25% DPZ and estimate a lot of approximately 750 sq m could yield up to four to six dwellings, depending on dwelling size and design. While this would meet one main aim of the amendment, the potential for the development of six dwellings on an otherwise non-subdividable single house residential lot could be perceived as a negative outcome by the local community, regardless of design quality. Officers have examined the land area required to subdivide in the different density codings and suburbs. The subdividable lot sizes including the minimum and average lot sizes and total lot size required to consider subdivision for each density code is provided in table 3 below. Table 3. Lot size requirements for subdivision by density coding R-code R15 R20 R25 R30 R35

Applicable LPAs

Samson Hilton, WGV, Beaconsfield O’Connor, South Fremantle, Fremantle

Hilton, WGV, Beaconsfield,South Fremantle, Fremantle

Beaconsfield,South Fremantle, Fremantle, Hilton (north)

South Fremantle, Fremantle

Site area per dwelling(sqm) required for subdivision (R Codes Table 1)

Min 580 Avg 666

Min 350 Avg 450

Min 300 Avg 350

Min 260 Avg 300

Min 220 Avg 260

Lot size (sqm) required to consider subdivision under R-Codes

1332 Note: Few single lots are this size in Samson. Amalgamation required to consider s/d.

900 700 600 520

Estimated range of un-subdivided lot size in existing suburbs (sqm)

600-800

700-900 Note: Hilton and O’Connor have some large 900+ un-subdivided lots

700-800

500-800 500-600

Officers considered a sliding scale based on the density of a site and land required to subdivide. The outcome of this work is presented in table 4. The following assumptions were used:

one additional dwelling could be considered where, based on the lot size, conventional subdivision or group dwelling development is not an option for the site;


Page 71

three dwellings (two additional) could be considered where, based on the lot size, subdivision is an option for the site; and

The ability for more dwellings as the size of the lot increases above the minimum lot size required for subdivision (e.g. one additional dwelling per 150 sq m of lot area in excess of minimum lot area for subdivision).

Table 4. Proposed sliding scale/ density coding R-code R15 R20 R25 R30 R35 Number of dwellings / density coding / (sqm)

Below s/d lot size

<1332 total of 2

<900 total of 2

<700 total of 2

<600 total of 2

<520 total of 2

s/d lot size and above

>1332 3 + 1 for every additional 150sqm





The approach of providing a sliding scale based on subdividable lot size by density in table 4 above correlates to the reasonable expectation of an area’s redevelopment potential however does not relate to the actual lot size of suburbs in the City of Fremanle. Unlike greenfield areas, for the most part, Fremantle was not created on the same densities as areas have today. Accordingly the size of un-subdivided lots in the areas identified earlier in this report (Figures 1 and 2) where the amendment provisions are recommended to apply have similar lot areas of approximately 700-800 sq m (refer to table 3 above), despite different density codings. The approach is also against one of the principles of the amendment. Tying the number of possible dwellings on a lot to the site area by density coding essentially uses the site area requirements of the R-codes. One underpinning principle of the amendment is to allow for development of diverse housing in an otherwise low density suburb regardless of the density coding and site area requirements of the R-codes. Furthermore the provisions could be simpler. Complicated provisions are difficult to explain, administer and assess. Once adopted by Council, the City will be discussing the amendment with the Western Australian Planning Commission and then advertising to the public. The concept of allowing for additional dwellings outside of the R-code density requirements is a radical one. Keeping the provisions as simple and easy to understand as possible will be key to communicating the idea to the Commission and the community. Officers therefore suggest a simpler approach based on a single site area threshold. AUDRC used an indicative lot size of 750 sqm in their modelling as an average lot size in Beaconsfield/White Gum Valley. This is similar to the predominant size of non-subdivided lots in the areas where the amendment provisions are recommended to apply (approximately 700-800 sqm). Accordingly 750 sqm has been chosen as a pivot point upon which the maximum number of dwellings on a site can be considered. Officers therefore propose the following dwelling number ‘caps’ under the scheme amendment:

Site area <750 sqm – maximum three dwellings in total

Site area >750 sqm – maximum four dwellings in total


Page 72

The main advantages of this approach are:

The approach is in keeping with the original principles of this project in that it is not tied to density under the R-codes;

A site area cap would consistently apply to all areas, regardless of other factors i.e. density coding. This provides the community with an easy to understand measure and certainty on the types of development that could be possible in the area.

It also simplifies the provisions making them easier to communicate to WAPC and the public as a concept in a scheme amendment, and ultimately administer and assess if adopted and gazetted.

In addition to the maximum dwelling yield cap, officers also considered a minimum lot size requirement. However this is not considered necessary as there are other requirements in the prospective scheme amendment e.g. 25% DPZ and 60-70% open space that would effectively exclude very small lots from being able to develop. Following the outcome of Council’s consideration of this report the next step in the process will be for officers to draft and present to Council a formal scheme amendment for consideration for initiation. The amendment will incorporate the principles as first agreed 24 September 2014, the refinement of the principles resolved on 23 September 2015 and Council’s resolution in respect of the matters detailed in this report. CONCLUSION The discussion and recommendations contained in this report seek to conclude Council’s consideration of the scope and format of planning provisions to facilitate more diverse housing types, which commenced in September 2014. Since September 2014 modelling and further research on the principles to guide a scheme amendment on this topic has been undertaken and presented to Council. Council has considered a number of additional factors and further refinements have been made to the original principles. The purpose of this item is to suggest further refinements, prior to the initiation of a Scheme amendment. Subject to Council’s consideration of the recommendations in this report, officers will proceed to prepare a final draft of the scheme amendment to present back to Council in March or April 2016. ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMENT At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 February 2016 Council resolved to defer this item for further consideration at the March Strategy and Project Development Committee. Notice of several proposed amendments to the committee and officer’s recommendation by elected members had been given prior to the Council meeting. These amendments and an additional composite version of three of the amendments (amendment 4) have been reproduced below for the Committee’s consideration. The proposed amendments are in an order reflecting the sequence of the different parts of the committee and officer’s recommendation to help committee members to move and debate (if the committee wishes to do so) the amendments.


Page 73

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. Amend the map in Part 1(i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation with the

following map which alters the White Gum Valley area boundary on the map as shown below:

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: The revised area of White Gum Valley is considered more suitable for these development types. 2. Amend the map in Part 1(i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation with the

following map which alters the Fremantle area western boundary to Chudleigh Street as outlined in the map below:


Page 74

REASON FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: It is much more suitable than the area west which has a lot of unlisted heritage properties. 3. Amend the map in Part 1(i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation with the

following map which includes lots on Winterfold Road, Samson as outlined in the map below:


Page 75

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Including the lots fronting Winterfold Road, Samson into the map area would be in keeping with the purpose of the principles of an amendment to facilitate greater housing diversity in existing low density suburbs. 4. Amend the map in Part 1(i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation with the

following map which includes all of the new and altered areas as proposed in amendments 1, 2 and 3 above. (Note: this could be moved as a single amendment as an alternative to amendments 1, 2 and 3 above).


Page 76

5. Delete Part 1(ii) a) (iii) of the Committee and Officer’s Recommendation:

iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: The discretionary provisions should not be limited to applying only to lots larger than 600 sq m. 6. Amend Part 1 (ii) b) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to read as

follows [new wording in italics]:

b. The proposed development –

i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes, and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme; or

ii. Involves the retention and adaptation of an existing dwelling with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building form, and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme.

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: To provide opportunity for this form of development in a manner which encourages retention and conversion of existing houses in a way that causes a negligible difference to the neighbourhood.


Page 77

7. Delete Part 1 (ii) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation in its entirety:

(ii) Council may consider approving development under the planning provisions referred to in 1 above properties outside of the areas in 1(i) subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a. The property is - i. Not heritage listed; and ii. Located within 400m of a bus route or 800m of a train station,


iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sqm; and

b. The proposed development - i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3

Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; and ii. Meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of

the Scheme. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: The resultant amendment could be rolled out on a trial basis in specific areas only. This would allow for the provisions to be tested in specific areas before they are applied to all/more areas. 8. Amend Part 1 (iii) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to read as follows

[new wording in italics]:

iii. The maximum number of dwellings permissible under these planning provisions, subject to meeting all other relevant scheme site and development requirements, shall be

where the site area is less than 750 sq m – maximum three dwellings in total;

where the site area is equal to or greater than 750 sq m but less than 1,000 sqm maximum four dwellings in total;

where the site area is equal to or greater than 1,000 sq m – maximum six dwellings in total.

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: To avoid discouraging lot amalgamation or other means of assembling larger development sites to accommodate smaller dwelling types under the provisions of this scheme amendment. 9. Amend Part 2 (i) (open space discretion) of the Committee and Officers

recommendation to read as follows [new wording in italics]:

i. Open Space At Council’s discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a

minimum of 60% where –


Page 78

a. The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the following Residential Design Codes design elements-

i. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback

ii. 5.1.6 Building height

iii. 5.4.2 Solar access to adjoining site and

b. A minimum of 30% of the site area shall be deep planting zone; REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: To encourage desired forms of open space provision including an element of shared open space/facilities for residents. 10. Amend Part 3 of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to read as follows:

3. Authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning scheme amendment incorporating the planning provisions referred to in previous resolutions SPC1409-1 and SPC1509-4 and recommendation (1) above and a. undertake consultation with residents in identified areas to seek feedback

and input to research, information, typologies and any other information that will assist in reviewing and analysing the draft proposed provisions; and

b. amend the draft local planning scheme, if appropriate, to reflect feedback from community consultation at 3.a and present to Council for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee.

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: To allow for community feedback prior to formal initiation of an amendment given the innovative nature of the amendment.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: CR R PEMBERTON

That Council

1. Approve adding to the planning provisions previously endorsed by Council in its resolutions SPC1409-01 dated 24 September 2014 and SPC1509-4 dated 23 September 2015 the following:

i. The scheme amendment would only apply to the areas identified in the following plan –


Page 79

ii. Council may consider approving development under the planning provisions referred to in 1 above properties outside of the areas in 1(i) subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following: a. The property is -

i. Not heritage listed; and ii. Located within 400m of a bus route or 800m of a train station,


iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sqm; and

b. The proposed development - i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element

5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; and

ii. Meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme.

iii. The maximum number of dwellings permissible under these planning provisions, subject to meeting all other relevant scheme site and development requirements, shall be -

where the site area is less than 750 sq m – maximum three dwellings in total; and

where the site area is equal to or greater than 750 sq m – maximum four dwellings in total


Page 80

2. Approve using the following criteria to form the requirements of an associated local planning policy planning to be used in conjunction with a proposed amendment for the development of smaller, diverse housing types -

i. Open space At Council’s discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 60% where - a. The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the

following Residential Design Codes design elements- i. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback ii. 5.1.6 Building height iii. 5.4.2 Solar access to adjoining sites

ii. Rear setback requirement

At Council’s discretion the 5m rear setback requirement may be reduced where - a. The adjoining property to the rear has a -

i. building with a wall of 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the common boundary; or

ii. ground level of 1m or higher than the subject site at the rear boundary; or

b. Greater protection of existing and mature trees could be attained than would otherwise be achieved with the 5m setback requirement; or

c. Outdoor living areas and/or the Deep Planting Zone would be more suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for the development.

3. Authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning scheme amendment incorporating the planning provisions referred to in previous resolutions SPC1409-1 and SPC1509-4 and in recommendation (1) above for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee.

AMENDMENT 1 Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation as follows:

Amend the map in Part 1(i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation

with the following map.


Page 81

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

AMENDMENT 2 Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete the following wording:

Delete Part 1(ii) a) (iii) of the Committee and Officer’s Recommendation:

iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and LOST: 3/7


Page 82

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor Brad Pettitt

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

AMENDMENT 3

Cr Andrew Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete the following wording:

Delete Part 1(ii) a) (i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation:

i. Not heritage listed; and

and amend Part 1(ii) b) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to add point iii as follows:

iii. Does not have a detrimental impact on the cultural significance of a heritage listed place;

CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Mayor Brad Pettitt

AMENDMENT 4

Cr Andrew Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation as follows:

Amend Part 1(ii) b) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to add iv as follows:

iv. Does not involve the demolition of a building assessed as having some or more cultural significance; or


Page 83

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


AMENDMENT 5

Cr Andrew Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation as follows:

Amend Part 1(ii) b) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to add v as follows:

v. Does not involve the wholesale demolition of a building that if kept would be capable of retaining a high degree of embedded energy."

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


AMENDMENT 6 Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend:

Part 1 (ii) b) to read as follows [new wording in italics]:


Page 84

b. The proposed development –

i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes, and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme; or

ii. Involves the retention and adaptation of an existing dwelling with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building footprint and streetscape, and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme.

.

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


AMENDMENT 7 Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend Part 1 (i) to read as follows:


i. The scheme amendment would only apply to the areas identified in the following plan and development would also be subject to the controls in part ii (a)and (b) below.


Page 85

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


AMENDMENT 8

Cr Dave Coggin MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to:

Delete Part 1 (ii) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation in its entirety

CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

Mayor Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Rachel Pemberton

AMENDMENT 9

Cr Rachel Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation as follows:

Amend Part 1 (iii) (second dot point) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to read as follows (amended wording in italics):

- where the site area is equal to or greater than 750 sq m - maximum of three

dwellings plus one additional dwelling for every additional 150 sq m of site area in excess of 750 sq m.


Page 86

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


AMENDMENT 10

Cr Andrew Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation as follows:

Amend Part 2 (i) of the Committee and Officer’s recommendation to replace the recommended wording with the following:

i Open Space At Council's discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 60% where a minimum of 50% of the available open space includes areas that are developed as uncovered outdoor living areas and/or deep zone planting areas.

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


AMENDMENT 11

Cr David Coggin MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to read as follows (amended wording in italics):


Page 87

3. Authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning scheme amendment incorporating the planning provisions referred to in previous resolutions SPC1409-1 and SPC1509-4 and recommendation (1) above and a. undertake consultation with residents to seek feedback and input to

research, information, typologies and any other information that will assist in reviewing and analysing the draft proposed provisions; and

b. amend the draft local planning scheme, if appropriate, to reflect feedback from community consultation at 3.a and present to Council for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee; ARE

c. Request Officers to bring a Consultation Plan to Council to show how the consultation required under 3 (a) above will be carried out

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 88

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: CR R PEMBERTON

That Council


i. The scheme amendment would only apply to the areas identified in

the following plan and development would also be subject to the

controls in ii (a) and (b) below:

Ii The property is -

i. Located within 400m of a bus route or 800m of a train station, unless additional parking and/or alternative modes of transport are provided for; and

ii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and

a. The proposed development -


Page 89

i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; and meet the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the scheme; or

ii. Involves the retention and adaptation of an existing dwelling with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building footprint and streetscape, and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme.

iii. Does not have a detrimental impact on the cultural significance of a heritage listed place; or

iv. Does not involve the demolition of a building assessed as having some or more cultural significance; or

v. Does not involve the wholesale demolition of a building that if kept would be capable of retaining a high degree of embedded energy.

iii. The maximum number of dwellings permissible under these planning provisions, subject to meeting all other relevant scheme site and development requirements, shall be -

where the site area is less than 750 sq m – maximum three dwellings in total; and where the site area is equal to or greater than 750 sq m – maximum of three dwellings plus one additional dwelling for every additional 150 sq m of site area in excess of 750 sq m

1. Approve using the following criteria to form the requirements of an associated local planning policy planning to be used in conjunction with a proposed amendment for the development of smaller, diverse housing types -

i. Open space At Council’s discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 60% where a minimum of 50% of the available open space includes areas that are developed as uncovered outdoor living areas and/or deep zone planting areas-

ii. Rear setback requirement At Council’s discretion the 5m rear setback requirement may be reduced where – a. The adjoining property to the rear has a -

i. building with a wall of 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the common boundary; or

ii. ground level of 1m or higher than the subject site at the rear boundary; or


Page 90

b. Greater protection of existing and mature trees could be attained than would otherwise be achieved with the 5m setback requirement; or

c. Outdoor living areas and/or the Deep Planting Zone would be more suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for the development.

2. Authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning scheme amendment incorporating the planning provisions referred to in previous resolutions SPC1409-1 and SPC1509-4 and in recommendation (1) above for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee.

a. undertake consultation with residents to seek feedback and input to research, information, typologies and any other information that will assist in reviewing and analysing the draft proposed provisions; and

b. amend the draft local planning scheme, if appropriate, to reflect feedback from community consultation at 3.a and present to Council for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee; and

c. Request Officers to bring a Consultation Plan to Council to show how the consultation required under 3 (a) above will be carried out

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 91

The following item number SPD1603-2 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1603-2 INFORMATION REPORT - SUSTAINABLE EVENTS GUIDELINE AND CHECKLIST

ECM Reference: 078/024 Author: Melanie Bainbridge, Sustainability Coordinator Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1. Project Update Report – Sustainable

Event Guideline and Checklist Attachment 2. Sustainable Events Guideline Attachment 3. Sustainable Events Checklist A project update report for the special projects Sustainable Events Guideline and Checklist is attached for your information. The Sustainable Events Guideline and Checklist was developed in response to calls from Council and community to ensure that events, both produced by the City of Fremantle, and produced externally within the City of Fremantle boundaries, were adhering to the City’s sustainability principles and supporting the intent of the One Planet Strategy.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council:

1. Receive the project update report(s) as shown in attachments one (1) and two (2) and three (3) of the Special Projects Committee agenda 9 March 2016.

2. Request that City of Fremantle run events will aim to achieve all components of the checklist contained in the Sustainable Events Guidelines over a twelve month trial period.

3. Request that after the end of the twelve month trial period a report be presented to Council assessing the degree to which City of Fremantle and external event providers met the requirements of the checklist.

4. Request the Sustainable Events Guideline and Checklist be reviewed in light

of the results of the trial period


Page 92


For Against



Page 93

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 16 MARCH 2016

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered FPOL1603-7, FPOL1603-8, FPOL1603-9, FPOL1603-10, and FPOL1603-11. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


The following item number FPOL1603-7 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

FPOL1603-7 ADVERTISE PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD CLOSURE PORTION OF MEWS ROAD, FREMANTLE FOR AMALGAMATION WITH THE ADJOINING RESERVE NO. 27807 MANAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (DOT)

ECM Reference: 163/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 24 February 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery, Actioning Officer: Phil Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1: Map of the proposed portion of Mews

Road to be closed and amalgamated.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Transport (DoT) has approached the City to seek the transfer of the southern section of Mews Road (south of Arundel Street crossing to Capo D’Orlando Drive) to DoT (refer attachment). The DoT currently has responsibility for the northern section (note that the northern section of Mews Road is located within the DoT managed Reserve No. 32382 forming part of the Crown Reserve, and the road tenure is simply “a constructed road on Crown Land”, as described by the Department of Land (DoL)). It sees that the overall management of Mews Road will provide it with opportunities to improve the existing parking layout, traffic flow, road resurfacing and aesthetics for this section.


Page 94

Council officers accept that DoT is better placed to provide funding and resources for improvements to the road reserve in this location to service its own lessees fronting Mews Road, and acknowledge that there is no significant detriment to the City in relinquishing the vesting of road reserve for this area; while also alleviating some of its responsibility for maintenance and potential upgrade requirements. In order to transfer the existing portion of Mews Road (currently dedicated road reserve) to the DoT, a formal road closure process is required under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (“Act”). In accordance with the Act, the road closure process commences with the formal public advertising of the proposal (requested in this item to council), with a second item to council to report on the results of advertising and to make a final decision with regard to the proposed road closure. Following the closure (subject to statutory approvals) the land is transferred back to the Crown and may then be amalgamated with the adjoining DoT Reserve No. 27807. Council approval is sought to advertise the proposed closure of the southern portion of Mews Road, (dedicated), and amalgamate this portion with the adjoining Reserve No. 27807under the management of the DoT for “Harbour Purposes”.

BACKGROUND

DoT has a number of leasehold lots within the DoT reserve fronting Mews Road where lessees are making significant investments to the lots. Concerns on availability of parking and road maintenance have been raised through lessee customers and workers. DoT wants to pursue plans to formalise parking through delineation of car bays and dedicated short term bays for customers, together with possible widening of the roadway and resurfacing, as well as soft and hard landscaping. By making these improvements it hopes to mitigate any issues from lessees for safe customer and supplier access to this part of Mews Road and the Fishing Boat Harbour

COMMENT

Council officers note that ordinarily the City has management responsibility for all road reserves as a core function of local government. However, in this instance it is also recognised that DoT has a high interest in upgrading and maintaining the road reserve infrastructure and facilities for lessees fronting Mews Road. Given that this section of Mews Road is essentially used as a business service road, the upgrades being identified as the area further develops does not have the same priority for the City as it does for DoT. The City will be able to transfer the liability for such maintenance and upgrades of the road reserve. This extends to storm water requirements for the reserve, where the City may be responsible for partial funding of gross matter traps and drainage connections for storm water drainage through leasehold lots where easements and permits are not in place. It is noted that the current car parking agreement for car park 31 at the Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour may be extended to include the southern section of Mews Road to allow


Page 95

for paid parking revenue should this be installed. It is also noted that the proposed change in management for the road reserve will not affect the ability of the City to levy rates for commercial leased properties within State Government controlled land (as for areas north of the Arundel St railway crossing). There are future plans to extend strategic corridors across the rail line to Mews Road at Norfolk Street and South Street to improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the waterfront. These initiatives have been included in FREO 2029 Transformational Moves. The future extension of Norfolk Street would not be affected by closure of the road reserve as Norfolk Street is located to the north of the Arundel Street crossing and therefore an extension would connect to the section of Mews Road already in the Crown Reserve managed by DoT.However the extension of South Street would connect to the section of Mews Road road reserve proposed to be closed and therefore such a link would be simpler if the road reserve area affected were to remain under the City’s control. It is recognised that any proposed road changes would need to be considered and agreed with DOT prior to any progression of such plans in any case. While it could be assumed that improved connection of these strategic transport links to the Fishing Boat Harbour would be in DOT’s interest (and DOT has previously indicated informal support) it is recommended that the City should seek some form of written confirmation from DoT that it will continue to support and work with the City in pursuing the achievement of a connection on the South Street alignment in the event of a change in management of the affected road reserve area.


Financial

There are no short term financial implications for the proposed change in management for the road reserve outside those costs which will be generated for survey costs in relation to legal requirements noted below. Longer term liabilities for road maintenance will be reduced. The surveyor will be required to provide a Deposited Plan for a Crown Subdivision to create a new lot for inclusion into the DoT adjoining Reserve No. 27807. The tenure change will be processed by the DoL as a reserve amendment to the DoT existing Reserve No.27807. Legal

Interest in public road reserves cannot be granted to management bodies outside local government or Main Roads under Land Administration legislation. Therefore the City will not be able to seek assignment of the care, control and management of this southern section of Mews Road to DOT as a public road. The legal mechanism to achieve an effective transfer of control will be:

To formally seek closure of this southern section of Mews Road under section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997

To seek an amalgamation of the existing DOT reserve 27807 to include this proposed closed section of Mews Road. Reserve 27807 contains those sections of land to the west of the southern section of the Mews Road reserve, and is a reserve granted for Harbour Purposes. It is noted that the northern section of Mews Road is also contained within a DOT reserve (number 32382) which has


Page 96

the same legal status as this reserve 27807, namely a reserve for Harbour Purposes. In effect the proposal to amalgamate this section of Mews Road will bring it into line with the current status of the northern section, being a constructed road within a reserve managed for Harbour Purposes.

Land Administration legislation

The proposed road closure of the dedicated portion of Mews Road, Fremantle (extending to South Fremantle) is in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 headed “Closing Roads”. The advertising requirement is contained within Section 58 (3) with subsections 1, 2 and 3 noted below;

(1) “When a local government wishes a road in its district to be closed permanently, the local government may, subject to subsection (3), request the Minister to close the road.

(2) When a local government resolves to make a request under subsection (1), the local government must in accordance with the regulations prepare and deliver the request to the Minister.

(3) A local government must not resolve to make a request under subsection (1) until a period of 35 days has elapsed from the publication in a newspaper circulating in its district of notice of motion for that resolution, and the local government has considered any objections made to it within that period concerning the proposals set out in that notice.”

The DoL require a Council Resolution with regard to advertising as outlined in the Land Administration Regulations 1998 Section 9 headed “Local government request to close road permanently (Act s. 58(2)), requirements for

For the purposes of preparing and delivering under section 58(2) of the Act a request to the Minister to close a road permanently, a local government must include with the request –

(a) written confirmation that the local government has resolved to make the request, details of the date when the relevant resolution was passed and any other information relating to that resolution that the Minister may require; and

(b) sketch plans showing the location of the road and the proposed future disposition of the land comprising the road after it has been closed; and

(c) copies of any submissions relating to the request that, after complying with the requirement to publish the relevant notice of motion under section 58(3) of the Act, the local government has received, and the local government’s comments on those submissions; and

(d) a copy of the relevant notice of motion referred to in paragraph (c); and

(e) any other information the local government considers relevant to the Minister’s consideration of the request; and

(f) written confirmation that the local government has complied with section 58(2) and (3) of the Act.”

Further legal requirements (e.g. in relation to statutory declaration of interest regarding the proposed road section to be closed) will be undertaken as necessary.


Page 97

Operational

The changes proposed will have minimal impact on operational works. Organisational

There should be no immediate impact to scheduling of projects.

CONCLUSION

On balance, the proposal to transfer management of the road reserve to DoT (through a road closure and amalgamation to an existing reserve) for this section of Mews Road is favourable to the City and does not present any significant detriment. Council approval is therefore sought to proceed with the legal requirements to effect transfer of the road reserve, subject to confirmation of DoT’s ongoing support for the long term objective of extending the South Street transport corridor across the railway line to achieve better connectivity to the waterfront.


This item has a connection to the Strategic Plan through Urban Renewal and Integration.


Closure of any section of road will require public advertisement and formal consideration of objections as stipulated under the Land Administration Act 1997. Public advertising will need to refer to the final amalgamation to the DoT reserve. Future planning for rail crossings will need to be subject to full consultation with stakeholders at the time of the works being considered.


Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr D Hume Council:

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to seek a written undertaking from the Department of Transport to continue to support and work with the City of Fremantle in pursuing the achievement of an extension to the South Street strategic corridor across the rail line to Mews Road to improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the waterfront, in accordance with the FREO 2029 Transformational Moves document, in the event of a change in management of the affected road reserve area.

2. Subject to receipt of the written undertaking referred to in (1) above, undertake a

public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day public comment


Page 98

period in regard to the proposed closure of the dedicated portion of Mews Road Reserve (south of the Arundel Street railway crossing to Capo D’Orlando Drive, Fremantle) for the purpose of amalgamation with Reserve No. 27807 managed by the Department of Transport (as detailed in attachment 1) - pursuant to Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

3. Following the completion of the advertising period, consider the submissions

received during the advertising and public consultation in a report to council for a final decision prior to an application being made to the Department of Lands to close and amalgamate Mews Road as described in point 2.

4. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to progress discussions with the Department

of Transport regarding the extension of the car parking arrangement for car park No. 31 to this section of the proposed amended reserve (i.e. containing the proposed road closure).

COMMITTEE DECISION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council DEFER this matter until it has received a further report on the implications of ceding the southern portion of Mews Road to the Department of Transport that addresses a range of matters, including but not limited to:

1. Strategic Implications for future planned extensions of South Street and Norfolk Street westwards across the rail line;

2. Strategic implications for future protection works associated with coastal protection and climate change;

3. Strategic implications for future planning opportunities in Fishing Boat Harbour and other land on the seaward side of the rail reserve; and

4. Implications on current and future maintenance budgets; SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 99


FPOL1603-8 PROPOSED DEDICATION AS PUBLIC CITY OF FREMANTLE OWNED RIGHT OF WAY NO. 7 COMBEN PLACE, NORTH FREMANTLE (KW)

ECM Reference: 049/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 March 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Jeremy Kemp - Business Systems Coordinator Actioning Officer: Kerry Wood - Land Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Copy of Certificate of Title Volume 2230 Folio 246 and

Deposited Plan 45978

Figure 1 - Comben Place (ROW No.7) outlined in red

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle (“City”) is the registered freehold owner of the private right of way No. 7 known as Comben Place, North Fremantle (see figure 1 above). The purpose of this report is to dedicate Comben place as a public ROW as requested by the Director of Infrastructure Projects and Delivery. The proposal will ensure that appropriate traffic legislation can be enforced. Council approval is sought to proceed with the dedication of the subject land held in Certificate of Title Volume 2230 Folio 246 as a public right of way pursuant of Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (‘Act’).

Comben Place ( ROW)


Page 100

BACKGROUND

The private ROW No. 7 (Comben Place) is described on Certificated of Title Volume 2230 Folio 246 being Lots 100 and 101 on Deposited Plan 45978 (“ROW”). The ROW was transferred to the North Fremantle Municipality (NF M) on 4 August 1960 and later to the City as a result of the NFM amalgamation with the City of Fremantle. On 02 October 2007, a right of carriageway easement (No.K361821) was registered by the City for the benefit of Lot 1 (No.9) Jackson Street, North Fremantle– thereby providing legal access to the property.

COMMENT

Infrastructure and Projects management has requested that the proposed dedication of the whole of Comben Place should proceed. The proposed dedication of Comben Place as a public ROW will ensure that traffic legislation is enforced over the subject area. Further, any encumbrances or implied rights under Section 167 of the Transfer of Land Act (TLA) that may be attached to the land will be extinguished by the proposed dedication. The City can confirm that the public has enjoyed uninterrupted access to the ROW for well in excess of 10 years. The ROW as shown on Deposited Plan 45978 consists of Lot 100, with a total area of 171m2 and Lot 101 with a total area of 6m2. Lot 101 was originally created as a 0.34 m wide reserve on Diagram 1269.


Financial

There are no additional financial implications associated with the proposed dedication of Comben Place. The ROW is currently maintained by the City being the owner of the land with an approved upgrade scheduled for the second quarter of this year. Roads to Recovery (RTR) have accepted the upgrade as a valid project for funding purposes. The ROW is currently unsealed limestone. Legal

The proposed dedication of the whole of private ROW No. 7 (Comben Place) is in accordance with Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 headed “Dedication of land as road” subsections 1 (c), 2 (a) and (b), together with subsection 4 and subsection 6 as noted below; (1) “If in the district of a local government –

(a) …. (b) …. or (c) Land comprises a private road of which the public has had uninterrupted use for

a period of not less than 10 years,


Page 101

And that land is described in a plan of survey, sketch plan or document, the local government may request the Minister to dedicate that land as a road. (2) If a local government resolves to make a request under subsection (1), it must –

(a) In accordance with the regulations prepare and deliver the request to the Minister; and

(b) Provide the Minister with sufficient information in a plan of survey, sketch plan or document to describe the dimensions of the proposed road.

(3) (4) On the Minister granting a request under subsection (3), the relevant local

government is liable to indemnify the Minister against any claim for compensation (not being a claim for compensation in respect of land referred to in subsection (6)) in an amount equal to the amount of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Minister in considering and granting the request.

(5) (6) If land referred to in subsection (1)(b) or (c) is dedicated under subsection (3)(a), a

person with an interest in that land (including a person who has the benefit of an easement created under section 167A of the TLA) is not entitled to compensation because of that dedication.”

The Land Administration Regulations 1998 section 8 headed ‘Local government request to dedicate land as a road (Act,s 56) requirements for’ with subsection (c) and (d) as noted below; “For the purpose of preparing and delivering under section 56(2)(a) of the Act a request to the Minister to dedicate land as a road, a local government must include with the request –

(a) … (b) … (c) If the request is made in respect of a private road referred to in section 56(1)(c

) of the Act – i. written confirmation that the public has had uninterrupted use of the

private road for a period of not less than 10 years; and ii. a description of the section or sections of the public who have had

that use; and iii. a description of how the private road is constructed;

and

(d) copies of any submissions relating to the request that the local government has received, and the local government’s comments on those submissions; and”

(e) … (f) …


Page 102

Operational

The changes proposed will not impact on operational works. Organisational

The changes will not impact on the scheduled upgrade to Comben Place.


This item has a connection to the Strategic Plan through Urban Renewal and Integration.


Nil

CONCLUSION

The proposed dedication of Comben Place, North Fremantle will enable;

The enforcement of traffic legislation as a public right of way.

The whole of Comben Place is currently managed by the City as the owner of the ROW. The proposed dedication will formalise and transfer the subject land to a public ROW under the care, control and management of the City.




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council 1. Approve to proposed dedication of the whole of Comben Place, North

Fremantle as described on Certificate of Title Volume2230 Folio 246 being Lot 100 and 101 on Plan No. 45978 pursuant of Section 56 (1) (c) of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA).

2. Indemnifies the Minister of Lands from all costs associated with this process

in accordance with Section 56 (4) of LAA.


Page 103


For Against



Page 104


FPOL1603-9 DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION - FREO CLUB

ECM Reference: 023/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 March 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Beverley Bone, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1: 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 2002, The City of Fremantle has a service agreement with the Disability Services Commission (DSC) to provide a recreation program to adults with a disability. DSC has informed the City that due to significant changes in the way disability services are currently funded, block funding will no longer continue after 30 June 2016. This change impacts the delivery of the program, as no further funding will be received from 1 July 2016. Council are required to make a decision on the future of this program.

BACKGROUND

The City has been providing Freo Club to adults with disability since 2002. The club runs weekly on a Wednesday evening from 5.00 pm to 8.00 pm, with the exception of school holidays. The program alternates between The Meeting Place and other community locations such as sporting facilities, restaurants, cinemas and parks. City facilities such as the One Stop Shop and the Walyalup Aboriginal Cultural Centre have more recently been utilised to familiarise members with these services. The program aims to facilitate social interaction, recreation, relationship development and community inclusion. Activities vary widely and include lawn bowling, dancing, playing games, painting, drumming and cooking. The club currently has 14 members, some of whom have been attending for up to 14 years. Some parents and carers also attend the club. Members’ age range is from 27 to 67 years and there are currently 12 males and two females. Weekly attendance averages 12 members. Disability types include intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, learning disability, vision impairment, hard of hearing, schizophrenia, epilepsy, Cerebral Palsy and Down Syndrome. The Access and Inclusion Project Officer has been employed for 0.2 FTE to plan, budget and facilitate the program with the help of a casual support worker on the night. Community Development Coordinator, Manager and administrative staff resources also contribute to the running of the club.


Page 105

The DSC undertook a quality evaluation in May 2015 which highlighted that the Freo Club is an important part of members’ lives through supporting meaningful and ongoing opportunities for members to participate and develop long-term friendships and relationships in their community. Members and their family members provided positive feedback such as “[The individual] wouldn’t miss it for the world”, “[They] love to see their friends” and “It’s such a valuable service, I don’t know what we’d do without it”. New Funding Model Across Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has commenced in various launch sites. Where required, funding is now provided to individuals (individualised funding) rather than to organisations (block funding). This is a different way of providing support to individuals and families living with disability, where the individual/family has choice, control and flexibility around accessing supports. The Commonwealth and State Government signed an agreement in order to start a two year trial of the NDIS in Western Australia. This trial commenced in the Perth Hills in July 2014 and is run by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). This trial is occurring alongside the State Government’s WA NDIS My Way model which has commenced in the Lower South West region with the Cockburn and Kwinana area joining in July 2015. These trials are run by DSC. Developing an individualised plan is central to both the NDIS and WA NDIS My Way process and will be one of the first things undertaken with the assistance of a Planner or Coordinator. This plan is then used to determine what sorts of support a person may require and whether there are any funded supports as part of that plan. Eligible clients will transition to this funding model from 1 July 2016.

COMMENT

The DSC has historically provided block funding for the program which was $21,096 for the 2015-2016 financial year. Members contribute a small fee to attend each week and pay for their own meal. Due to significant changes in the way that disability services will be funded in the near future, the DSC have informed the City that this block funding will not continue after the current financial year. Five Freo Club members currently reside within the City’s boundaries. Four members live in suburbs outside of the City that are part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) My Way trial site. In these locations, clients can receive support to use individualised funding for services they choose, however not all clients are linked into this service. Five of the 14 members are in contact with their My Way Coordinator or DSC Local Area Coordinator (LAC) who provide access to support and services they may need. Six members live in supported group housing, whilst others live with a parent or sibling. Ten members are currently working or volunteering. Most members access other activities organised by service providers such as Activ. One member does not access any other recreation or social activities outside of work. DSC staff have met with City officers to gain further knowledge of the program and information on clients. The DSC has a committed team to undertake the transition of


Page 106

services across the metropolitan area and will collaborate with the City and client families with regard to their individualised funding. At this stage, the discussion has been around transitioning the Freo Club members as a group to another Disability Service provider who has the capacity to provide recreational programs in a group setting. This may involve the new service provider utilising some of the existing locations to ensure the surrounds haven’t changed, whilst the clients become familiar with the new staff and the continuation of already established friendships. The City will continue to investigate other options to facilitate the inclusion of adults with disability in mainstream social and recreational activities in Fremantle. This action would support the City of Fremantle 2016-2020 Access and Inclusion Plan (Attachment 1) initiatives to facilitate and encourage the inclusion of adults with disability in the City’s mainstream social and recreational activities.


Financial

The DSC block funding for Freo Club in the current financial year was $21,096 against account number 32.32110.4311.00.00.18016. Legal

The Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) requires State Government authorities and Local Governments to develop and implement a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan. The recently adopted City of Fremantle 2016 - 2020 Access and Inclusion Plan outlines the ways the City will ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to its mainstream information, services and facilities. Like many Local Governments, the City has previously also recognised the specific needs of some of their community members by also providing specialist services such as the Freo Club. The Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) states that ‘Wherever possible, services are to be integrated with services generally available to members of the community.’ Operational

Community Development would be responsible for co-ordinating with the DSC to transition members across to other service providers as required and investigating other initiatives to encourage inclusion of adults with disability in mainstream social and recreational activities. Organisational

A communication plan would be developed to ensure community members are kept aware of any opportunities to engage with external service providers, such as not-for-profit organisations who can deliver a suite of recreational activities within the City of Fremantle.


Page 107


The City is committed to making continual improvements to ensure that buildings, facilities, services, events, information and employment opportunities are available to community members who have a disability.


Due to the sensitive nature of this decision, community engagement has involved a discussion with the clients to determine what other programs and services they currently receive. Further discussions will need to occur with each member to transition to other preferred providers that suit the individual recreational needs.

CONCLUSION

The DSC block funding for the Freo Club will cease and no longer be available after 30 June 2016. Although the City has been running Freo Club for several years, this change to individualised funding represents an opportunity for the City and clients to transition to service providers who have recreational programs as their core business. The City would need to work with providers and clients to minimise the impact on individuals whilst attempting to maintain the current strengths of the established friendships within the group.




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The City Co-ordinates with DSC to transition Freo Club members across to alternative service providers as appropriate by 1 July 2016. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 108


FPOL1603-10 INFORMATION REPORT - CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION (CEFC) LOAN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST

ECM Reference: 078/026 Author: Nicki Ledger, Sustainability Officer Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1. Project update report – Clean Energy

Finance Corporation EoI Attachment 2. CEFC Loan EoI / Application A project update report for the special projects Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) Expression of Interest is attached for your information. In January 2016 a request was made by Council to investigate the possibility of applying for a Clean Energy Finance Corporation loan to support the City’s work towards meeting our One Planet target of 100% renewable energy by 2025. The Executive Leadership Team considered this request on January 6, 2016 and a decision was made to develop and submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) to the CEFC to take advantage of this loan, which can be drawn down over three years, with loan terms of ten (10) years. An EOI was submitted by the City on 24th February 2016. The EOI process is designed to collect basic information regarding potential projects or programs of works to enable the CEFC to undertake initial discussions with councils. Any determination as to a Council’s eligibility for the finance program is subject to formal investment approval, due diligence and documentation satisfactory to the CEFC. The timeframes to finalise the loans is typically 3-4 months from initial assessment to final contracts, although this may vary. No obligation or contract is entered into without significant further consideration and development.


Page 109


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The project update report(s) as shown in attachments one (1) and two (2) of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee Information Report for 16 March 2016 be received. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 110


FPOL1603-11 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 23 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1511-13 of 18 November 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type Statement of Net Current Assets Statement of Financial Position Schedule of Accounts Paid Investment Report Debtors Outstanding Report Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) (viewed electronically) Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for January 2016 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of year to date financial performance and forecasts based on

Statement of Comprehensive Income;

Statement of Financial Activity; and

Statement of Financial Position

An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) indicates no change in the current end of year budgeted operating deficit of $264,250. The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 29 February 2016 and forecast to 30 June 2016. 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1)

Actual Financial Performance to 29 February 2016

- Actual operating income of $62.71M is $80,230 more than the year-to-date

budgeted income of $62.63M (refer explanation within the report).

- Actual operating expenditure of $45.75M is $1.37M less than the year-to-date

budgeted expenditure of $47.11M (refer explanation within the report).

- Actual operating surplus of $16.96M is $1.45M more than the year-to-date

budgeted operating surplus of $15.51M.


Page 111

2. Capital Works

- Actual capital works of $7.07M (excluding committed expenditure) is $1.04M less

than the year-to-date budgeted capital works of $8.11M (refer explanation within report).

- Total capital expenditure is forecast to be $17.331M as approved by the council

at the mid-year budget review.

OFFICER COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how forecast income/expenditure is tracking to budget and the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding current year to date financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants, subsides and contributions, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $62.71M is $80,230 greater than the year-to date budgeted income of $62.63M.

Total forecast operating income of $71.71M is able to be achieved as budgeted.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 41.05m 44.12m 46.72m 49.58m 52.32m 55.30m 58.07m 60.87m 63.67m 66.42m 68.70m 71.77m

Currrent Budget 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.76m 60.21m 62.71m 65.12m 67.75m 69.91m 71.79m

Current Year Forecast 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.76m 60.21m 62.71m 65.12m 67.75m 69.91m 71.79m

40m

45m

50m

55m

60m

65m

70m

75m

Operating Income ($m)


Page 112

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure.

Actual operating expenditure of $45.75M is $1.37M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $47.11M.

Total forecast operating expenditure is consistent with February 2016 amended budget.





0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

70m

80m

Operating Expenditure ($m)


Page 113

Capital Expenditure The following graph highlights that capital expenditure to date is significantly under budget.

Notes: August 2014 Purchase of New Depot land for $7.8M

Note: Actual capital expenditure of $7.07M is $1.04M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $8.11M.

Total capital expenditure is forecast to be $17.33M for this financial year.

MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 29 July 2015 (Item SGS1507-9 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and $300 000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Employee Cost Employee costs are $889K under year to date budget mainly due to unfilled positions in a number of areas. However, agency labour (included under Materials and Contracts) is $87K over year to date budget and effectively reduces year to date employment cost savings to $802K.

Favourable

$889K Under budget

3.72%





0m

5m

10m

15m

20m

25m

Capital Expenditure ($m)


Page 114

Materials and Contracts Materials and Contracts are $484K under year to date budget mainly due to:

Software licence fee expense is $115K under the budget due to the invoice for payment hasn’t been received as budgeted.

Consultant cost savings of $44K;

$600k cost savings in Contracted Services area are offset $50K overspendings of legal cost, $52K overspending of trading stock and other minor overspendings.

Favourable $484K

Under budget 3.23%

Capital Grants and Subsidies Capital Grants and Subsidies are $425K greater than year to date budget mainly due to a timing difference in the receipt of grants funding for the following projects:

$175k joint contribution from Town of East Fremantle for the road works at East Street.

$208K funding from Main Road WA for National Black Spot Program and Road Project Grant Program at Queen Victoria Street.

Favourable $425K

Over budget 5%

Capital Works Actual capital expenditure of $7.072M is $1.042M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $8.115M. Conservation and Compliance Works at the Fremantle Boys School Stage 3, 92 Adelaide Street Fremantle (FCC462/16) will require an additional budget of $76,656. The shortfall of $76,656 in funds for this project will be sourced from other municipal budget savings as listed below.

Unfavourable $1.042M

Under budget 12.85%

Project Budget Forecast

Surplus (Deficit)

Boys School Stage 3 $ 704,801 $ 781,457 ($ 76,656)

Boys School Stage 2 $ 55,511 $ 32,194 $ 23,317

Fremantle Arts Centres Projects

$ 487,771 $ 463,771 $ 24,000

Gil Fraser Fencing - Residence

$ 19,500 $ 11,743 $ 7,757

Gil Fraser Fencing - John Street

$ 21,800 $ 18,343 $ 3,457

To fund from other savings $ 18,125

Total Surplus (Deficit)

$ 0


Page 115

Cash Investments The graph below summarise the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 29 February 2016.

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 29 February 2016. There are $38.1M investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 72% of the total investments.

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/).

at call 30 days 60 days 90 days 120 days 150 days 180 days 210 days 300 days

Sum of Amount $9.7M $5.5M $8.2M $4.0M $5.5M $15.5M $2.0M $2.0M $0.5M

$.0M

$2.0M

$4.0M

$6.0M

$8.0M

$10.0M

$12.0M

$14.0M

$16.0M

$18.0M

AMP, $5.1M, 10%

ANZ, $6.3M, 12% BOQ,

$9.0M, 17%

ME Bank, $3.1M, 6%

NAB, $3.1M, 6%

Rural Bank, $7.0M, 13%

Beyond Bank, $1.5M, 3%

Suncorp, $9.4M, 17%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $6.5M, 12%

Auswide, $2.0M, 4%

Investments at carbon non-support financial institutions,

$38.1M, 72%

Counterparty Exposure

http://www.marketforces.org.au/


Page 116

Purchase Card Expenditure Reports February 2015 purchase card transaction reports will be provided at the next meeting. risk and other implications Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of. Legal

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation Of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3) Operational

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2015/16 adopted budget. Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during February 2016, plus cash deposits at the end of February 2016. Also attached is the year to date statement of financial activity and statement of financial position for information.


Nil.


Nil.


Page 117




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 29 February is received,

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for February 2016, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


For Against



Page 118

FPOL1603-3 APPROVAL OF LEASE FOR ENKEL - NAVAL STORES, CANTONMENT HILL

ECM Reference: 039/076 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1504-6; SGS1506-10 Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager of Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Weller, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Item is for Council to consider approval of the essential terms and conditions for a Lease between the City of Fremantle and Enkel at the building known as the Naval Stores, at 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting 16 October 2013, Council resolved the following; That Council:

1. Endorses calling for expressions of interest through an EOI with input from the Cantonment Hill Working Group in relation to public and or commercial activities at the Cantonment Hill site, including the signal station, that could provide activation and a degree of caretaker presence in the short to medium term without obstructing the larger master planning and implementation process.

2. Authorises interim actions including reconnection of services at the signal station, the up-lighting of the building and mural artwork

3. Authorises additional funds of $150 000 to be transferred from the Cantonment Hill Reserve for the interim actions and to support the activation of the ground floor of the signal station and naval store

4. Lists progression of the implementation of the Cantonment Hill Master Plan as a high priority in future budgets.

5. Delays changing the Cantonment Hill Working Group project scope, pending the Expression of Interest process outcomes.

An expression of interest (EOI) process calling for submissions to activate the Cantonment Hill Reserve was advertised, closing on Monday 26 May 2014. Seven expressions of interest were received with the majority focused on use of the Naval Stores. The Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group concluded that it is possible for more than one applicant to activate the Naval Stores with the possibility that there be one head lessee to manage the entire building.


Page 119

The City received a total of six expressions of interest specifically for the Naval Stores. Of those, two applicants were recognised as potential head lessees with a model that includes other smaller operators as potential sub lessees. The two suitable head Lessee candidates were Fremantle Foundations acting on behalf of the Circus School, and Enkel. An item submitted to the Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2015 requested Council to consider the following Officer Recommendation; “For Council to approve; 1. An offer to Enkel valid for a period of 90 days to complete due diligence and submit

a business case to the City, without a commitment to a long term lease at this stage.

2. City Officers to source costs to improve the building’s structural integrity for review

by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group and presented to Council for budget approval.

3. City officers to prepare and negotiate a Lease between the City of Fremantle and

Enkel subject to points 1 & 2 of the Recommendation, for review by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group prior to being presented to Council for approval.”

An alternate Recommendation was adopted by Council being; Council’s Resolution: “To defer the item to the May Council Meeting to allow Enkel and Circus School to consider a joint proposal and to present to the next Informal Elected members Meeting.” The reason for the change to the Officers Recommendation was to allow for further discussion between the two potential tenants and the consideration of Enkel and the Circus School to occupy the Naval Stores together. Discussions continued between Enkel and the Circus School of a period of time without resolution. A further item was brought to Council to consider a Lease with Enkel in June 2015 with the following Resolution made; “Council to approve;

1. City Officers to provide an estimate of the cost of remedial works to the Naval Stores building and present them for review by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group and then to Council for approval.

2. An offer to Enkel valid for a period of 90 days to complete due diligence, without a commitment to a long term lease at this stage, subject to point 1 of this recommendation.

3. City Officers to prepare and negotiate a Lease between the City of Fremantle and Enkel subject to points 1 & 2 of this recommendation, for review by the


Page 120

Cantonment Hill Working Group, prior to being presented to Council for approval”

COMMENT

A dilapidation, engineering and servicing report identifying the required remedial works to bring the Naval Store in line with building code compliance was completed Friday 9 October 2015. The City met with Enkel Tuesday 20 October 2015 and advised what components the City would undertake as part of the works subject to the budget approval by Council. An item was taken to Strategic and General Services Committee regarding the works budget on the Naval Stores 18 November 2015. The resolution of the item approved funding to undertake building compliance and defer consideration of public access requirements to the next appropriate Committee meeting. The approval of funds by Council at the November 2015 meeting met the conditions of point 1 of the June 2015 Council Resolution, triggering the commencement of the 90 days due diligence period for Enkel, the Christmas and holiday period was taken into account when allowing for the time line with proposed Lease terms to be taken to Council in March 2016. Since the approval of this budget, Enkel has submitted to the City’s Asset Manager a copy of their internal design concept to allow for the City’s detailed design to be finalised and a scope built for tender to architects. Quotes have now been received from four architects and are currently being assessed by Officers. Staging of works will be based on Enkel’s Lease approval to release funding for phase 2 (public access) of the building compliance (this will need to be approved at the next appropriate FPOL meeting subject to the approval of a Lease with Enkel). Both phase 1 (compliance) and phase 2 (public access) of the building compliance works hinges on the approval of the Section 18 for Cantonment Hill, receipt of which is currently scheduled for April 2016. This approval must be received before any works can commence onsite that involve excavation of the land, in this case the clearing of the debris behind the Naval Stores and stabilisation works to the cliff face. A development application for phase 1 works is progressing with a second development application to be submitted for phase 2 subject Council approval of Enkel’s Lease terms. Whilst DA’s are being assessed, the tender documentation for both stages (if applicable) will be composed and the tender process carried out to secure a builder for the works. Based on estimated time lines, including phase 2 works, allowing for 90 days approval of each DA and assumed construction period of 14 weeks, the works for the Naval Stores would be complete by approximately January 2017. Enkel have advised they are ready to proceed with the development application for the internal fit out but this cannot proceed until the two DA’s for phase 1 and phase 2 have been accessed and approved. Given the time frames for proposed works hand over to Enkel would not be able to occur until the City’s works are completed and a further six months would need to be granted to Enkel to complete in time for activation from July 2017.


Page 121

A copy of Enkel’s estimated cost of fit out is attached to this item under confidential file. This also includes a breakdown of Enkel’s funding. It is proposed that fit out will take approximately six months to complete. Initially Enkel proposed an incremented and staged approach of activation but this wasn’t a realistic approach considering external funding options for both Enkel and the City would only be granted once. Further to this, the requirements under Building Code Australia, which are activated as soon as any works commence on the site, won’t allow for public access until all works are complete and comply with the code. To ensure compliance with overall project time line and June 2015 Council Resolutino, Officers have brought to Council the essential terms and conditions of the Lease for approval which will then allow for the finer details of the Lease to be finalised under Chief Executive Officer Delegated Authority.

Special Conditions:

1. Performance criteria will be an annexure to the Lease. This will be reviewed within

the last three months of each term to ensure relevance and updated as

necessary.

2. The Licensee will be required to report against the performance criteria annually

on the anniversary of the Lease commencement date however the Lessor may

request a report proving adherence to the performance criteria at any stage within

the Lease term or further terms.

3. A performance management committee, consisting of Enkel and City of Fremantle

Officers will meet to monitor the progress of Enkel. The meetings will be

structured as follows;

- 1st year – every quarter

- 2nd

year – biannually

- 3rd

year and ongoing – annually

If required, meetings may be increased to cater to any “underperformance” issues

relating to the delivery of the performance criteria at the determination of the

Lessor at any stage through the Lease.

4. If the Licensee does not adhere to the performance criteria this will be a breach

against the Lease and the Licensee will be issued with a Notice of Default.

5. If a total of five (5) Notices of Default occur against the Lease, regardless of the

reasons for the Notice of Default, the Lease can be terminated.

6. The Lease will include a subletting clause which will allow the Lessee to enter into

subletting arrangements subject to Lessor approval. The collective value of the


Page 122

subletting of the premises may exceed the total rent payable under the Head

Lease as long as the sublease rents are within Market range and the permitted

use of the subleases are consistent with the Head Lease.

7. It is acknowledged by the Lessor that the Lessee is a stakeholder in regards to

works to the surrounding Open Space Reserve (Cantonment Hill) but is not an

approving authority. The Lessee may make requests regarding future plans, use

of projects relating to the Project but the Lessor reserves the right to deny any

requests. The Lessee acknowledges that this Lease is for the Building only known

as the Navel Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle.

Essential Terms and Conditions

Land Description

Lot 602 on Deposited Plan 65368 Volume 2747 Folio 159

Property Description

Navel Store – 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle

Registered Proprietor

City of Fremantle

Site Area

1,393m2

NOTE: Area to be confirmed subject to public toilets being located within the Naval Stores.

Licence Commencement Date

TBA - Subject to the completion of the City’s remedial works on the Naval Stores and Development Application approval for Lessee fit out.

Lease Term

Five (5) years commencing TBA

Further Terms

1 – Five (5) years commencing TBA


3 - Five (5) years commencing TBA


Page 123

Note: Lease options are the option of the Lessee not the Lessor with the Lessor required to give approval for exercising these options at the Lessee’s request subject to the Lessor complying with all aspects of the Lease. If the Lessee is in breach of the terms for any reason (e.g. point 5 of the Special Conditions) then the Lessor can renege on exercising the option.

Rent

Rent will be based on an independent market valuation which has been determined as $35m2 pa + GST. The market valuation was based on “community use” of the building not on the open commercial market.

The rent will also be subject to the Lease area being confirmed.

Rent to be stepped in gradually over the first term of the lease with the aim to reach Market Rate at the end of the five years. The financial contribution to the building by Enkel will be considered when assessing the staged increase.

Rent Reviews

No rent reviews will occur during the first term.

Market Reviews – These will occur at the commencement of 1st, 2nd and 3rd further terms. Market Valuation will be based on “community use” and will not include any improvements by the Lessee.

Consumer Price Index (CPI) Reviews – will occur annually from the commencement of the 1st further term.

Permitted Use

Hospitality; industrial working space, community venue and hire, office, climbing wall.

NOTE: The business model includes office, retail, industrial and hospitality.

The Naval Stores property type is “Industrial Improved” with a zoning of Open Space Reserve. Planning Department will require a submission to change of permitted use from Enkel during their Development Application phase. Advice from the Planning Department is that the proposed use of “Markets” would cover all uses and allow Enkel’s business model to evolve without the need for reapplying to Planning for a change in usage.

Outgoings

Outgoings will include but not be limited to;

Water Rates and Usage

Electricity Usage

Council Rates and Tax

Land Tax

Building Insurance


Page 124

General Maintenance

NOTE: Council Rates – Council Rates are made up of Rate and a Federal Emergency Service Levy. The Rates are calculated on the basis of a Gross Rental Value Landgate valuation.

Based on Enkel’s business model the business would not be exempt from Council Rates under the Local Government Act 1985. Enkel can however formally request Council to waive Council Rates but will still be liable for the Emergency Service Levy which is not considerable. A unanimous decision would be required to have the Rates waived and the areas of commercial activity such as the café and climbing wall may not be made exempt.

Condition Precedent

The Lease will be subject to all Development Application approvals for the Naval Stores.

Performance Criteria

1. Activation Techniques

- Learning pods: areas for local artists and entrepreneurs to include team and conference rooms

- Fab Lab: fabrication lab for prototyping and education to teach about new technologies and maker movement

- Co-creation and ideation workshops: share insights and skills with access to resources for the development of ideas and initiation of projects.

2. Public access, use and interaction

- Enkel membership is open to all public

- Hired space available for public use (conference and learning rooms)

3. Capacity

- Monitoring of membership capacity and reporting on level of building use in the following sectors

Full Enkel membership

Casual Enkel membership

General public hire and attendance - not relating to visitors to commercial elements (café, climbing wall)

4. Financial

- Annual profit and loss prepared by independent auditor/accountant.


Page 125


Financial

Remedial works budget has been approved for the Naval Stores in the 2015/16 budget. Incremented rent will commence at the completion of the Enkel’s fit out, expected to be July 2015. Legal

The Lease will be required to comply with the Local Government Act 1985 and Commercial Tenancy (Retail) Act 1995 Operational

Nil Organisational

Should Council approve the essential terms and conditions under this Item the lease the next step will be for Committee to consider approval of the budget for the public access (phase 2 of works) in line with the current proposed time frames in the Cantonment Hill Project.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

Enkel have advised they are ready to proceed with the development application for the internal fit out but this cannot proceed until the two DA’s for phase 1 and phase 2 have been accessed and approved. Given the time frames for proposed works hand over to Enkel would not be able to occur until the City’s works are completed and a further six months would need to be granted to Enkel to complete in time for activation from July 2017. Approval of the essential terms and conditions of this Item will allow for the Lease agreement to be finalised between the City and Enkel during in conjunction with DA approvals and Naval Stores works.




Page 126

The officer recommended to amend paragraph 1 of the officer's recommendation as follows: Original officer's recommendation paragraph 1: For Council to approve Chief Executive Officer Delegated Authority to finalise a Lease between the City of Fremantle and Enkel for the building known as the Naval Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle based on the following essential terms and conditions; Amended officer's recommendation paragraph 1: Council approve the following criteria in the draft Lease between the City of Fremantle and Enkel for the building known as the Naval Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle; REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The amendment was made to clarify the officer's recommendation to approve and seek Council support for the Lease criteria rather than granting delegated authority which was already approved in previous Council resolutions.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr D Hume Council approve the following criteria in the draft Lease between the City of Fremantle and Enkel for the building known as the Naval Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle;

Special Conditions:

1. Performance criteria will be an annexure to the Lease. This will be reviewed

within the last three months of each term to ensure relevance and updated

as necessary.

2. The Licensee will be required to report against the performance criteria

annually on the anniversary of the Lease commencement date however the

Lessor may request a report proving adherence to the performance criteria

at any stage within the Lease term or further terms.

3. A performance management committee, consisting of Enkel and City of

Fremantle Officers will meet to monitor the progress of Enkel. The meetings

will be structured as follows;

- 1st

year – every quarter

- 2nd

year – biannually

- 3rd



Page 127

If required, meetings may be increased to cater to any “underperformance”

issues relating to the delivery of the performance criteria at the

determination of the Lessor at any stage through the Lease.

4. If the Licensee does not adhere to the performance criteria this will be a

breach against the Lease and the Licensee will be issued with a Notice of

Default.

5. If a total of five (5) Notices of Default occur against the Lease, regardless of

the reasons for the Notice of Default, the Lease can be terminated.

6. The Lease will include a subletting clause which will allow the Lessee to

enter into subletting arrangements subject to Lessor approval. The

collective value of the subletting of the premises may exceed the total rent

payable under the Head Lease as long as the sublease rents are within

Market range and the permitted use of the subleases are consistent with the

Head Lease.

7. It is acknowledged by the Lessor that the Lessee is a stakeholder in regards

to works to the surrounding Open Space Reserve (Cantonment Hill) but is

not an approving authority. The Lessee may make requests regarding

future plans, use of projects relating to the Project but the Lessor reserves

the right to deny any requests. The Lessee acknowledges that this Lease is

for the Building only known as the Navel Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street,

Fremantle.


Land Description





City of Fremantle

Site Area

1,393m2 - Subject to public toilets being located within the Naval Stores.



Page 128


Lease Term


Further Terms




Rent




Rent Reviews




Permitted Use


Outgoings



Electricity Usage


Land Tax


Page 129

Building Insurance

General Maintenance

Condition Precedent

The Lease will be subject to all Development Application approvals for the Naval Stores.

Performance Criteria

1. Activation Techniques





- Enkel membership is open to all public

- Hired space available for public use (conference and learning rooms)

3. Capacity





4. Financial

- Annual profit and loss prepared by independent auditor/accountant.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to replace the performance criteria noted under Condition Precedent: Performance Criteria

1. Activation a) The Naval Store will operate at least 5 days a week and may also operate evenings b) A range of creative enterprises and activities will occur on site, for example


Page 130




c) Complimentary commercial activity may also occur, subject to normal planning approval processes, including a cafe, climbing wall, and d) Public events and activities open to members and non members will be held regularly (monthly) by tenants or venue hirers


a) Enkle Membership is open to the public b) Space is available for to be hired for public use c) Hire fees for event space must include a non-profit / community rate for eligible hirers

3. Capacity





4. Financial a) Annual profit and loss statements are to be prepared by an independent auditor / accountant b) The classification and rental valuation is based on 'community use' therefore no more than 30% of the letable area can be sub-leased to commercial uses at market rate.


For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION


Page 131

To provide more specific criteria in the relation to performance outcome under the lease. Cr R Pemberton MOVED a minor amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: A copy of the draft lease to be brought back to Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 May 2016. SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt A) Council approve the following criteria in the draft Lease between the City of

Fremantle and Enkel for the building known as the Naval Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle;

Special Conditions:

1. Performance criteria will be an annexure to the Lease. This will be reviewed

within the last three months of each term to ensure relevance and updated

as necessary.

2. The Licensee will be required to report against the performance criteria

annually on the anniversary of the Lease commencement date however the

Lessor may request a report proving adherence to the performance criteria

at any stage within the Lease term or further terms.

3. A performance management committee, consisting of Enkel and City of

Fremantle Officers will meet to monitor the progress of Enkel. The meetings

will be structured as follows;


Page 132

- 1st

year – every quarter

- 2nd

year – biannually

- 3rd


If required, meetings may be increased to cater to any “underperformance”

issues relating to the delivery of the performance criteria at the

determination of the Lessor at any stage through the Lease.

5. If the Licensee does not adhere to the performance criteria this will be a

breach against the Lease and the Licensee will be issued with a Notice of

Default.

6. If a total of five (5) Notices of Default occur against the Lease, regardless of

the reasons for the Notice of Default, the Lease can be terminated.

7. The Lease will include a subletting clause which will allow the Lessee to

enter into subletting arrangements subject to Lessor approval. The

collective value of the subletting of the premises may exceed the total rent

payable under the Head Lease as long as the sublease rents are within

Market range and the permitted use of the subleases are consistent with the

Head Lease.

8. It is acknowledged by the Lessor that the Lessee is a stakeholder in regards

to works to the surrounding Open Space Reserve (Cantonment Hill) but is

not an approving authority. The Lessee may make requests regarding

future plans, use of projects relating to the Project but the Lessor reserves

the right to deny any requests. The Lessee acknowledges that this Lease is

for the Building only known as the Navel Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street,

Fremantle.


Land Description





City of Fremantle

Site Area


Page 133

1,393m2 - Subject to public toilets being located within the Naval Stores.



Lease Term


Further Terms




Rent




Rent Reviews




Permitted Use


Outgoings



Page 134


Electricity Usage


Land Tax

Building Insurance

General Maintenance

Condition Precedent The lease will be subject to all Development Application approvals for the Naval Stores. Performance Criteria

1. Activation a) The Naval Store will operate at least 5 days a week and may also operate evenings b) A range of creative enterprises and activities will occur on site, for example




c) Complimentary commercial activity may also occur, subject to normal planning approval processes, including a cafe, climbing wall, and d) Public events and activities open to members and non members will be held regularly (monthly) by tenants or venue hirers


a) Enkle Membership is open to the public b) Space is available for to be hired for public use c) Hire fees for event space must include a non-profit / community rate for eligible hirers

3. Capacity





4. Financial a) Annual profit and loss statements are to be prepared by an independent auditor / accountant b) The classification and rental valuation is based on 'community use' therefore no more than 30% of the letable area can be sub-leased to commercial uses at market rate.


Page 135

B) A copy of the draft lease to be brought back to Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 May 2016.

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 136

FPOL1603-4 FLY BY NIGHT CLUB REQUEST FOR DEBT RELIEF AND APPROVAL OF LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

ECM Reference: 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1502-3 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Pete Stone, Manager Arts and Culture Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Confidential attachments Under Separate Cover

KPMG Fly By Night Musician’s Club Report – Final 30.09.2015 Decision of Director of Liquor Licensing Valuation Update Herring Storer Acoustic Report Fly By Night Club Fly By Night Current Financials

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fly By Night Club has made a number of requests in relation to the lease at Victoria Hall. Firstly to approve changes to the essential terms and conditions of the lease between the City and Fly By Night Club. Secondly for the City to pay a total of $20,516 for the cost of acoustic works required at Victoria Hall and thirdly to consider a one off payment of $20,000 to assist with existing debts.

BACKGROUND

At Strategic and General Services Committee meeting dated 18 February 2015, the committee resolved: Regarding the proposal from the Fly by Night Club to lease Victoria Hall, the Strategic and General Services Committee, in accordance with delegation 1.1, proceed with option 1 as follows: 1. Option 1, Fly by Night Club lease - the offer of a lease for Victoria Hall to the

Fly by Night Club on the following basis:

a) The lease term is one year plus an additional year subject to satisfactory achievement of performance criteria that includes:

i. Continued use of the hall by community groups at or less than the

current financial rate and to a level no less than 10% of the current level of usage.

ii. Existing bookings (some have been made until late 2015) are honoured. The Fly also manages all future bookings and collects all the revenue from them.


Page 137

iii. The Hobbs Bar is operated (regardless of live music shows) at least on Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoon/nights to further activate the area.

iv. Council are given at least twenty free bookings per annum for City-run Festivals and City-sponsored external events, with the dates provided with no less than 3 months’ notice.

v. The City’s bookings taking precedence over all other bookings. vi. The Fly by Night Club collects all revenue generated from all activities

related to Victoria Hall. vii. The Fly by Night Club is responsible for paying all outgoings related to

Victoria Hall. b) Evaluation of performance criteria after year one is reported to Council for

its information.

c) Market rent is charged minus a 50% community subsidy. d) A decision to extend the lease term will be brought before Council.

*Note: the City has used Victoria Hall for three ‘City presented’ events this financial year and paid for production and staffing costs. Other events held at Victoria Hall as part of Fremantle Festival, Freo Royale, Perth International Arts Festival and other City approved events, have been booked and negotiated by the private event coordinator. To date, none of the resolutions of Strategic and General Services Committee meeting on 18 February 2015 have been implemented. Over this period of time, City officers have continued to work with the Fly by Night board to finalise a lease agreement, however to date the lease remains unsigned by the board. The liquor licensing of Victoria Hall has been the reason given by the Fly By Night Club for the protracted lease negotiations.

COMMENT

Request for changes to lease terms and conditions. Due to the timeframes requiring Fly by Night Club to vacate the Drill Hall, the City in good faith, agreed for the Fly By Night Club to relocate to Victoria Hall ahead of the lease being finalised. This being the case, Fly by Night Club has been present on the premises for approximately twelve months. There is to date, no signed lease and the Fly by Night Club has not paid rent or outgoings over this time. Utilities and tenant recoverable costs since February 2015 are $20,225 not inclusive of rates. City officers, given the 18 February 2015 resolution, would not have foreseen that the lease negotiations would take such an extended period of time or that, due to the lack of executed lease, the rent and outgoings would not be recovered from the Fly By Night Club. The Fly By Night Club has made the space available for community bookings and the revenue has been collected by the Fly By Night Club.


Page 138

The Fly By Night Club maintains that the relocation to Victoria Hall had a large impact on the finances of the club. With the consent of the club, the City commissioned and paid for an independent report on the financial status of Fly By Night Club (confidential attachment 1) which determined that for the Fly By Night Club to be viable in Victoria Hall, the liquor licence for the premises needed to be secured. Fly By Night Club have been granted a liquor license, however it is conditional on an acoustic assessment and finalisation of any required works from that assessment being concluded (confidential attachment 2). As the Fly By Night Club has been present in Victoria Hall for a twelve month period, there are aspects of the resolution which now require reassessment. They are as follows:

Lease Term – The resolution granted a lease for one year with a further term of one year subject to Council approval. Under the Commercial Tenancy (Retails) Act 1985, the Fly By Night Club is entitled to a five (5) year initial lease term. To ensure the City is in line with this requirement, it is requested that the lease term be one (1) year, being the year that Fly by Night Club have already occupied the premises with two further terms of two (2) years each.

Rent – The City has commissioned an update on the original market rent valuation of $100,000 that has determined commercial rent for Victoria Hall at $85,000 per annum (confidential attachment 3). With the 50% subsidy, this will equate to a rental of $42,500 per annum plus gst, equal to monthly amounts of $3,541.66 plus gst. The Fly By Night Club has paid no rent for the first year nor outgoings. It would appear that the Fly By Night Club is not in a financial position at present to pay this level of rent. In recognition of this financial position, if Council wishes to offer a lease to Fly By Night Club, it is proposed that as the club have already been present in the premises for twelve months, that the rent commence as per the second term of the lease and be increased incrementally, until such time as the market rent is reached. The following breakdown indicates how this staged approach and rental payment will work:

Month Rent

1 March 2016 $500 plus gst

1 April 2016 $750 plus gst

1 May 2016 $1,000 plus gst

1 June 2016 $1,250 plus gst

1 July 2016 $1,500 plus gst

1 August 2016 $1,750 plus gst

1 September 2016 $2,000 plus gst

1 October 2016 $2,250 plus gst

1 November 2016 $2,500 plus gst

1 December 2016 $2,750 plus gst

1 January 2017 $3,000 plus gst

1 February 2017 $3,250 plus gst

1 March 2017 $3,541.66 plus


Page 139

gst

City bookings that were in place at the time Fly By Night Club entered the property have now concluded. This being the case, the Fly By Night Club has requested that the provision for twenty free bookings be amended to ten free bookings per annum with a maximum of five bookings on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. This will allow the Fly By Night Club to better manage long term bookings. Based on the current financial year usage, City of Fremantle events and festival staff do not foresee any issues with reducing the number of bookings to ten.

As the Fly by Night Club have been granted a conditional liquor licence (subject to required works), it allows for the sale and supply of liquor to “persons attending a live performance by musicians or other artists at the club” and restricts liquor sales after 5.00 pm. While the Fly By Night Club have indicated that they would like to have the bar operating every Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoon/evening, they cannot always guarantee that a live performance will be booked, therefore they have requested that the wording “best endeavours” be included in the requirement of Hobb’s Bar operation. The liquor licence that the Fly By Night Club have applied for is a “special facility licence” which allows them to sell liquor only during an event.

Request for sound attenuation works The Fly By Night Club have obtained advice from an acoustics company that physical treatment to the eastern facing windows will allow the club to operate live music performances at a level that is acceptable to audience and performer, whilst remaining within allowable sound limits for neighbouring residents. Herring Storer (confidential attachment 4) provided this report and Magnetite has provided a quote for these works of $20,516. The Fly By Night Club approached two other companies to quote, but given the specialised nature of the works only Magnetite was able to commit to a retro fit, internal, non-permanent solution. As the proposed work is non-permanent, window treatments can be removed and the building can be returned to its original state when required. The City’s Heritage Coordinator is aware of proposed works and believes there will be no impact on heritage status of the building. Once works are complete, the Fly By Night Club can activate their liquor license and operate as a licensed venue during events. If Council wish to see Victoria Hall utilised as a cultural venue with amplified events, these works would need to be carried out regardless of who is occupying the space. Request for debt relief The Fly By Night Club request Council to consider the immediate provision of $20,000 debt relief. The Fly By Night Club’s debt position is outlined in confidential attachment 5. This includes Aged receivables, 30% of which has already been received.


Page 140


Financial

The $20,516 inclusive of gst cost of the acoustic works, has not been included in the 2015/2016 budget review which was brought to February’s Ordinary Council Meeting. This would need to be found within the current budget costed to the City Asset Budget. Additionally, the request by Fly by Night Club for $20,000 debt relief is also not within the City’s current budget. Similar out of budget round requests from both Circus WA (debt relief) and Fremantle Literature Centre (Hungerford Award Sponsorship), resulted in less money being available in that financial year for the community funding grant rounds. However, another impost on this budget line would leave very little for other community based organisations in the grants process and could be considered inequitable. These funds would need to be considered in the 2016/2017 budget round. Legal

The lease will be in line with the requirements under the Commercial Tenancy (Retails) Act 1985 and Local Government Act 1995 Operational

Nil

Organisational

The requests cross three business units. The lease negotiations are undertaken via Economic Development. The acoustic works would need to be overseen by City Assets in consultation with the Heritage Coordinator and the grant would be delivered via Community Development. The Manager Arts and Culture would liaise with the Fly by Night Club in relation to all requests.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The security of the liquor licence is essential for the Fly by Night Club to move toward financial security and this requires the sound attenuation works for Victoria Hall to be completed as soon as possible and the costs to be found within existing budgets. The request to vary the terms and conditions of the lease and to grant a $20,000 payment to assist with debt relief also needs to be considered by Council. These three issues are related, however Council can consider each request on its merits. As the sound attenuation works are critical to the liquor licence, this would then determine whether the Fly by Night Club proceed to lease signing.


Page 141




1. The sound attenuation work on the eastern facing windows, at the quoted cost of $20,516 inclusive of gst are undertaken by the City and costed to the City assets budget.

2. Council approve a lease with Fly By Night Club at Victoria Hall on the following amended terms:

Lease Term: One (1) year effective 1 March 2015 expiring 29 February 2016 Option One: Two (2) years effective 1 March 2016 expiring 28 February 2018 Option Two: Two (2) years effective 1 March 2018 expiring 28 February 2020 Rent: $42,500 per annum + GST with staged rental payments;

Month Rent



1 May 2016 $1,000 plus gst










1 March 2017 $3,541.66 plus gst

Bookings: The City is granted at least 10 free bookings per annum with a maximum of 5 to be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Bar Operations: The Lessee will use best endeavours to have the bar operational on Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoons/evenings. That the lease be signed within a four week period of offer, otherwise the offer is off the table and an EOI for use of the building is progressed.

3. For Council to consider the request for $20,000 debt relief in its 2016/17 budget

deliberations.


Page 142

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete the words 'at least' from paragraph 5 of part 2, to read as follows:

Bookings: The City is granted 10 free bookings per annum with a maximum of 5 to be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION By removing the words 'at least' it will imply that they must have a minimum of 10 free bookings. Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete paragraph 6 of part 2: Bar Operations: The Lessee will use best endeavours to have the bar operational on Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoons/evenings. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The intent of the lease is to ensure activation of this space. The Fly By Night Club should have the necessary capacity to organise a performance each weekend even if it is a solo performance of a local performer. It is important that this space remain activated and the community begins to rely on it being activated.


Page 143

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to add an additional a and b to part 3:

3. a) For Council to consider the request for $20,000 debt relief in its 2016/17

budget deliberations b) If the Council provide the $20,000 debt relief in part 3(a) above, it does so on

the condition that a place is provided on The Fly By Night Club Board for a representative from the City of Fremantle, if requested by Council.

CARRIED: 3/3 Cr D Hume used his casting vote FOR the recommendation resulting in it being CARRIED.

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Doug Thompson

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION If the City is to financially support The Fly By Night Club going forward, it may be prudent for us to have some say in how The Fly By Night Club is managed.

Cr D Hume MOVED the amended Officer's Recommendation to read as follows:

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION




Month Rent



1 May 2016 $1,000 plus gst


Page 144










1 March 2017 $3,541.66 plus gst

Bookings: The City is granted 10 free bookings per annum with a maximum of 5 to be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. That the lease be signed within a four week period of offer, otherwise the offer is off the table and an EOI for use of the building is progressed.




Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to Part 2 of the Committee Recommendation as shown in bold and italics: Bookings: The City is granted 10 free bookings per annum with a maximum of 5 to be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The City Of Fremantle must book its free events no less than 3 months prior and subject to existing availability at the time of the booking." SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION This will ensure bookings are less likely to conflict with other acts and events.


Page 145

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to Part 2 of the Committee Recommendation as shown below in bold and italics: Bar Operations: The lease will have the bar operational on Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoon/evenings. This may include private hire events. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Intent is to have people using the space, even in a private hire capacity.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt




Month Rent



1 May 2016 $1,000 plus gst


Page 146










1 March 2017 $3,541.66 plus gst

Bookings: The City is granted 10 free bookings per annum with a maximum of 5 to be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The City Of Fremantle must book its free events no less than 3 months prior and subject to existing availability at the time of the booking." Bar Operations: The lease will have the bar operational on Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoon/evenings. This may include private hire events. General: That the lease be signed within a four week period of offer, otherwise the

offer is off the table and an EOI for use of the building is progressed.





For Against



Page 147

FPOL1603-5 AWARD OF TENDER FCC461/15 - FREMANTLE TOWN HALL EXTERNAL CONSERVATION WORKS

ECM Reference: 135/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1506-7 External Conservation Works to Fremantle

Town Hall, 8 William Street Fremantle Responsible Officer: Paul Trotman, Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Gena Binet, Heritage Project Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Minutes of OGM 24 June 2015 - SGS1506-7 External

Conservation Works to Fremantle Town Hall, 8 William Street Fremantle Assessment table – Conservation of Main roof only

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its June 2015 meeting Council agreed to the calling of tenders for conservation works to the main roof of the Fremantle Town Hall and also asked that the tender be constructed in a fashion that obtained prices for the facades and tower. Tenders were called in December 2015 and closed on 22 January 2016. The purpose of this report is to update Council on the outcome of Tender FCC 461/15 for the Fremantle Town Hall External Conservation Works. The report recommends a preferred contractor based on the Evaluation Panel assessment of received tenders using the qualitative criteria set out in the conditions of tender. The tender documents required the tenderers to provide fixed sum prices for five options for different scopes of work, in line with Council’s June 2015 request. This report recommends a preferred scope of works that will require extra funding; there is also an alternative recommendation that can be carried out within the existing $2,000,000 Town Hall Reserve Fund. The Evaluation Panel’s recommendation was endorsed by the City's Major Procurement Panel on 4 March 2016.

BACKGROUND

A Conservation Management Strategy Report for the Fremantle Town Hall was presented at the Council Meeting of 24 June 2015. This report identified the urgent need to conserve the exterior of the building to arrest the rate of deterioration caused by rainwater, moisture penetration and the entrapment of salt and moisture within the masonry walls. To prevent structural damage during the 2016 winter these works needed to be carried out urgently.

A preliminary estimate of probable cost provided by a cost consultant indicated that it would cost $2,860,000 ex. GST to carry out all the recommended conservation works


Page 148

(including consultant fees and a contingency sum) which was considerably greater than the $2,000,000 available in the Town Hall Reserve fund.

While it is clear that the most efficient and cost effective approach would be to carry out all the works as one large project, costed options to stage the works were also provided to Council at its June 2015 meeting in recognition of the need to work within the City’s resources. These options are set out below (note that the figures in brackets have had the construction contingency and fees deducted):

- Conservation of main roof only $1,622,500 ($1,363,000) - Conservation of main roof and facades only $2,271,500 ($1,907,500) - Conservation of main roof, facades and tower $2,860,000 ($2,400,000)

Council decided to allocate $1,622,500 ex GST from the $2,000,000 Town Hall Reserve fund, for the replacement of the main roof. They also instructed officers to document the full scope of external conservation works for tendering, including the High and William Street facades and the tower. A further $160,000 was allocated for consultant fees.

Documentation of the conservation works In July 2015 a tender was held to select a consultant team to provide architectural services to develop, document and administer the construction of this project. Hocking Heritage Studio was appointed in August. The consultants documented the conservation works and assisted the City’s project team in developing qualitative criteria for the tender to allow the assessment panel to recommend the ‘best value for money’ and ‘fit for purpose’ tender.

Qualitative Criteria The qualitative criteria developed for this project addressed key skills, experience and knowledge that were identified by the consultant and Project Officer as being essential to the provision of conservation and refurbishment work that was the best value for money for the City of Fremantle and fit for purpose for this important State Heritage listed civic landmark. Specialist skills, knowledge and experience is needed in conservation projects as heritage buildings were built with traditional construction techniques and materials that are different to contemporary building practice and because conservation work takes a different approach to standard refurbishment because of the need to protect significant fabric and heritage values. Knowledge of good conservation practice is also necessary to cost and programme the projects because traditional construction techniques and materials are often more time consuming and expensive and require an investigative stage where the contractor needs to work closely with the consultant to prepare samples that match original elements visually and in composition. The qualitative criteria for this tender were:

1. Demonstrated experience working with conserving heritage buildings 30% 2. Organisational capacity 10% 3. Demonstrated understanding and methodology 30% 4. Price: 30%

Prices To allow the City flexibility with choosing how to stage and fund the project, the works were documented as three separable portions that could be priced as individual projects or in combination. The separable portions are:


Page 149

A. The main roof B. The William and High Street facades C. The tower

Tenderers were required to provide fixed prices for 5 options for the 3 separable portions:

1. Separable Portion A – Main Roof conservation only 2. Separable Portion B – Façade Conservation only 3. Separable Portion C – Tower Conservation only 4. Separable Portions A & B – Main Roof and façade conservation 5. All Portions A, B & C - Main Roof, façade and tower conservation

Pre tender estimate A pre-tender estimate was prepared by BSM Consulting (these estimates did not include a construction contingency or consultant fees). These figures were lower than those in the preliminary estimates:

Conservation of main roof only (A) $1,261,000 Conservation of main roof and facades only (A +B) $1,693,000 Conservation of main roof, facades and tower (A+B+C) $2,013,000

The Tender Process A Request for Tender was advertised in the West Australian and the Council website on Wednesday 2 December 2015. A mandatory site inspection was held the following week on Wednesday 9 December 2015 and was attended by 14 interested contractors. Two addendums were issued to all tenderers to answer questions raised by tenderers during the tender period. All tenderers acknowledged receipt of the addendums.

The original tender closing date was Friday 15 January 2016. This allowed a 6 week tender period which included the Christmas shutdown but, following requests from a number of tenderers this was extended to seven weeks. The final tender closing date was Friday 22 January 2016 at 2 pm.

Five (5) tenders were received on 22 January 2016, in order of opening:

1 McCorkell Construction 2 Colgan Industries 3 Clinton Long Project Management 4 PRC Building Services 5 Budo Group

The three-member evaluation panel met on 29 January 2016. Following a preliminary assessment it was decided that further information was required to make a final recommendation. The request for further information was sent out on 9th February 2016 to all tenderers and they all responded within the given week timeframe.

Assessment Panel’s Recommendation The evaluation panel met again on 26 February 2016 and made their final recommendation

Conservation of the Main Roof of the Fremantle Town Hall – Separable portion A


Page 150

At the June 2015 Council Meeting the Council approved the allocation of $1,622,500 ex GST from the $2,000,000 Town Hall Reserve fund, for the replacement of the main roof of the Fremantle Town Hall. The Evaluation Panel recommended McCorkell Construction to carry out these works for their tender price of $1,042,121 ex GST. (A summary of the tender assessment, as well as tendered prices, can be found at Attachment 1) The basis for this decision is as follows:

a) They scored highest in the qualitative criteria table.

b) The lowest tenderer did not score well in the qualitative criteria due to lack of experience with conservation projects of similar size and complexity and because their methodology did not reflect a good understanding of the project, conservation practice and the use of traditional materials and construction techniques. Further the Quantity surveyor noted his concern about the low percentage of the tender breakdown allocated to preliminaries, which he described as ‘unrealistic’.

c) The contract price of $1,042,121 ex GST for the conservation of the main roof of the Fremantle Town Hall is significantly below the approved budget of $1,622,500 ex GST even when an allowance for a 10% construction contingency has been made. The contract price is also below the pre-tender estimate of $1,261,000 for these works.

Alternative Scopes Of Work Separate assessment tables were also prepared to assess the prices for the extended scopes of work that were priced as part of this tender. In these tables the Criteria for experience, organisational capacity and understanding and methodology remained the same with the only variable being the price. In both of these tables McCorkell Constructions was ranked equally with Colgan Industries. McCorkell Constructions were then selected on price.

- Separable Portions A & B - Main Roof and façade conservation - The Evaluation Panel recommended McCorkell Construction to carry out these works for their tender price of $1,721,426 ex GST. The panel noted that the works could be funded if the remainder of the Reserve Fund was released.

- All Portions A, B & C - Main Roof, façade and tower conservation – The Evaluation Panel recommended McCorkell Construction to carry out these works for their tender price of $2,281,850 ex GST. The Panel noted that the works could only be funded if the remainder of the Reserve Fund was released and further funding was provided from the budget.


Financial

Other Costs The funding for these conservation works, including consultant fees and a construction contingency comes from the $2,000,000 Town Hall Reserve and a $75,000 Lotterywest grant. As well as the conservation works, this money needs to fund consultant fees and a construction contingency. While Council approved $160,000 for consultant fees only $90,000 is actually required for fees and disbursements, leavings a balance of


Page 151

$1,985,000. It is recommended that a 15% contingency be allowed for this project based on the City’s recent experience in works to other historic buildings. The financial implications for carrying out the extended scopes of works are:

OPTION 1 – Carry out all conservation works (separable portions 1, 2 & 3) McCorkell Constructions’ tender price for these works is $2,281,850 ex GST. If the Council were to proceed with this option there would be a substantial financial implication on the budget. Council would need to release the remaining $217,500 ex GST above that already approved from the Town Hall Reserve Fund and find an extra $639,080 ex GST funding for the project. (Note: As the works will take approximately 6 months and are scheduled to start in April, funding will need to be carried over into the 2016-17 budget.)

Separable portion 1, 2 and 3 $2,281,850

15% contingency $342,230

Fees (minus $75,0000 grant) $15,000

TOTAL $2,639,080.00

Balance required to augment Reserve Fund

-$639,080

The benefits of this option are:

- Carrying out all urgent works as soon as possible to minimise ongoing

deterioration during the 2016 winter

- Increased efficiencies and cost savings – approximately $100,000

- Minimisation of disruption to users of the town hall and Kings Square

- Works will include the most identifiable/ photographed part of the building - the

tower

- Minimisation of lost income from events in Town Hall and William Street

parking

- Conservation benefits e.g.

o Increasing the time for walls to dry out before commencement of

repairs

o Continuity in finishes such as lime renders

ALTERNATIVE OPTION 2 – Carry out conservation of the main roof and facades (separable portions 1 & 2) McCorkell Constructions’ tender price for these works is $1,721,426 ex GST. If the Council were to proceed with this option there would be a no financial implication on the budget. Council would only need to release the remaining $217,500 ex GST above that already approved from the Town Hall Reserve Fund.

Separable portion 1 and 2 $1,721,426

15% contingency $258,214

Fees (minus $75,0000 grant) $15,000

TOTAL $1,994,640.00

Balance remaining in reserve fund +$5,360

The benefits of this approach are:

- These works can be funded by the existing $2,000,000 Reserve Fund


Page 152

- Urgent works to the main part of the building (also the area that

accommodates people) will be carried out as soon as possible to protect these areas from further damage during the 2016 winter

- Increased efficiencies and cost savings – approximately $100,000

- Reduction of disruption to users of the town hall and Kings Square

- Reduction of loss of income from events in Town Hall

- Conservation benefits over the roof only option

- Scaffolding to main section of building only erected once

The disadvantages of this approach

- Urgent works to the tower will be delayed and the deterioration of structural

timbers will continue and accelerate – this may cause structural problems and the loss of original fabric

- Not as efficient as option 1 (but more efficient than a 3 stage project)

- Reduced conservation benefits compared to alternative option 1

- Visual discontinuity - the tower will look different to remainder of building –

this will affect its presentation from its most prominent and photographed angle

- Lack of continuity between finishes applied during different phases of work

- The tower will still need to be conserved in the future so there will be further

disruption to users of the building and surrounding spaces. Legal

The obligations of local governments in regard to tenders for providing goods or services apply, under Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Operational

The project will deliver the conservation of the exterior of the Fremantle Town Hall. The works are programmed to take approximately 6 months and are scheduled to start in April and conclude in September during this time the users of this building, Kings Square and William Street will be affected in the following ways:

i. Hire of the auditorium and atrium spaces will be limited leading to lost revenue. ii. Staff working in the first floor offices on William Street will need to be relocated

for a period of time while the roof directly above them is re-clad. iii. Storage rooms on the second floor will need to be emptied during the works. iv. A one-room tenancy on High Street that opens directly into Kings Square will

be used by the contractor for the works leading to a loss of revenue. v. The 16 parking bays on William Street will be used as the contractor’s yard

and deliveries area during the project leading to a loss of revenue and convenience for visitors to the Town Hall Centre.

vi. Scaffolding will prevent use of the William Street footpath as well as a portion of Kings Square (including some seating).

Organisational

The City Heritage Project Officer will project manage the project with the assistance of the asset manager.


Page 153


The City of Fremantle has a long history of conserving its built heritage and history as a way of preserving its unique character. More recently conservation and preservation of the built heritage is being leveraged to help regenerate the City in combination with sympathetic and sustainable development. The Fremantle Town Hall External Conservation project supports many of the strategic imperatives in the City’s Strategic Plan, particularly under the banner of Character where it will strengthen sense of place. In particular the project fits within the three-year plan to improve the physical presentation of the city, its streetscapes and council owned buildings. This project also contributes directly to one of the five identified Transformational Moves to economically and socially revitalise the core area of Fremantle as well as an identified Major Project. The conservation of the exterior of the Fremantle Town Hall will contribute to the rejuvenation of the CITY CENTRE and help attract new residents, businesses and visitors. It will also contribute to the $220m Kings Square project to transform the city centre with new civic chambers, library and City offices, high quality commercial space and an upgrade of the public square. The proposed new City offices will directly adjoin the Fremantle Town Hall and will connect directly into the building.


The process of awarding the tender includes advertising of the tender in the public domain and allows for a transparent, equal opportunity competitive process.


Absolute Majority Required


MOVED: CR D HUME

That Council:

1. Accepts the tender submitted for Fremantle Town Hall External Conservation Works under Tender FCC461/15 by McCorkell Construction to conserve the main roof and facades of the Fremantle Town hall for the fixed price of $1,721,426 ex GST.

2. Approves delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to approve variations up to 15% of the contract value ($258,214 ex GST)

3. Amends the 2015/16 Budget to reflect the transfer of $1,994,640 from the Heritage Reserve to reflect parts 1 and 2 above.

4. Subject to agreement with McCorkell Construction, Council accept part 3 of the McCorkell tender to conserve the Fremantle Town Hall Tower for a further $560,424 ex GST subject to;

a. Adoption of the additional funding required ($630,000 inclusive of 15%


Page 154

contingency for the tower works) in the 2016/17 Budget (to be adopted in June 2016);

b. Costs being maintained by McCorkell Construction for part 3 of their

tender submitted on 15 January 2016; and

c. The practical ability of the Tower being added to the contract in June 2016, through a contract variation to be agreed by the CEO.

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

d. the funding for part 3 of the tender contract be included in the draft budget 2016/17

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION This additional point was added to allow the funding to be included in the 2016/17 budget.

Cr D Hume MOVED the amended officers Recommendation as amended to read as follows:

OFFICER'S AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council:



3. Amends the 2015/16 Budget to reflect the transfer of $1,994,640 from the Heritage Reserve to reflect parts 1 and 2 above.

4. Subject to agreement with McCorkell Construction, Council accept part 3 of the McCorkell tender to conserve the Fremantle Town Hall Tower for a further $560,424 ex GST subject to;

a. Adoption of the additional funding required ($630,000 inclusive of 15% contingency for the tower works) in the 2016/17 Budget (to be adopted in June 2016);


Page 155

b. Costs being maintained by McCorkell Construction for part 3 of

their tender submitted on 15 January 2016; and c. The practical ability of the Tower being added to the contract in

June 2016, through a contract variation to be agreed by the CEO.

d. the funding for part 3 of the tender contract be included in the draft budget 2016/17

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED the following Alternative Officer’s recommendation to the Committee’s Recommendation: That Council:



3. Amends the 2015/16 Budget to reflect the transfer of $1,994,640 from the Heritage Reserve to reflect part 1 above.

4. Council Approve the increase in expenditure BC0000747 to $2,639,128 to accommodate the contract and contingency requirements in parts 1 and 2 above.


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To allow the awarding of the whole contract this financial year, council can award the entire tender and accept a deficit budget of approximately $640,000 for the 2015/16 Financial Year. As the contract is commencing so late in the financial year it is unlikely that the deficit would actually be incurred and would need to be carried forward where council would need to fund the balance in the 2016/17 budget. This alternative would commit council to the full project next year whilst the current recommendation gives council the opportunity to review that position at budget time.


Page 156

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

That Council: 1. Accepts the tender submitted for Fremantle Town Hall External

Conservation Works under Tender FCC461/15 by McCorkell Construction to conserve the main roof and facades of the Fremantle Town hall for the fixed price of $2,281,850 ex GST.


3. Amends the 2015/16 Budget to reflect the transfer of $1,994,640 from the Heritage Reserve to reflect part 1 above.

4. Council Approve the increase in expenditure BC0000747 to $2,639,128 to accommodate the contract and contingency requirements in parts 1 and 2 above.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0 (Absolute Majority)

For Against



Page 157

FPOL1603-6 KNUTSFORD DEPOT SITE REDEVELOPMENT - BUSINESS CASE

ECM Reference: 049/004 - 115/085 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 23 March 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning, Paul Garbett Actioning Officer: Louise Ainsworth, Senior Strategic Projects Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Business Case

2. Assessment Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has prepared a business case in which it has assessed various options for achieving the vision for development of the Knutsford St depot site. Part and full disposal options were assessed as well as subdivision and built form options. This paper outlines the assessment process and outcomes and recommends Council authorise the CEO to negotiate on a preferred option.

BACKGROUND

The City has prepared a business case in which it has assessed various options for achieving the vision for development of the Knutsford St depot site. Part and full disposal options were assessed as well as subdivision and built form options. The options were assessed in terms of the City’s capacity to:

achieve its strategic plans and objectives

achieve project objectives and outcomes

demonstrate prudent financial and risk management

participate in project implementation In 2010, the City of Fremantle (City) commissioned a report to identify the requirements for the construction of a potential new depot to replace the existing depot in Knutsford Street. A review of the requirements for a new depot was undertaken and opportunities identified to consolidate building and storage requirements. A site for a new depot was identified in Jones St, O’Connor and the City has now acquired the site and appointed architects. Operations are expected to be transferred to the new site early in 2017. With relocation of the Council depot to O'Connor there is an opportunity to make better use of a council asset in a prime location through a change of use from industrial to residential and commercial. With this opportunity goes the prospect of disposal of the land for a financial return which could (partly) cover the cost of the new depot. A 2015 valuation suggested a clean site would be worth $11.1m. The valuation hasn’t changed since 2012. On 27 February 2008 Council resolved to adopt the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan as a guiding document to facilitate redevelopment within the area including the depot site. Under the Structure Plan, the site is zoned mixed use residential R60/100.


Page 158

The Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area is adjacent to LandCorp’s Swanbourne Street Structure Plan area which includes the current redevelopment by LandCorp and its development partners on Blinco Street. The City’s vision is to redevelop the City’s Knutsford Depot site with a range of residential, community, commercial activities and cottage industries, in such a way as to set an exemplary new standard for sustainable urban development and infrastructure and as a catalyst to the coordinated revitalisation of the broader precinct. Council’s Strategic Plan 2010-15 highlights the City’s desire to lead in the provision of environmentally sustainable solutions through the strategic imperatives for Climate Change and Environmental Protection. The Urban Renewal imperative specifically nominates Knutsford East precinct as an area for development. The One Planet Fremantle Strategy 2014/15 – 2019/20 Highlights the Knutsford depot site redevelopment as one of the City’s top five corporate actions:

Investigation of sustainable development potential for the Knutsford St, City Works Depot site with a view to negotiating positive sustainability outcomes for any development on the site.

The One Planet framework was used in developing the concepts and aspirational outcomes which underpin the assessment assumptions in the business case In 2011 LandCorp expressed an interest in continuing to work with the City on priority sites under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 31 May 2004. In the 2011 letter LandCorp states with respect to the depot site that it – would welcome the opportunity to work with the City of Fremantle to investigate options for the City’s land holding including a possible disposal to LandCorp. In a further letter proposing cost sharing for infrastructure dated 10 July 2015, LandCorp reiterated its interest in acquiring the site. Both market (ie private sector developers) and LandCorp options were assessed in the business case.

COMMENT

The business case considers seven disposal and development scenarios with a view to achieving the vision for development of the Knutsford St depot site as well as optimal financial outcomes. The options assessed are as follows:

Option 1a & 1b - Straight sale by tender to the open market (1a - as-is, 1b clean) - This option was included for the purpose of comparison. The City is unlikely to consider a straight sale by tender with no conditions as it is doubtful project objectives would be met in this scenario.

Option 1c - Structured sale to open market (clean,) - In this option tenderers would be requested to bid showing how the City’s redevelopment objectives would be met as well as on price.

Options 2a & 3a City to retain and develop (land or built form development options) - Given the strong commitment to the redevelopment objectives, this


Page 159

may be a way of ensuring these objectives are met, although the City’s capacity to do this itself is doubtful.

Options 2b & 3b - City joint venture or development agreement - (land or built form development options)

All options assume the trunk services work, agreed by Council in November 2015 will go ahead. While the City has an MOU with LandCorp and LandCorp has expressed a specific interest in acquiring the site, the City is also aware of market interest in the site. All options were considered in terms of dealing with both LandCorp and the market. In order to get a feel for the capacity and appetite of the market to take up the leadership aspirations, the City conducted informal meetings with a number of developers. The outcome was the City felt that the private development industry could achieve the development outcomes and has some enthusiasm to experiment (only) as long as the market will pay. A business case working group was convened to agree the assessment criteria (financial and non-financial) and methodology. The working group terms of reference are as follows:

define expected development outcomes

define measures and/or weightings for assessing the likelihood of expected development outcomes being achieved through disposal options

define expected financial outcomes

agree weighting of financial and non-financial criteria

The business case working group comprises the following members: CEO (Chair) Mayor Deputy Mayor Elected representative Director City Business Manager Strategic Planning Project Officer

Graeme McKenzie Brad Pettitt Josh Wilson Cr John Strachan Glen Dougall Paul Garbett Louise Ainsworth

The business case working group has endorsed:

the desired development outcomes and the criteria used to assess them

the traffic light approach for measuring the likelihood of both non-financial and financial outcomes being met.

The absence of weightings and numerical scores in favour of an overall view of the likelihood of objectives/criteria being met for any particular option.

The evaluation methodology and assumptions are set out in detail in section 6.0 and the financial analysis, non-financial and risk analysis are set out in sections 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 of the business case. (See Attachment 1.) From the analysis of the seven disposal and development options (1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b) a clear ranking of unacceptable, possible and preferred options arose. This analysis was reviewed, finalised and endorsed by the business case working group. A summary of the assessment outcomes can be found at Attachment 2.


Page 160


Risk assessment was inherent in the approach used to assess and compare options against both financial and non-financial objectives. The assessment summary sheet attached captures the risk in the traffic light colours red, amber or green depending on the likelihood of a particular option achieving an acceptable outcome against a particular criteria.

Financial

Each option was assessed against each financial criteria and judged to be acceptable, conditional (acceptable under certain conditions) or unacceptable in terms of outcomes and risk. From a financial perspective the key risks are that the City will get a poor return on its asset and/or will be required to outlay significant capital expenditure that it may not be able to afford. A risk margin in the form of a discount rate was applied to each option. These aim to reflect the risk premium associated with the various development roles and is set out in Section 8.5 of the business case report. In addition, the sensitivity of applying environmental initiatives was also tested in the financial modelling. 100% cost and 50% cost impacts were tested. For the purpose of the financial assessment in the business case, the worst case (100% cost to City/developer) was adopted. Non-Financial Risk As with the financial assessment, risk assessment was inherent in the approach used to assess and compare options against non-financial objectives. The key risk in the non-financial criteria was the risk that a particular outcome would not be met under a particular development option. To address this, each option was assessed in terms of the likelihood that a particular outcome or objective would be achieved. The outcomes correspond to the criteria and the likelihood of achieving each was assessed as either likely, possible or unlikely. Further risks assessed were the City’s capacity (or otherwise) to implement or successfully negotiate a particular option and whether LandCorp or the open market would be most likely to deliver the outcomes required.

Legal

Whichever option is recommended will result in a contract of sale and/or a development agreement which will require legal input. Under the Local Government Act Part 3, such a contract would be defined as a major land transaction and would require the City to prepare and advertise a business plan. Organisational


Page 161

The major organisational risk is that some or all of the desired design, sustainability and precinct outcomes will not be met under a particular option, thus threatening the desired outcomes stated in the City’s Strategic Plan and One Planet strategies. Operational

Operationally there is a risk that the City will not have, or be able to recruit the capacity to undertake, participate in, negotiate or implement a particular option in terms of personnel, resources, skills and expertise.


The One Planet Fremantle Strategy 2014/15 – 2019/20 highlights the Knutsford depot site redevelopment as one of the City’s top five corporate actions. The recommendation in this report also supports the Urban Renewal imperative in the Council’s Strategic Plan 2010-15 which specifically nominates Knutsford East precinct as an area for development. In addition, the development outcomes proposed support the Climate Change and Environmental Protection imperatives.


The Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan, adopted 27 February 2008, was developed in conjunction with LandCorp and was the product of extensive community input. The concepts referred to in the business case were created solely for the purpose of developing assumptions and costs as inputs for assessment in the business case. Community input has not been sought on these concepts which have no statutory standing. The ultimate developer will be required to do a detailed area plan and associated council and community comment will be sought at that time. Alternatively amendments to the Structure Plan may be considered which would require a consultative process. If a major land transaction is negotiated as a result of the recommendation of this business case, a business plan would be required under the Local Government Act. This would be subject to a period of public comment.

CONCLUSION

The preferred options were the ones where the City would have some capacity to influence outcomes. These show ‘scores’ of likely (green) or possible (amber) against the criteria in the assessment summary sheet attached. (Attachment 2) This could be achieved through a structured sale/sale with conditions (Option 1c.) The capacity to influence outcomes could also be achieved by the City retaining an interest in the land through a joint venture which enabled subdivision (Option2b). These options could involve either the open market or LandCorp. While the City could also influence outcomes by being the developer or being a partner in a built form joint venture (options 2a, 3a & 3b) the business case working group agreed the City would not have the capacity to successfully implement or participate in these options and that the capital outlay would be unacceptably high. On balance, the business case working group considered that option 2b would be most acceptable and allow greatest flexibility. The City could form a joint venture or


Page 162

development agreement with a third party developer to subdivide and sell the land. This which could include the input of the englobo land value only, or additional contribution to an agreed level (traditionally 50:50) and undertake the land subdivision as a joint risk/return arrangement. Option 2b is preferred because

It has the best opportunity to influence outcomes for a modest commitment from the City (land only)

There is better potential for other 'experimental' developments with the subdivision option than there is by merely imposing development conditions on the englobo parcel.

While the financial return may not be as timely as in option 1c (depending on the time payments agreed under that option) under option 2b the City could negotiate an agreement which allows for a range of outcomes or agreed end points. – eg transfer land on agreed subdivision plan, completed subdivision or continue on into built form.

The City could negotiate to contribute all or part of the land and could negotiate to retain a portion of the subdivided land on which to undertake a small demonstration project of its own.

While it could be argued that either LandCorp or the market would deliver a similar financial return under similar development conditions, the market option was considered slightly more risky in terms of the likelihood of delivering non financial outcomes. Conversely there was some thought that there could be the opportunity for more exceptional outcomes too, as it was felt that there are players in the market that have the enthusiasm to experiment. However, the business case working group felt that this extends only as far as the market has the capacity to pay. LandCorp also shows a willingness to experiment through its ‘innovation through demonstration’ program. With its strategic leadership role as the state government’s development agency, LandCorp has a good track record in demonstrating sustainable development both locally (White Gum Valley) and elsewhere in the state (Alkimos, the Pilbara etc.) The City’s existing MOU with LandCorp and ongoing co-operation with design and demonstration in the surrounding precinct show an established and constructive working relationship and a willingness to continue. Coordinated precinct and streetscape development were seen to be more likely to be met with LandCorp as the development partner. On this basis, the City concludes that LandCorp is likely to offer more flexibility than the market in working to achieve the project’s desired non-financial outcomes as well as an appropriate and timely return on investment.




Page 163


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council:

1. Authorise the CEO to negotiate directly with LandCorp with a view to setting up a development agreement or joint venture whereby:

a. The City inputs all or part of the value of its land. b. the City and LandCorp agree the best way forward (with appropriate

measures and milestones) to achieve the desired non-financial outcomes for the site and the broader precinct

c. The City and LandCorp agree appropriate valuation methodology and

triggers for land transfer to achieve a satisfactory financial return to the City.

2. The draft/negotiated agreement and a business plan be subject to Council

approval SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 8/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Josh Wilson


Page 164

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil. At 7.41pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED that item number FPOL1603-12 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (c) of the Local Government Act. RESOLUTION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That item FPOL1603-12 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995. SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


At 7.41pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt requested the public to vacate the chamber to allow discussion on item FPOL1603-12, which was deemed to be confidential.


Page 165

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

FPOL1603-12 OFFER TO PURCHASE - 73 HAMPTON ROAD, FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 159/004, 161/006, 049/004 Property 73 Hampton Road Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1312-11, SGS1404 – 5; SGS1606-20; SGS1505-1;

SGS 1509-17 Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager of Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Weller, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Contract for Land Sale – Offer and Acceptance – 73

Hampton Road, Fremantle

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council;

1. Accept the Offer to Purchase Contract dated 23 February, 2016, received

from Kieron Colville for 73 Hampton Road, Fremantle for the purchase

price of $550,000.

2. Reject the following Offers to Purchase Contacts for 73 Hampton Road,

Fremantle;

i. Dated 14 March 2016, received from Private Apartments at Cable

Beach Pty Ltd ATF the Private Apartments at Cable Beach Trust for

Road, for the purchase price of $400,000; and

ii. Dated 22 September 2015, received from Dennis Leo Eades for the purchase price of $500,000.



Page 166

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Josh Wilson

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.47 PM.


Page 167

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 168


limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


Page 169


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 170

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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


Page 171

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 23 March 2016, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

23 March 2016

Page 2

MINUTES - City of Fremantle · Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2016 Page 4...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantle · Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2016 Page 4...