MINUTES - City of Fremantle - PSC... · The following member/s of the public spoke against the...

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 1

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 3

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PSC1502-1 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62A (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE ALTERNATIVE FINISH TO APPROVED BOUNDARY WALLS TO A TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 10

PSC1502-2 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 67 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY WITH LOFT) MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (3 OFFICE UNITS & 6 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0600/14) 10

PSC1502-3 STRANG STREET, NO. 22 (LOT 60), BEACONSFIELD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY SEVEN (37) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS - (CJ DA0513/14) 27

PSC1502-4 SWANBOURNE STREET, NO. 27A (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0615/14) 44

PSC1502-5 HOWARD STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 7), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AA DA0603/14) 54

PSC1502-6 MARTHA STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 150), BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND TWO STOREY (WITH LOFT) ADDITIONS AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0470/14) 62

PSC1502-7 DARLING STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 162), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0476/14) 73

PSC1502-8 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 124 (LOT 70), NORTH FREMANTLE - SINGLE HOUSE ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING - (AA DA0691/14) 86

PSC1502-9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 95

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 96

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 96

CLOSURE OF MEETING 96

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 4 February 2015

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Planning Services Committee held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 4 February 2015 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm.

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

Cr Robert Fittock Presiding Member / North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton Deputy Presiding Member / City Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward / Deputy Mayor Mr Paul Garbett Acting Director Strategic Planning & Projects Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Approvals Mrs Kayla Beall Minute Secretary There were approximately 30 members of the public in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Mayor, Brad Pettitt

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil


Page 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-1: Charlotte Hamlyn The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-1: Benjamin Lane The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-2: Andrew Morris The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-2: Catherine Douglass The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-3: Peter Barker Megan Kolbe Julie Copson The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-4: Michael Sorenson The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-4: Richard Travia The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-5: Clarke Esterday Sean Sicllia The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-5: Gary Smith Ross Roberts The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-6: Tania Martin The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-6: Murray Castleton


Page 3

The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-7: Bart Lendrum John Horwood Peter Broad The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1502-8: Lyndsay Allen

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Nil

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 14 January 2015 as listed in the Council agenda dated 28 January 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Nil


Page 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1502-1 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62A (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE ALTERNATIVE FINISH TO APPROVED BOUNDARY WALLS TO A TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: As above Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee (PSC) Previous Item Number/s: 5 and 26 February 2014 (PSC1402-19) and 3 December

2014 PSC Minutes (PSC 1412-190) Attachments: 1. Approved plans

2. Site Photos 3. Examples of the proposed boundary wall finish 4. Quality Assurance for Cement Plastering

Owner Name: Michael Reynolds & Charlotte Hamlyn Submitted by: Michael Reynolds


Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2014 Council approved a development for a two storey dwelling with undercroft subject to conditions. Condition 3 of the approval states: 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern

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

Portions of the boundary wall are approved with a sand render finish. An adjoining neighbour has originally advised that the applicant is not permitted onto their property. This makes finishing the boundary wall to a sufficiently high standard in sand render difficult. On this basis the applicant has proposed an alternative boundary wall finish that can be constructed without requiring access to any adjoining property. This matter was considered by PSC on 3 December 2014 who resolved to defer the matter in order for mediation between the applicant and the southern neighbour to occur. An independent professional mediator has been in contact with both the applicant and the neighbour and recommends that mediation not proceed. It is however still considered that the alternative boundary wall finish (Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork) is of a sufficiently high standard and can be supported. Despite the mediator’s advice that mediation not proceed, it is still open to Council to resolve that mediation occur as no party has refused to participate in mediation. On this basis an alternative recommendation that mediation occurs in included in the report. BACKGROUND

No. 62A Thompson Road, North Fremantle is 229m2 and zoned Mixed Use with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site is located on the western side of Thomson Road and is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area and is bound by the street block of Thompson Road, Alfred Road, Leslie Road and Stirling Highway. In November 2011 the Planning Services Committee (PSC) granted conditional approval for a two storey dwelling at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle (refer DA0208/11). In February 2014 Council considered an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft and resolved:


Page 6

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 24 February 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

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

4. That the timber screen located along the southern property boundary in the primary

street setback area not exceed a maximum height of 1.6m from finished floor level to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. That any the primary street fence located along the southern property boundary

meet the definition of ‘visual permeability’ above 1m in height from natural ground level in accordance with the requirements of LPP2.8 Fences Policy to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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

7. That convex mirrors be provided within the garage that provide unobstructed sight

lines between the garage and Thompson Road on both the northern and southern sides of the garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. The planting of a street tree to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of

Fremantle.

Construction of this development has commenced. On 3 December 2014 PSC resolved: …to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow mediation between the applicant and the southern neighbour. Subsequently an independent mediator has spoken to both parties and while mediation could still proceed the mediator has advised that:


Page 7

“We have been liaising with the parties concerned with this dispute. Having done so, we have formed the view that the matter is not amenable to mediation for the following reasons.

1. In a mediation, both parties need to be open to different ways of resolving a dispute rather than being solely focussed on only one possible outcome.

2. In addition, both parties need to accept the process proposed by the mediator as being the best method for maximising the prospects of an agreement being reached.

3. Finally, it is preferable that the parties are willing to meet (face to face) for at least part of the mediation process again to allow the best chance of understanding the other party’s perspective and exploring options for resolution.

We have formed the view that these circumstances do not exist in this case. We therefore recommend that the mediation not proceed.” DETAIL The applicant proposes an alternative boundary wall finish - Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork instead of the approved render and colorbond cladding finish. PLANNING COMMENT

The development incorporates boundary walls on the northern and southern boundaries and consequently the following planning approval condition was applied to ensure that these walls are finished to a high standard:

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The approved plans show the boundary walls to be of a rendered finish on the ground floor and colorbond cladding on the upper floors. An adjoining neighbour had previously advised that the applicant is not permitted onto their property. This makes finishing the boundary wall to a sufficiently high standard difficult. Since the December 2014 PSC resolution and the mediator contacting the parties, the adjoining neighbour has advised the City that they are prepared to offer conditions that would facilitate access to their property. The City is not aware of the conditions upon which property access would be granted. The City’s Principal Building Surveyor has advised that:

“It is my opinion that it would be impossible to render an external face of a boundary wall to any sort of respectable finish without accessing the neighbouring land to apply and finish the render. If the wall is on, or near the boundary, an encroachment into the air space, at least, on the adjacent lot would be required to allow the mortar to be applied and finished.


Page 8

Not only is it probable that the finish would be less than satisfactory it is likely that mortar would spill from the workings onto the adjacent land. This would involve access to the land to clean this away. I have attached above “Quality Assurance for Cement Plastering” obtained via Google. This documents details clearly the complexities of applying render to a wall. It does not contemplate render application “overhand”. I have never seen Cement Plastering being applied on a boundary wall without access to the adjoining land being available to erect safe scaffolding, prepare the wall to be plastered, applying and finishing the render. In the City of Fremantle’s situation the matter does not need to be managed under the Building Act as it has been dealt with in the Planning Approval.”

Relevant excerpts from “Quality Assurance for Cement Plastering” are included in Attachment 4. The owner has therefore suggested an alternative boundary wall finish - Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork, which is able to be installed without requiring access to a neighbouring property. Details and photos of this product are included in Attachment 4. Subsequent to the approval being granted for 62A Thompson Road, the wording of the standard boundary wall finish condition has been modified to allow a variety of high quality finishes in addition to sand render and face brick and reads as follows:

“Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the <insert relevant boundary> elevations shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish

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

In the instance where the new standard boundary wall finish condition was applied to the approval for 62A Thompson Road, this report would be unnecessary. As previously mentioned despite the mediator’s recommendation that mediation not proceed, it is still open to Council to resolve that mediation occur as no party has refused to participate in mediation. On this basis the following alternative recommendation would apply: “The item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow mediation between the applicant and the southern neighbour.” The mediator has advised that current costs are approximately $800 and should the mediation proceed, additional costs are likely to be $1500 (total $2300).


Page 9

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT There is no ability to legally modify the wording of a planning approval condition without a new development application being lodged. Council is however able to be flexible regarding the enforcement of this condition provided that the intent of the condition is the same i.e. ensuring that boundary walls are constructed to a high quality finish. OFFICER'S AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock The applicant/owner be advised that the proposed alterative boundary wall finishes of Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork are of an appropriate high quality instead of render and colorbond cladding. CARRIED: 4/2

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 10

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1502-2 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 67 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY WITH LOFT) MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (3 OFFICE UNITS & 6 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0600/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 12 November 2014 Owner Name: Lexdom Pty Ltd Submitted by: Eames Architects Pty Ltd Scheme: Local Centre Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

Not within heritage area Existing Landuse: Shop Use Class: ‘Multiple Dwelling’ & ‘Office’ Use Permissibility: ‘A’ & ‘P’


Page 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development and submissions received that cannot be addressed by the imposition of planning approval conditions. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for the demolition of existing building & construction of a two storey (with loft) mixed use development (3 Office units & 6 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 67 (Lot 3) Wray Avenue, Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following:

Land use

Building height

Car parking

Bicycle racks

Local Planning Policy 3.14 – Wray Avenue Precinct Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is supportable in relation to land use, building height, car parking and bicycle racks and LPP3.14, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions bringing the development into compliance. The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R-Codes ‘design principles’ in relation to:

Building size (plot ratio)

Lot boundary setback

Visual privacy The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes. Where the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’, it is considered that the proposal is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions requiring certain elements of the proposal being brought into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Local Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R30 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 LPA 4) – 4.3.3 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Wray Avenue to the north, Hampton Road to the east, Norman Street to the south and Attfield Street to the west. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List, nor is it located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. Two heritage listed properties adjoin the site at 65 Wray Avenue (west) and 91 Hampton Road (east).


Page 12

The subject site is 647m2 and is located on the south-western side of Wray Avenue, Fremantle. The subject site is currently improved by a single storey brick and iron building and in terms of its topography, slopes 1.50m downwards from its north-western corner (front) down to the south-east corner (rear). The site has a right of carriageway easement located on the eastern boundary and comprising approximately 138m2 (or 21.32%) of its total 647m2. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 12 November 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for the demolition of the existing building & construction of a two storey (with loft) mixed use development (3 Office units & 6 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 67 (Lot 3) Wray Avenue, Fremantle. Specifically, the development is comprised of the following:

Ground floor:

165m2 of commercial (office) tenancies;

12 parking bays (car stacker for up to 11 cars; 1 x disabled bay);

Bicycle racks and end of trip facility

Incidental development (bin store, residential store rooms) First floor:

4 x two bedroom Multiple Dwellings Loft:

2 x two bedroom Multiple Dwellings The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 42 days. The advertising within this period included:

Sign on site was erected to the frontage of the existing building;

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

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

All of the precinct groups were informed of the proposal;

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 2 and 9 December 2014.


Page 13

A Community Information session was held on the 10 December 2014. Land owners/occupiers within a 100 metre radius of the site and elected members of the City’s Council were invited to attend. The session was attended by approximately 15 members of the public as well as two City of Fremantle Councillors. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 January 2015, the City had received 13 submissions. The main planning issues that were raised related to:

Height

Car parking

Building bulk

Streetscape

Visual privacy In addition to the above, the City also received a petition against the proposed development, signed by 231 people. The petition notes the issues of parking and streetscape. In addition to the above, on 23 January 2015 the City received a late submission pertaining to the proposal raising the same main planning issues that were identified in the other submissions. Accordingly, the relevant planning concerns outlined above will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. City’s Heritage Department

The proposal was referred to the City’s heritage department in order to assess the proposed demolition as well as the impact of the proposed replacement development upon adjoining heritage listed properties and the locality in general. The following comments were provided in relation to these matters. Demolition

“The place is of limited cultural heritage significance and does not contribute to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located ... The proposed demolition of building can therefore be supported on heritage grounds.”

Proposed replacement development

“Heritage comment: The proposed development of 67 Wray Avenue will occupy a vacant site within the local centre zone centred on the intersection of Wray Avenue and Hampton Road. The proposed combination of uses for the new building will appropriately provide for the continuation of activities and practices which contribute to the established character of the area.


Page 14

The proposed building is considered appropriate to its context in terms of its siting, bulk and scale. However aspects of its form and character mean that the design of the building are not successful, particularly when viewed from the street. It is thought that the design of the building and its contribution to its setting would be improved by a general simplification: creating a clear and coherent relationship of all the parts to the whole, as well as to its setting. Recommendation The proposed development is not supported. A general simplification of the design so as to reinforce the urban character of its context is recommended.”

The above matters are discussed separately later throughout this report. Design Advisory Committee (DAC)

The proposal was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) at its meeting held on 13 October 2014, when the proposal was in the concept stage prior to formal lodgement of the application. The minutes of the DAC meeting is reproduced below:

1. CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

a. CHARACTER

i. Further consideration is required to take appropriate architectural cues from the 2 adjoining heritage listed buildings as required by the Wray Avenue planning policy.

ii. The design would benefit from being simplified, for example it is not understood why so many architectural elements are included in the façade design when the 2 adjoining buildings are significantly more simple.

iii. The design approach of a 3D prism with deck volumes carved out is sound and supportable, however the proposed skin diminishes the reading of this.

iv. The use of perforated screens could be more logically placed.

b. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE The above issue did not arise during the presentation

c. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM The above issue did not arise during the presentation

d. EASE OF MOVEMENT


Page 15

The above issue did not arise during the presentation

e. LEGIBILITY

The rotation of the residential entry door such that it is visible from the entry approach from Wray Avenue would improve legibility of the entry.

f. ADAPTABILITY

The above issue did not arise during the presentation

g. DIVERSITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation

h. OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

The location of the store rooms on the first floor restricts light into the adjoining living spaces, reduces the activation of the external elevations, and compromises internal planning. A solution would be to relocate stores to the upper floor. It is acknowledged that while it would also be acceptable to relocate the stores to the ground floor, this would affect the provision of commercial area of which a minimum area is required to achieve the R60 density bonus for mixed use.

i. APPROPRIATNESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES

See above comments relating to character.

j. GENERAL COMMENTS

It is not understood why an 8.0m wall height is proposed for 2 storeys where a scheme compliant 7.0m wall height would still represent generous 2 storey floor to floor height.

2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT

a. WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

The volumetric effect of locating the 3rd storey in the roof in a modern mansard is effective.

b. HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

i. Please refer to the above comment relating to character and design and functionality.

ii. Opportunities exist to introduce openings to the front and rear of the units to provide cross ventilation;


Page 16

iii. Consideration needs to be given to whether air conditioners are to be placed on the roof or screened on the balconies;

iv. The entrance to the end of trip facilities should be relocated such that the facilities can be conveniently entered if a vehicle is parked in the accessible bay.

3. RECOMMENDATION

As the design is at concept stage only, the plans have not progressed to a stage where they can be recommended for support or not.”

Since the proposal was considered by the DAC at its meeting of 13 October 2014, the amended proposal incorporated the following changes in response to, and as recommended by DAC:

Relocation of two storerooms to Apartments 2 and 3 from the north-western elevation down to the ground floor;

Front door entry to ‘apartment entrance’ (ie residential lobby) rotated so as to front Wray Avenue;

New openings to front and rear of units to provide enhanced opportunities for cross ventilation;

The end of trip facilities, along with the disabled parking bay has been relocated and the entrance to it reorientated so that the facilities can be conveniently entered if a vehicle is parked in that parking bay.

Notwithstanding the above changes, it is considered that the proposal requires further work in relation to finish and materials, consistent with the DAC’s advice. As such, it will be recommended that a condition of planning approval be imposed requiring this. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Land use

Clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 sets out the objectives for each zone within the City. Clause 4.2.1(c) sets out the following objectives for development within the ‘Local Centre’ zone:

“Development within the local centre zone shall—

(i) provide for weekly and convenience retailing including small-scale shops, showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms, entertainment, residential (at upper levels), recreation, open spaces, local offices, cottage industry, health, welfare and community facilities which serve the local community, consistent with the local—serving role of the centre,

(ii) encourage the provision of suitable and accessible services to residents of the locality,


Page 17

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

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

The proposal for ‘Office’ is a ‘P’ use within the ‘Local Centre’ zone, or a use that is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme.

Notwithstanding, the proposal for ‘Multiple Dwellings’ is an ‘A’ use within the ‘Local Centre’ zone, or a use that is not permitted unless Council has exercised discretion in granting approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4 of LPS4. In relation to (i), the proposed Office space is considered to offer and provide opportunities for office based businesses to serve the local community. Any future change of land use to another commercial based land use, such as Shop would be subject of future planning approvals. The proposed Multiple Dwellings above the ground floor are also consistent with the objectives of the Local Centre zone. As detailed above, and in relation to (ii), the proposed Office land use is considered to encourage the provision of suitable and accessible services to residents of the locality. In relation to (iii), the proposed use is not considered to be of any significant amenity impact upon existing residential uses in the locality as discussed below in relevant design principle assessments against the R-Codes and discretionary assessments against the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and local planning policies. In relation to (iv), the use of the site for purposes of Multiple Dwellings is not considered to have any direct impact upon any the conservation of heritage places in the City of Fremantle. Demolition

Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

(b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”

The Heritage Assessment prepared for this subdivision application concluded that:

“The place is of limited cultural heritage significance and does not contribute to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located ... The proposed demolition of building can therefore be supported on heritage grounds.”

In this regard, the proposed demolition of the existing building should be supported as the Heritage Assessment findings satisfy Clause 5.8.1 (a) and (b).


Page 18

Design

Clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 states:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of any Local Planning Policy prepared under clause 11.8.6.1, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee.”

It is considered that the intent of the trigger for applications required to be put before DAC prior to determination, being an application that proposes a building height of 11m or greater is to capture proposals of three storeys and above. The current proposal is for two storeys, with loft, with the extent of the building exceeding 11m being a relatively small portion of the roof ridge. As the proposal has been considered by DAC, albeit at concept stage only, the applicant has since amended their plans to address the majority of the recommendations as suggested by the DAC as part of their formal proposal with the only exception being external design which is discussed in more detail later in the report. Height

Permitted Proposed Discretion

7.00 metres external wall height 6.8 - 7.80m Nil to 0.80m

As portions of the proposal exceeds the prescribed height requirements for development within the Local Centre zone of the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) – sub area 4.3.3, clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 states that:

“Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—

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

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

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council‘s local planning policies.” The subject site is adjacent to No. 1-6/91 (Lot 69) Hampton Road, Fremantle (otherwise known as the former Beacon Theatre), which comprises a building with a maximum external wall height of 7.85m, and overall building height of approximately 11.10m. In this regard, as the subject site currently is adjacent to a building that depicts a greater external wall height than the 7.00m prescribed in Schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum external wall height requirements if they are satisfied in relation to the above criterion.


Page 19

With regards to (a) above, the height variation is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties by way of building bulk, overshadowing and/or visual privacy. As detailed above, the existing building on the eastern adjoining property, being No. 1-6/91 (Lot 69) Hampton Road, Fremantle (otherwise known as the former Beacon Theatre), has an external wall height of 7.85m. The property to the west, being No. 65 (Lot 2) Wray Avenue is single storey in nature and has a maximum external wall height of approximately 3.80m. As the proposal has an external wall height that is less than the property to the east, and more than the property to the west, it is considered to graduate the scale between those two buildings. Furthermore, it is considered that the graduation of these heights is assisted by the distances between all three buildings themselves. As viewed from Wray Avenue, the external wall of the eastern adjoining property is setback 8.80m from the proposal, whilst the external wall of the western adjoining property is setback between 2.0 and 4.20m from the proposal. In this regard, and in relation to (b), it is considered that the height of the proposal effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality. In relation to (c) above, whilst the subject site is not individually listed on the City’s heritage list, it does abut and adjoin a number of heritage listed properties. When considering (c) in the context of the development standard, being in relation to building height, it is considered that siting, bulk and scale should form the basis of considering the proposals’ impact upon those adjoining heritage listed properties. As detailed in the ‘Consultation: City’s Heritage Department’ earlier in this report, the following comments were made in relation to the proposed developments’ impact upon the adjoining heritage listed properties:

“The proposed building is considered appropriate to its context in terms of its siting, bulk and scale. However aspects of its form and character mean that the design of the building are not successful, particularly when viewed from the street. It is thought that the design of the building and its contribution to its setting would be improved by a general simplification: creating a clear and coherent relationship of all the parts to the whole, as well as to its setting.”

In light of these comments, it is considered that whilst the siting, bulk and scale of the development are appropriate in terms of its impact upon adjoining heritage listed properties; further refinement of the proposal of its external details and finishes is required. These comments are similar to those made by the DAC, and it is considered that this should be supported, subject to a condition of approval requiring submission of amended plans prior to issue of a building permit. With regards to (d) above, the height related requirements of Council’s LPP3.14 are discussed later in this report and have been supported. In addition to the above, clause 4.2 of Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle states as follows:

“In granting consent to the maximum height prescribed, Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following—


Page 20

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

(b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality,

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

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

Council may impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal does not satisfy any of the above requirements.”

In relation to (a), (b), (c) and (d) above these matters were all discussed in the preceding discussion points. On this basis, the height discretion should be supported. Notwithstanding the above, should Council be of the opinion that the proposed 7.80m external wall height, which accommodates the two storeys (excluding loft) is excessive, they may seek a reduction of the floor to ceiling heights, particularly for the ground floor which is proposed at 4.60m. A reduction of the floor to ceiling height of the ground floor from 4.60m by 0.80m down to 3.80m would bring the development into compliance with the permitted external wall height of 7.00m prescribed by Schedule 12 of LPS4 – provided there is no change to the first floor. This may likely have an impact upon the operation of the car stacker; however it is considered that this may be overcome by additional excavation to set the stacker down lower than proposed although this may require further investigation by the applicant to ensure there is no net loss of on-site car parking bays. Car parking

Use Car Bay Delivery Bay Visitor Bay

Residential 6 0 1.5

Office 6 1 0

Total Required 12 1 1.5 (2)

Proposed 12 1 0

Shortfall/surplus 0 -1 -2

The following assessment is separated into residential and office land uses. Residential Visitor Bays-

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

It is considered that there is sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the type, number and size of dwellings;

There is provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site, particularly on Wray Avenue and Hampton Road;

There are 7 bus stops located within 250m radius of the subject site, located on Wray Avenue, Hampton Road and South Street which provides bus services for the 98, 99, 160, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 825 and 920 bus routes. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available.


Page 21

Office -

In relation to the discretions sought for the office land use, pertaining to the provision of on-site parking bays, Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

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

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

(iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,

(iv) any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land,

(v) legal arrangements have been made in accordance with clause 5.7.5 for the parking or shared use of parking areas which are in the opinion of the Council satisfactory,

(vi) any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use that existed before the change of parking requirement,

(vii) the proposal involves the restoration of a heritage building or retention of a tree or trees worthy of preservation,

(viii) any other relevant considerations.

Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause.

(b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above.

Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon alternative transport opportunities.”

In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3(i), it is noted that there is provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site, particularly on Wray Avenue and Hampton Road. Regarding (ii) above, there are 7 bus stops located within 250m radius of the subject site, located on Wray Avenue, Hampton Road and South Street which provides bus services for the 98, 99, 160, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 825 and 920 bus routes. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available.


Page 22

In relation to (iii), due to the mixed use nature of the proposed development, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that some of the car parking bays associated with the residential component of the development may be available during business hours, which may provide for opportunity for any excess parking requirement for the office to utilise. It is considered that due to the existing provision of on-street parking in the immediate locality and the proximity to public transport, that the proposed on-site delivery bay and visitor bay shortfall should be supported, whilst the provision of a bicycle rack for the office land use should be adhered to. Furthermore, Council has exercised parking discretions before for more than what is proposed on other land zoned ‘Mixed Use’ (e.g. restaurants on South Terrace) that immediately abuts ‘Residential’ zoned land. Whilst the subject site also abuts land zoned ‘Residential’, that is land that is to the south and fronts a separate street (Norman Street) and therefore is considered to have less of an impact than if it were land zoned ‘Residential’ on the same street. It is noted that land to the west and east is zoned ‘Local Centre’. In relation to (viii) above, more recently, and local in the context of this application, in March 2013 the City granted conditional Planning Approval for change of use to medical centre and internal alterations to existing building at No. 1-6/91 Hampton Road, Fremantle (refer DA0006/13). This included a shortfall of fourteen (14) car parking bays and five (5) bicycle racks, which is significantly greater than the shortfall of three (3) car parking bays on site for delivery/visitor bays. The car parking requirement for DA0006/13 was based on the information provided as part of that application that there will be a maximum of 5 full time equivalent practitioners at any one time. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the combined land uses of Multiple Dwelling and Office as proposed has an inherently lower turnover and demand of car bays than would be required by a Medical Centre use or equivalent which is typically based around short appointments. Also in relation to (viii), the Planning Committee approved in 2012 a change of use at 96 Wray Avenue across the road (refer DA0477/11) a 20 car parking bay shortfall. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Bicycle racks

Required Proposed

Land use Class 1 No class

Office 2 - Not specified

Multiple Dwellings - 3 Not specified

Total 2 3 Not specified


Page 23

Given the proposed shortfall of on-site car parking, it will be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that the required number of bicycle racks be provided for the commercial and residential land uses proposed, in accordance with the above table. Building size (plot ratio)

Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

0.5 (323.5m2) 0.737 (477m2) 0.237 (153.5m2)


As detailed earlier in this report, the proposal is seeking a minor discretion in relation to external wall height, which is recommended to be supported;

Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to be at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the height of the building on the eastern adjoining property. Further, the zoning of the surrounding properties fronting Wray Avenue are permitted to have an external wall height of 7.00m under LPS4, of which is possible as part of future redevelopment of those lots.

Lot boundary setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design principle assessment

South-western boundary, first floor

2.00m 1.50m 0.50m


It is considered to ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space associated with them as well as to adjoining properties;

It is considered to moderate impacts of building bulk by use of varying materials and finishes to those elevations, and incorporation of a combination of major and minor openings.

It is considered to assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties, and has been made to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements where necessary in relation to visual privacy.

Visual privacy

Required Provided

1 7.5m setback for ‘balcony’ as contained on loft level (south-western elevation) of Apartment 5 to south-western adjoining property

3.20m

2 7.5m setback for ‘balcony’ as contained on loft level (north-western elevation) of Apartment 5 to south-western adjoining property

4.60m

3 7.5m setback for ‘balcony’ as contained on loft level (south-eastern elevation) of Apartment 5 to southern adjoining property

4.60m

4 7.5m setback for ‘courtyard’ as contained on first floor level (south-western elevation) of Apartment 1 to southern adjoining property

1.50m


Page 24

In relation to 1-4 above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

The balcony overlook the rear outdoor living areas of the dwellings as contained within the southern and south-western adjoining properties;

Accordingly, if the application is approved, it would be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that 1-4 above be modified so as to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements in relation to visual privacy.

Local Planning Policy 3.14 – Wray Avenue Precinct

Part 1 of Council’s LPP3.14 is applicable to this application as it relates to development on land zoned Local Centre. Clause 1.1.1 of LPP3.14 states:

“Buildings shall have a zero setback from the primary street.” The proposal has a predominantly nil setback to Wray Avenue, with exception of a 1.50m portion to the west which has been set aside for landscaping. Clause 1.1.2 of LPP3.14 states:

“Buildings shall have a zero setback from both side boundaries for a minimum building depth of 5 metres from the façade; any remaining part of a building shall have a minimum setback of 1.5 metres.”

The proposal has a 1.5m setback within 5.0m of the street on the western boundary, and a 4.0m setback within 5.0m of the street to its eastern boundary. The ground floor has a boundary wall for a length of 15.6m to the western boundary, but is otherwise setback at the required minimum of 1.5m to both side lot boundaries. As detailed earlier, the proposal is considered to be of appropriate bulk and scale as deemed by the City’s heritage department in terms of its impact upon adjoining heritage listed properties. Notwithstanding, the City’s heritage department requires further refinement of the proposal of its details and finishes, of which can be addressed via imposition of a condition of planning approval. Accordingly, this is not considered to be a departure of the policy requirement, provided the recommended condition is imposed. As the proposal is not considered to specifically meet the requirements of Clauses 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 of LPP3.14 above, it is required to be assessed against the discretionary criteria provided by Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 below:

“3.1 Except for maximum building height requirements as referred to in 3.2 below, Council may exercise discretion to approve a development which does not comply with one or more of the above requirements in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development would still be compatible with the character of the precinct as described in the Character Appraisal section of this policy.


Page 25

3.2 Proposed variations to maximum building height requirements must be assessed under the provisions of clause 5.8.1 and/or Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle of LPS4 as applicable to the proposed development, having regard to the zoning of the development site and land use(s) proposed.”

The proposal is considered to be compatible with the character of the precinct as described in the Character Appraisal section of LPP3.14, the proposal is considered to be of appropriate bulk and scale as deemed by the City’s heritage department in terms of its impact upon adjoining heritage listed properties subject to further refinement of the external finishes and materials as requested by the DAC and the City’s heritage department. As detailed earlier in this report, this will be dealt with via a condition of planning approval. CONCLUSION

The proposed demolition of existing building & construction of a two storey (with loft) mixed use development (3 Office units & 6 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 67 (Lot 3) Wray Avenue, Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; building size (plot ratio) and lot boundary setbacks. Furthermore, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed to bring the development into compliance with visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. In relation to building height, it is considered to satisfy the provisions of clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 and is therefore supported. The discretionary decisions sought in relation to both on-site car parking and land use has been assessed against the relevant criteria of LPS4 and is considered to be supportable. The proposal is also considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP3.14 and is considered to be supportable. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of existing building & construction of a two storey (with loft) mixed use development (3 Office units & 6 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 67 (Lot 3) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 12 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the applicant shall submit additional

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


Page 26

relating to the colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes such that the revised façade design takes appropriate architectural cues from the 2 adjoining heritage listed buildings and is more simple in design.

3. Prior to occupation, a minimum of:

(a) 3 bicycle racks be provided for the proposed Multiple Dwellings; and

(b) 2 class 1 bicycle racks be provided for the proposed Office;

are to be provided and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0600/14, on plans dated 12 November 2014 the balcony in the ‘loft’ level for apartment 5 as contained on the south-western; north-western and south-eastern elevations, and the courtyard in the first floor level for apartment 1 as contained on the south-western elevation shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

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

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

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

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

in accordance with Clause 6.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 6. Prior to occupation, all air conditioners are to be screened from view from the

street and to adjoining properties and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 27

PSC1502-3 STRANG STREET, NO. 22 (LOT 60), BEACONSFIELD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY SEVEN (37) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS - (CJ DA0513/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Schedule of submissions Attachment 3 – DAC Minutes Attachment 4 – Site photographs Attachment 5 – Heritage comment Attachment 6 – Applicant justification Attachment 7 – Applicant response to submissions Attachment 8 – Infrastructure agency responses

Date Received: 8 October 2014 Owner Name: Eastbrook Investments and CMC Holdings Submitted by: Harley Dykstra Scheme: Development Zone (DA14) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Land use: Warehouse Use Class: Multiple Dwelling Use Permissibility: N/A (A in Mixed Use zone)


Page 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 8 October 2014, the City received an application for the construction of thirty seven (37) Multiple Dwellings at No. 22 Strang Street, Beaconsfield. The application includes a number of variations and Design Principle assessments against Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) including:

Building height;

Lot boundary setbacks - south;

Landscaping;

Parking;

Bicycle parking;

Dwelling size; and

Land use. The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning documents including Scheme Amendment No. 43 that has been adopted by Council but is awaiting final approval from the Minister and is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located on the North Eastern side of Strang Street, Beaconsfield and is located within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The development site is has a total land area of 3536m2 and is currently occupied by a Warehouse. It is located within the Development zone and forms part of Development Area 14. A Scheme Amendment is currently with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for final approval to rezone the site to Mixed Use (R-AC3). The site is not listed on the State Register of Heritage Places, the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List. It is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. DETAIL On 8 October 2014, the City received an application for the demolition of an existing warehouse and addition of 37 Multiple Dwellings. The development consists of the following:

37 Multiple Dwellings (consisting of 4 x single bedroom dwellings and 32 x two bedroom dwellings ;

37 car bays;

37 storerooms;

Lobby;

Cycle store; and

Bin store. Amended plans were received 13 November 2014, providing further detail regarding on site landscaping. Development plans are included as attachment 1.


Page 29

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R Codes and local planning policies. Discretions sought against these requirements are discussed in the planning comment section of the report. The proposal has also been assessed against Scheme Amendment No. 43 which has been adopted by Council (and is awaiting final adoption by the Minister) so is therefore considered to be a “seriously entertained” proposal and relevant to this site. CONSULTATION Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The application has been reviewed pre and post lodgement of the application. A summary of the matters discussed at DAC include the following:

7 April 2014

o The plans presented included site, floor and elevation plans.

o Strengths included the provision of affordable apartments.

o Improvements should be made to the street frontage, location of car

parking, reduction of northern setback; location of ground floor units, location of stores, access to sunlight, outlook to cliff, errors in plans and location of access corridors in relation to bedroom windows.

o As the design is at concept stage only, the plans had not yet progressed to

a stage where they could be supported. There are several key design issues that need to be addressed as detailed above.

9 June 2014

o Plans presented increased the width of the Strang Street frontage and

included separate stairwells to apartments.

o Strengths include addressing of the street, balcony access, landscaping

between car park and units, cross ventilation and living space orientation.

o Improvements should be made to internalisation of bedrooms, access to

some units, street elevation, internal layout, narrow room dimensions, car park entry, architectural expression, anomalies in plans, protective lobby, ground floor units relationship with street, storerooms and bin enclosures, lack of single bedroom dwellings, air conditioning locations, lift placement, affordable housing unit and their parking arrangements.

o As the design is at concept stage only, the plans had not progressed to a

stage where they could be supported.

8 September 2014

o The plans presented to DAC have been lodged as part of the application

and include all details (i.e. final elevations, floor plans etc).

o Strengths include all bedrooms having access to natural light and street

facade.

o Improvements should be made to placement of air conditioners, street

facade, top floor setback, lift lobby and northern elevation.


Page 30

o Design is supported subject to the following condition:

Prior to the issue of a Building or Demolition Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee relating to;

a. The matters raised in the Design Advisory Minutes from the 8 September

2014 meeting relating to the façade detail, location of air-conditioning units and legibility of the lobby;

b. Details of external materials, finishes and facade composition to all elevations.

A condition of approval has been included in the Officer’s Recommendation in accordance with the above. Refer to attachment 3 for full DAC meeting minutes. Parks and landscape The City’s Parks and Landscape team has reviewed the application and provided the following comments (summarised):

Trees on southern boundary (on adjoining site) should be protected and not exposed to level changes;

Large amount of hardstand parking- no provision of trees (this is discussed in the R-Code assessment below);

Maintenance and fire risk of bush on site;

Verge parking - provide a few narrow paths through planting to allow people in parked vehicles to get to units.

Technical Services The City’s Engineering team has also reviewed the application and advises the following:

Relaxing of parking requirement because of proximity to public transport is less appropriate for visitors parking as these trips would not generally align with peak period operations making public transport less viable. The closest stop is 400m for the south bound direction and 450m for the north bound (Hampton Road).

Suggest marking additional bays within the development as visitor bays and reducing the number of unit bays.

Parking in verge is supported subject to pavement dimensions being shown and materials for the bays.

A condition of approval is recommended in respect to the Strang Street bays and pavement.


Page 31

Heritage The application was referred through to the City’s Heritage Department in accordance with Clause 5.15 of LPS4, who advises the following:

The warehouse is of little heritage significance and can be demolished on heritage grounds.

Western Power The application was referred through to Western Power, with the following response received (summarised):

An overhead transmission line affects the subject property.

Western Power does not have an easement on the lot, however, in the absence of a formal easement a restriction zone will apply.

Costs may be payable by the applicant if the development encroaches.

If the clearance does not comply with requirements, the proponent must then choose between changing the development plans to achieve the required clearance and/or altering the transmission line, if this option is available.

The applicant should refer to the Worksafe WA Occupational Safety and Health Regulation 3.64 'danger' zone associated with lines of this voltage.

An advice note is provided in the Officer’s Recommendation to remind the applicant to contact Western Power directly to discuss their requirements in regards to the overhead transmission line. Water Corporation The applicant has referred the application to Water Corporation for comment, who has advised the following:

The lot is served by a DN225 sewer and 305mm dia. water main, as such the infrastructure will be able to support the proposed development.

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. In accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, the application was deemed to be significant and was advertised in the following manner:

Time period of notice – 28 days;

Local newspaper notice (11 November and 18 November 2014);

Sign on site;

Notice to owners and occupiers within a 100m radius;

Notice on City of Fremantle website;

Notice to Precinct groups;

Notice to Elected Members; and

Community information session which was held on 20 November 2014 and attended by City Officers, Elected Members and approximately seven (7) members of the public.


Page 32

At the conclusion of the neighbour notification period, being 12 December 2014, the City had received fourteen (14) submissions:

8 objections;

1 non-objection;

2 in support;

1 query; and

2 on-balance objections.

A schedule of these submissions and City officer’s response has been provided as attachment 2. The applicant has reviewed the submissions, and provided the following additional justification included as attachment 7.

PLANNING COMMENT Scheme Amendment No. 43 Clause 10.2 of LPS4 raises additional matters to be considered by Council when determining development applications. Specifically: 10.2.1 The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not be limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application – b) The requirements of orderly and proper planning including any relevant proposed new local planning Scheme or amendment, or region Scheme or amendment, which has been granted consent for public submissions to be sought. The site is subject to Scheme Amendment No. 43, which on 26 September 2012; Council resolved to adopt the provisions and recommended it be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for final consent. As such, in accordance with Clause 10.2.1b) above, the application is assessed below as being in the Mixed Use zone with a density coding of R-AC3 and 14m building height. Building height

Required Provided Variation

7m (Current LPS4 Mixed Use requirement) 14m 7m

14m (Scheme Amendment No. 43) 14 m Complies

Minor projection 10% of roof area Less than 10% N/A

The proposed scheme amendment sets out criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply, including building height in Area 1 as follows:

1. Essential infrastructure services necessary for the proposed development are arranged and provided to the development site by the landowner/developer.

The applicant has advised that the site is capable of being serviced for residential development as follows:


Page 33

“A preliminary assessment of the infrastructure available to service the site is as follows:

o The sewer junction is 225mm diameter and 1.69 metres deep. The size

of the junction is adequate to serve the development. Part of the development may have to be pumped to the connection point, depending on the final approved design.

o The water main in Strang St is 305mm in diameter and is large enough

to serve the development. Pumps and tanks will be required for both domestic and fire services where development is greater than 3 storeys.

o There is a 100mm diameter 70kPa gas line within the road reserve which

is capable of serving the development.

o Ground water is 16 metres deep from RL 17.00 AHD. Soak wells can

therefore be used.

o The area is serviced by Western Power and Telstra. Western Power will

provide a new connection as will Telstra, based on the new load and number of occupants. Both Western Power and Telstra will charge for connection costs.”

The applicant has also provided written responses from Water Corporation and Western Power that do not identify any issues with the provision of services to the site. These responses are included as Attachment 8 of this report.

2. For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking and access shall be coordinated with existing or future parking and access on adjoining lots in order to minimise the number of crossovers to Hampton Road.

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

The development does not front Hampton Road. 4. Non-residential development above two storeys shall comply with the boundary

setback requirements of R-AC3 of the Residential Design Codes. The proposal does not include non-residential development.

Lot boundary setbacks – south

Deemed-to-Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

4m 0.25m – 5.66m 3.75m - nil

The proposed lot boundary setbacks are supported for the following reasons:

The existing building on site has a 7m high boundary wall measuring approximately 54m of the 58.5m long boundary;

The proposed boundary walls are as follows:

o 14m height for 15.34m length in the southern portion of the site abutting the

car parking area of the adjoining site;

o 14m height for 6.2m length for the stairwell;

o 2.4m height for five (5) ground floor storerooms.


Page 34

The remainder of the building is setback sufficiently to protect the privacy of adjoining residents.

The boundary walls do not include major or minor openings, and the store and stairwell are not habitable spaces that will be occupied for an extended amount of time, reducing the disruption to residential amenity of the adjoining properties.

The building’s setback has been staggered, with the inclusion of courtyards on the ground floor to ensure the visual impact of building bulk is reduced to the southern property.

The proposed setback to the building is sufficient to provide ventilation for the subject site and adjoining property.

The adjoining southern lot consists of the following approved residential land uses –

o Unit 14 – Multiple Dwelling (DA0330/08)

o Unit 13 – Multiple Dwelling (DA137/08)

o Unit 6 – Caretakers residence (DA475/01)

The remainder of the units are various Commercial land uses (DA249/95).

It is acknowledged that the adjoining lot, which consists of a mixture of Commercial and Multiple Dwellings will be partially overshadowed, however for lots zoned R-AC, there is no overshadowing restriction under the R-Codes. Additionally, the majority of the lot affected by overshadowing is hardstand vehicle parking.

The lot is restricted by overhead transmission lines to the northern portion of site, so has proposed boundary walls to maximise development potential of the site.

The setback of the adjoining property to the south, varies from approximately 2m to 31m, with the largest boundary wall proposed on 22 Strang, being proposed adjacent to the area of building with the greatest setback.

Landscaping


Landscaping between each 6 consecutive car parking bays

Not provided

Required

Lighting to pathways Not provided

Required

The car bays are not covered by carports, nor have they been provided with landscaping. While the applicant has indicated some landscaping on site near the apartments, and is retaining the vegetation on the rear of the site, it is considered that the trees would be appropriate within the hardstand car parking area to help manage stormwater and provide shade for vehicles. Additionally, lighting has not been shown on the plans for pedestrian walkways or communal space within the development for the security of visitors and residents. A condition of approval has been recommended to meet the R-Code requirement for the lighting and landscaping.


Page 35

Parking


Multiple Dwellings - 36 37 Not required

Visitor – 10 1 9

The applicant has indicated one on site visitor bay for the development, and three verge bays on Strang Street immediately adjacent to the development. The City’s Technical Services Department has reviewed the proposal for three verge bays on Strang Street abutting the development, and is supportive, subject to further approval of car bay and pavement dimensions and materials. A condition of approval has been recommended for these further details to be provided to the City’s Technical Services Department. As parking for the Multiple Dwellings, exceeds the R-Code required amount by one (1), it is recommended that a condition of approval also be applied requiring this additional bay be marked as visitor parking. There are also three motorcycle bays and a bicycle shelter provided on site, and visitor bicycle racks are also recommended to be provided on site (see “Bicycle parking” below). The combination of the three verge bays and additional visitor bay on site, results in a total of 5 visitor bays being provided, plus three motor cycle bays. On this basis, the visitor car parking is supported. Bicycle parking


Residents – 13 Bicycle store (unknown) 13

Visitors - 4 Nil 4

Each unit is provided with a storeroom, which could comfortably fit a bicycle, and an additional communal bicycle store (13m2) is provided at the entrance to the apartments which will provide more convenient space for those units with upper floor storerooms. It is considered that there is sufficient space for secure bicycle parking for residents; however it is recommended that four bicycle racks be provided on site for visitors. A condition of approval has been recommended to this effect. Dwelling size

Required Provided Discretion

Min 25% max floor area of 60m2 or less Nil 25%

Max 40% of dwellings to have floor area of 120m2 or greater

0 Complies

The development does not meet the requirements of Clause 5.4.5 of LPS4 as detailed above. However, in accordance with Clause 5.8.2–


Page 36

The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with the locality generally; It is not considered that the size of the dwellings provided would have a direct impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality. A greater number of small apartments occupying the same total floor area would increase the number of persons and associated vehicles and visitors to the site, while still having a similar building bulk and height impact.

b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and The application does not include any buildings of cultural heritage value, nor are there any in the immediate vicinity of the development.

c) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

The application has been assessed against Council’s local planning policies and is considered to meet requirements.

The intent of the Clause is to provide housing diversity in Multiple Dwelling developments. While no apartments are being proposed at less than 60m2, four(4) single bedroom dwellings are being proposed at 64m2 and would therefore meet the intent of Cl 5.4.5. Additionally, the size of the Multiple Dwellings ranges from 64m2 to 85m2, which would allow the developer to market the apartments at varying price points and types. Land use Multiple Dwellings are an ‘A’ use in the Mixed Use zone. The development is considered to meet the objectives of the Mixed Use zone of LPS4 as follows:

i) Provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (i.e showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation While residential development is proposed on all levels, Scheme Amendment No. 43, notes for Area 1 –

Notwithstanding the objectives of the Mixed Use zone under clause 4.2.1 (e), residential uses may be located at ground level.

ii) Ensure future development within each of the mixed use zones is sympathetic with

the desired future character of each area,


Page 37

The proposed development will increase the residential population in the area and encourage the development of additional land uses such as Restaurants, Office and Shop that may service the local population and rely on residential density to survive. It is proposed to develop to the maximum height limit, which has been nominated by Council in Scheme Amendment No. 43 and is considered to be consistent with the future desired character for the Strang Street area.

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

As the lot is affected by existing powerlines, the applicant has been required to locate the majority of the development on the southern portion of the site. As such, approximately 2 or 3 of the adjoining units have been affected by shadow. It is considered however, that the disruption to the amenity of adjoining owners and residential properties is minimal, as visual privacy meets Deemed-to-Comply requirements, and lot boundary setbacks are supported against Design Principles. The topography difference between the subject site and the properties to the rear also assists in mitigating any amenity impacts.

iv) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the

development. The existing warehouse is of little heritage significance and is supported for demolition. There are no adjoining properties of heritage significance that will be impacted by the development.

LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements The City’s LPP 2.13 applies to the development, and requires that it should be constructed so as to achieve a 4 Star Green Star rating. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure compliance with the policy. CONCLUSION The application has been assessed to meet the requirements of the Residential Design Codes, local planning policies and LPS4, and is recommended for conditional planning approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of thirty seven (37) Multiple Dwellings at No. 22 (Lot 60) Strang Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 38

2. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle

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

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

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

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Demolition and Construction Management

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

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

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

5. Prior to the issue of a Building or Demolition Permit, plans hereby approved being

modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee relating to;

a) The matters raised in the Design Advisory Minutes from the 8 September

2014 meeting relating to the façade detail, location of air-conditioning units and legibility of the lobby; and

b) Details of external materials, finishes and facade composition to all elevations.


Page 39

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans detailing verge parking and pavement dimensions and materials are to be submitted and approved by the City’s Technical Services Department, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All costs associated with the approved works are to be the responsibility of the applicant.

8. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan must be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties.

9. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0513/14, on plans

dated 13 November 2014, all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


dated 13 November 2014, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


dated 13 November 2014, two (2) on site car bays shall be marked as Visitor, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to occupation of the development as approved as part of DA0513/14, on plans

dated 13 November 2014, four (4) bicycle racks shall be provided on site for visitors to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice note:

i. The applicant is advised to contact Western Power to discuss the proposal in relation to the overhead transmission lines in the vicinity of the development, as there may be restrictions and costs required with the proposed works.

ii. The applicant is advised to contact the City’s Technical Services Department in relation to the parking and pedestrian access in the verge outside the development.


Page 40

Cr Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Officer’s Recommendation to add the following condition:

13. Prior to the issue of a building permit a landscaping plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle that shows additional landscaping in the carparking area that does not result in the loss of any carparking bays. The approved landscaping is to be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of thirty seven (37) Multiple Dwellings at No. 22 (Lot 60) Strang Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s):


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

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

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

b) a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the

development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.


Page 41

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

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Demolition and Construction

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

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

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

5. Prior to the issue of a Building or Demolition Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee relating to;

c) The matters raised in the Design Advisory Minutes from the 8 September

2014 meeting relating to the façade detail, location of air-conditioning units and legibility of the lobby; and

d) Details of external materials, finishes and facade composition to all elevations.

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner is to submit a waste

management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans detailing verge parking and

pavement dimensions and materials are to be submitted and approved by the City’s Technical Services Department, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All costs associated with the approved works are to be the responsibility of the applicant.


Page 42

8. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties.

9. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0513/14, on

plans dated 13 November 2014, all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0513/14, on plans dated 13 November 2014, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


plans dated 13 November 2014, two (2) on site car bays shall be marked as Visitor, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to occupation of the development as approved as part of DA0513/14, on plans dated 13 November 2014, four (4) bicycle racks shall be provided on site for visitors to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the issue of a building permit a landscaping plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle that shows additional landscaping in the carparking area that does not result in the loss of any carparking bays. The approved landscaping is to be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

Advice note:

ii. The applicant is advised to contact Western Power to discuss the proposal in relation to the overhead transmission lines in the vicinity of the development, as there may be restrictions and costs required with the proposed works.

ii. The applicant is advised to contact the City’s Technical Services Department in relation to the parking and pedestrian access in the verge outside the development.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie


Page 43

Cr Jon Strachan


Page 44

PSC1502-4 SWANBOURNE STREET, NO. 27A (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0615/14) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site photographs Attachment 3 – SHO Comment Attachment 4 – Internal Heritage Comment

Date Received: 20 November 2014 Owner Name: Margaret Vinciguerra Submitted by: Michael Sorensen Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Level 2 Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 45

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling on a currently vacant lot at No. 27a Swanbourne Street, Fremantle. The development is seeking a number of Design Principle assessments against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and local planning policies including:

Boundary walls;

Building height; and

Overshadowing; Additionally, the City has received a number of objections to the proposed Grouped Dwelling. As such, the application is referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination. The application has been assessed against the R-Codes, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and local planning policies and is considered to meet the Design Principles of relevant design elements on balance. As such, the application is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND No. 27a Swanbourne Street, Fremantle is located at the rear of No. 27 on the western side of Swanbourne Street. The street block is bound by Stevens Street to the south, Swanbourne Street to the east, Fothergill Street to the north and Solomon Street to the west. The lot is coded R25 in the Residential zone and is currently vacant. The 350m2 lot is listed on the City’s Heritage List and MHI (Level 2); however the listing is related to the dwelling on the front lot. The subject site is not located in a heritage area. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history. DETAIL On 20 November 2014, the City received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling on a vacant site at No. 27a Swanbourne Street, Fremantle. The development includes the following:

Ground floor – garage, store, bed/bath, studio and deck;

Upper floor – dining/living/kitchen, laundry, bedroom and deck;

Roof – deck. Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning requirements and is considered to meet Design Principles. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for full design principles assessment .


Page 46

CONSULTATION State Heritage Office The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO), due to its proximity to a State Registered place. SHO provided the following advice: The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of Fothergill Street Precinct. Full comment is included as attachment 3. Internal Heritage The application was referred to the City’s Heritage Coordinator, who is supportive of the application without conditions, as the proposed development is on a new lot created behind the listed site. Full comment is included as attachment 4. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 January 2015, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised:

Overshadowing of outdoor living area; First floor setback; Building height – very bulky and ventilation shaft makes it excessively high; Visual privacy – first floor will impact directly on primary outdoor living area and

roof deck will also result in no privacy for outdoor living area; Upper floor deck – opposed to solid boundary wall, would prefer it to be setback

or screening rather than solid, will increase noise, would prefer open balustrading rather than solid to protect views and allow for ventilation;

Height of wind tower.

PLANNING COMMENT Boundary walls – north and east

Setback Required Setback Provided Design Principle Assessment

North (upper and ground floor) – 1.2m

0m 1.2m

East (ground floor) – 1m 0m 1m

East (upper floor) – 1.1m 0.2-0.6m 0.9-0.5m

North The northern boundary wall is for the upper floor deck and is two storeys in height (approximately 6.5m), and 6m in length. The boundary wall is supported for the following reasons:

Protects the privacy of adjoining openings and the users of the deck in the proposed development by proposing a solid wall;


Page 47

The neighbouring property is setback approximately a metre from the boundary, allowing sufficient space for ventilation to the opening and balcony;

Views will be still be achieved to the west for the adjoining property from the balcony;

It is not considered that overshadowing will greatly impact the northern property, particularly as the greatest overshadowing impact is generally to properties to the south of a development

Access to direct sun for the major opening may be restricted, but the balcony will still achieve access to direct sun;

The property is to the rear of No. 27 Swanbourne Street, and will have a minimal impact on the streetscape;

The remainder of the proposed upper floor is setback 2.8-4.2m, reducing the potential for building bulk impacts.

East (gf) The eastern boundary wall on the ground floor is for the garage and measures 8.78m in length and approximately 2.7m in height. The boundary wall is supported for the following reasons:

The adjoining property’s patio is approximately 6m setback from the boundary;

The solid wall is for a garage, reducing noise and amenity impacts on the adjoining properties open space relating to vehicles;

Access to direct sun and ventilation is not restricted by the single storey boundary wall;

The property is to the rear of No. 27 Swanbourne Street, and will have a minimal impact on the streetscape;

Will not have a negative impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. East (uf) The eastern boundary wall on the upper floor is for Bedroom 1, is approximately 6m in length and 5m in height. The boundary wall is supported for the following reasons:

The boundary wall is setback between 0.2 – 0.6m, and for the majority of its length is not significantly less than the 1.1m required setback;

The adjoining property’s patio is setback approximately 6m from the proposed boundary wall, allowing for sufficient room for access to direct sunlight and ventilation;

The boundary wall will not impact by way of overshadowing as calculated by the R-Codes to this elevation;

There are no major openings proposed on this elevation that will impact on the privacy of the adjoining property;

Is on the rear site, and will therefore have minimal impact on the streetscape.


Page 48

Building height – concealed roof

Maximum Permitted Maximum Provided Design Principle Assessment

7m 5.7- 7.7m (main building) 8.3m (wind tower)

0-0.7m 1.3m

The proposed building height is supported for the following reasons:

The bulk of the building that does not meet deemed to comply of 7m, is for the natural ventilation shaft, which protrudes an additional 2m above the roof line and could be considered to be an architectural feature that is not included in building height measurements;

The other portion of the building that does not meet deemed to comply is on the western portion and is due to the natural slope of the site;

The additional building height for the main portion of the building, would not cause significantly different overshadowing compared to a building that met the Deemed-to-Comply requirements;

The building is setback sufficiently to allow access to direct sun for adjoining buildings and open spaces;

Views to the west will be disrupted for No. 27 and partially for No. 25 Swanbourne St, however if the building met deemed-to-comply, access to views would still be restricted;

At its highest point (the wind tower), the building height is still less than that of a pitched roof development, which would have a Deemed-to-Comply height of 9m.

Visual privacy – north, south, east and west

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

Ground floor deck – north – 7.5m

5.3m (portion over 0.5m above GL)

2.2m

Ground floor deck – west – 7.5m

1m 6.5m

Ground floor deck – south – 7.5m

7m 0.5m

First floor dining – west – 6m

5.5m 0.5m

First floor deck – east and west – 7.5m

0m 7.5m

First floor sitting area – north – 6m

3m to stair window 4.5m to sitting area

3m 4.5m

Roof deck – south – 7.5m 3.5m 4m

Roof deck – east – 7.5m 2.5m 5m


Page 49

Ground floor deck – west, south, north The ground floor deck exceeds 500mm above ground level for its south western portion. As a result, visual privacy to the west, south and to the north does not comply with setback requirements. It is recommended that screening be provided, however an advice note has been provided to inform the applicant that 500mm of screening on top of the existing boundary fence would satisfy this requirement. First floor dining – west The first floor dining room window does not meet the visual privacy setback requirements (6m) for approximately 1.5m of its face. The minor overlooking affects a central driveway between No. 38 and No. 40. As such, it is not recommended that the dining room window be screened. First floor deck – east and west The first floor deck overlooks the northern property from its eastern and western elevations. As the applicant has proposed a solid wall on the northern elevation, the amount of overlooking proposed has been minimised. From it’s eastern elevation, it will overlook the roof of No. 25 Swanbourne Street, and is therefore not recommended to be screened. From the western elevation, the deck may overlook active open space on the northern lot and is recommended to be screened. While it is acknowledged that a view is achieved from the proposed deck, the condition and design principles of the R-Codes provide flexibility in the design of screening, and as such could be provided without compromising the view. First floor sitting area – north The siting area in the northern portion of the first floor, is separated from the windows by the staircase. The windows are indicated on the plans to be translucent, however a condition of approval is recommended to protect the privacy of the adjoining landowner. Roof deck – south and east The roof deck is setback sufficiently to protect the privacy of the properties to the north and west; however it is recommended that the southern and eastern elevations be screened also. An additional 100mm on the eastern elevation for a 3m length and 200mm on the southern elevation for 10m would be required to satisfy the screening requirement of the R-Codes. It is not considered that this increase in screening would have significant impact on building bulk.


Page 50

Overshadowing

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

15% - 46.65m2 23% - 71.5m2 8% - 24.85m2

The proposed amount of overshadowing is supported on balance for the following reasons:

The proposed dwelling has been oriented to the southern portion of the site, to achieve access to winter sun;

A two storey dwelling that complies with deemed-to-comply requirements for lot boundary setbacks and building height would likely still overshadow;

The southern lot’s outdoor living area is impacted by overshadowing, however would still be impacted by overshadowing even if it met the Deemed-to-Comply requirements, particularly as due to the shared lot boundary, the permitted amount of overshadowing is proportionately reduced;

Solar collectors on the adjoining property are not impacted by the proposed development;

A significant amount of the overshadowing affects the roof of the southern property;

Major openings are not impacted by the overshadowing as the boundary wall is largely without openings.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 27a (Lot 2) Swanbourne Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0615/14, on plans dated 20 November 2014 the ground floor deck on the western, southern and northern elevation, first floor deck on the western elevation, first floor sitting room window on the northern elevation and roof deck on the southern and eastern elevation shall be either:

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

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




Page 51



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

eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;

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

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

Advice note:

i. The applicant is advised in relation to the ground floor deck noted in condition 3, that this requirement may be met by provision of a 1.8m high boundary fence with 500mm of screening material pursuant to part (d) of the condition.

Cr Massie MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the staff to seek further information on any noise impacts the wind tower may have on adjoining neighbours. lost: 1/5

For Against

Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to investigate alternative designs that reduce overshadowing impacts on the outdoor living area of the adjoining southern property. lost: 1/5

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie


Page 52

COMMITTEE DECISION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 27a (Lot 2) Swanbourne Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):



otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0615/14, on

plans dated 20 November 2014 the ground floor deck on the western, southern and northern elevation, first floor deck on the western elevation, first floor sitting room window on the northern elevation and roof deck on the southern and eastern elevation shall be either:

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

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

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




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

and eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;

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


Advice note:

i. The applicant is advised in relation to the ground floor deck noted in condition 3, that this requirement may be met by provision of a 1.8m high boundary fence with 500mm of screening material pursuant to part (d) of the condition.


Page 53

CARRIED: 5/1

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Bill Massie


Page 54

Cr R Pemberton vacated the chamber at 8.05 pm. Cr R Pemberton returned to the meeting at 8.07 pm.

PSC1502-5 HOWARD STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 7), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AA DA0603/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 12 November 2014 Owner Name: C & B Easterday Submitted by: C & B Easterday Scheme: Residential (R35) Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 3 Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 55

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for alterations and additions to an existing single storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 12 Howard Street, Fremantle. The proposal includes alterations and additions to an existing outbuilding so as to provide additional accommodation for the existing dwelling. The development consists of a two storey rear addition attached to the main dwelling by a proposed patio structure. The addition includes an additional bedroom and bathroom areas as well as a wet area available for cooking and cleaning. The proposed addition cannot be considered an ‘Ancillary Dwelling’ or ‘Small Secondary Dwelling’ as the site is not a Single House lot. Should the development be approved, a condition of approval limiting its use, so as to not be self-contained (i.e. removing the kitchen), is recommended. The proposed development is referred to the Planning Services Committee on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period. The application seeks merit based assessments relating to the following;

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls)

Building height; and,

Visual privacy. It is acknowledged that the proposal includes boundary wall to its northern boundary 1.6m higher than the existing boundary wall . Notwithstanding the height and scale of the wall, the proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary walls in Residential Development (LPP2.4); on the basis that it does not result in a loss of direct light to adjoining properties as measured by the R Codes and is of a bulk and scale consistent with surrounding adjoining buildings. However should Council form an alternative view, an alternative recommendation for refusal is also provided. The application is recommended, on-balance, for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site exists as a single storey Grouped Dwelling in a group of four fronting the northern side of Howard Street between Marine Terrace and South Fremantle. The subject site is located in ‘Sub Area 4.3.1’ of the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The subject site is included on the City’s Heritage List, with the row of Grouped Dwellings (consisting No. 8-14 Howard Street) being noted as significant as well as limestone features being contained on the site. The subject site is not located in a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for a two storey addition to the existing Grouped Dwelling including;


Page 56

An upper floor addition to an existing single storey outbuilding structure and conversion of the structure into an addition to the existing dwelling containing 2 additional bedrooms;

Filling of ground floor external openings and installation of new glazing and doorways; and,

Replacement of an existing patio structure with a new gabled timber patio structure linking the existing dwelling with the proposed addition.

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and planning policies. Merit based assessments are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls);

Building height; and,

Visual privacy. These merit based assessment are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was advertised to surrounding landowners in accordance with clause 9.2 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 2 January 2015, the City had received 4 submissions all of which objected to the proposal. The applicant provided a response to the relevant submissions received which are summarised as follows;

Submission Applicant’s response

The proposed boundary wall on the northern boundary is of a significant height and scale. The proposed wall is out of character with the predominately single dwelling area.

The wall adjoins a boundary to a two storey apartment building; which is approximately 6-7m high to the top of the wall. The proposed height of the boundary wall at 5.4m is in keeping with this adjoining building.

The proposed finishes to the northern and side elevations are too contrasting and somewhat out-of-character with surrounding development.

The applicant is open to agreeing to alternative treatments/painting to these elevations to help alleviate this concern.

The proposal could result in water egress to adjoining sites.

This issue has been considered and the proposal capable of construction to ensure water is retained on-site.

The proposal will result in deterioration of the rubble limestone wall – which is already deteriorated.

The applicant is agreeable to repairing the wall which is only accessible via the northern adjoining properties.


Page 57

The proposal should be limited in height to the existing height of the building wall (~4.2m)

Limiting the proposal to this height would not allow for a two storey proposal.

The proposed wall will reduce vistas from the northern adjoining property.

The proposed addition has been designed in a way that reflects the scale, materials and form of the existing main dwelling at the site. The vista from adjoining sites should remain largely unaltered.

The hipped roof should be replaced with a flat roof.

A hipped roof is more in keeping with the surrounding development form.

Further discussion of the matters raised is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

North In areas coded R30 and higher, walls not higher

than 3.5m with an average height of 3m for two-thirds the length of the balance of the lot boundary behind the

front setback, to one side boundary only.

5.4m high x 10.6m long on the

northern boundary

+1.9m to height, +2.4m to average height, 88% of the northern boundary

East 5.4m high x 4.8m long on the

eastern boundary

+1.9m to height, +2.4m to average height, 75% of the western boundary

The proposal includes an extension to the height of the existing boundary wall of approximately 1.6m. The wall also partially adjoins roofed structures on the northern adjoining site at No. 3/17 & 4/17 Arundel Street, Fremantle (see Attachment 2). Both the proposed eastern and northern boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed boundary walls does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location on the northern and eastern boundaries. The ground floor of the eastern boundary abuts a single storey outbuilding on No. 14 Howard Street, Fremantle. The courtyards on the northern adjoining site are already restricted in direct light access from the Grouped Dwelling building on that site (No. 17 Arundel). The courtyards most immediately adjoining the proposed wall have outbuilding and patio structures constructed within them that restrict light and ventilation access;

The boundary walls are not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the eastern boundary and represents a 1.6m addition to the height of the existing wall on the northern boundary; and,


Page 58

The boundary wall is not considered to impact significantly on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation as none existing to the adjoining site.

5.1.6 Building Height

Element Scheme requirement Provided Merit based assessment

Building height Single storey + loft – maximum external wall height of 4.8m and a

maximum roof plain pitch of 38 degrees.

2 storeys, 5.0 - 5.4m external wall

height.

Additional storey, up to 0.6m wall

height.

The proposal does not meet the maximum height requirement specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The exercise of discretion pursuant to clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 is sought in respect to building height, which states that;

‘5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to building that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following – (a) The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties

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

the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; (c) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining;

and, (d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’

The proposal is considered to satisfy the criteria set out in clause 5.8.1.1 of the LPS4 in the following ways;

The site adjoins No. 1-6/17 Arundel Street at its rear (northern) boundary. Adjoining this boundary is a two storey Grouped Dwelling development with an external wall height of over 6.0m. This building satisfies the prerequisite part of clause 5.8.1.1 in that it is a building that is of a greater height than specified in Schedule 12;

The proposed development, which will adjoin the higher building at No. 1/6-17 Arundel Street, is of a lesser scale, height and bulk that the adjoining building. The proposed skillion roof also falls away from the higher building towards Howard Street. This achieves a degree of graduation of scale, albeit that the proposal is still two storeys, between the higher building at No. 1-6/17 Arundel Street, and the single storey buildings on Howard Street. This is considered to satisfy part (b) of clause 5.8.1.1;

The potential impact on amenity as a result of other elements of the proposal is considered further in this report, pursuant to part (a) of clause 5.8.1.1;


Page 59

The proposal has been assessed for its impact on the heritage fabric of the place and is supported, thereby satisfying part (c).

5.4.1 Visual privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Merit based assessment

Bedroom 1 – south facing affecting the western boundary

4.5m

4.4m 0.1m

Bedroom 2 – south facing affecting the eastern boundary

2.1m 2.4m

The proposal is not supported on the basis that the south facing openings will be afforded views over the adjoining properties at No. 10 & 14 Howard Street, Fremantle. A condition of approval requiring restriction of the cone-of-vision to the south facing openings of Bedroom 1 and Bedroom 2 is recommended. Addition to existing Grouped Dwelling Pursuant to the definitions of the R-Codes and LPS4, both Ancillary Dwellings and Small Secondary Dwellings cannot be approved on Grouped Dwelling sites. The subject site is a Grouped Dwelling site and the proposed addition could be considered an Ancillary Dwelling for the purpose of the R-Codes, by reason that facilities are provided that allow the place to be self-contained. The City typically approves additions to Grouped Dwellings that allow for additional accommodation, so long as they’re not capable of occupation completely independent of a main dwelling. A condition of approval specifying deletion of the indicated kitchen facilities is therefore recommended. CONCLUSION The application is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of LPP2.4 in respect to the boundary wall sought to the northern boundary. The proposed height of the proposal is also considered to satisfy clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4. However should the Council form an alternative view, the following recommendation is provided;

‘That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 12 (Lot 7) Howard Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 November 2014, for the following reason;

1. The proposed boundary wall to the northern boundary will impact on the

amenity of outdoor living areas located on the northern adjoining site by reason of the proposed wall’s bulk and scale.’


Page 60

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 12 (Lot 7) Howard Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 November 2014, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 12 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this approval, the addition shall be not be used as an

Ancillary Dwelling, as defined by the Residential Design Codes, and the kitchen facilities limited or deleted so that the additional cannot be occupied independently of the main dwelling building.


4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0603/14, on plans dated 12 November 2014 the cone-of-vision from the upper floor Bedroom 1 & Bedroom 2 shall be restricted by either:

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






lost: 2/4

For Against

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton


Page 61

Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: ‘That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 12 (Lot 7) Howard Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 November 2014, for the following reason;

1. The proposed boundary wall to the northern boundary will impact on the amenity of outdoor living areas located on the northern adjoining site by reason of the proposed wall’s bulk and scale.’

CARRIED: 4/2

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie



Page 62

PSC1502-6 MARTHA STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 150), BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND TWO STOREY (WITH LOFT) ADDITIONS AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0470/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Amended development plans (26 November 2014)

2 – Site photos 3 – Applicants submission

Date Received: 22 September 2014 Owner Name: ED Ormsby & PD Ormsby Submitted by: ED Ormsby & PD Ormsby Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 63

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a partial demolition of an existing single storey Single House and construction of a two storey, with loft, Single House at the subject site. The proposed development is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period. The application has been assessed against the statutory planning framework of the City and seeks merit based assessments in relation to the following elements;

Street setback;

Lot boundary setbacks and boundary walls; and,

Visual privacy The proposal is not considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscape policy (LPP2.9) in relation to the setback of buildings to Martha Street. The proposal, in particular the proposed upper floor, is considered inconsistent with the prevailing development pattern in the street. Despite the above, it is recognised that there are a range of different building elements within this portion of Martha Street, including buildings at the ‘rear’ of properties that otherwise front Agnes Street. Should the Council consider the proposal to be compatible with these varied streetscape elements, an alternative recommendation for approval is provided at the conclusion of this report. The application is recommended, on-balance, for refusal. BACKGROUND The subject site consists of a single storey Single House and associated outbuildings and structures, fronting Martha Street, Beaconsfield. The subject site measures 395m2 and exists in the portion of Martha Street bound by Solomon Street to the west and Edmund Street to the east. Properties adjoining the subject site to the east have dual frontage to both Martha Street and Agnes Street. Properties adjoining the subject site to the west maintain a primary frontage to Solomon Street. The subject site is not contained on the City’s Heritage List but is located in the South Fremantle Heritage Area. The City received the current application on 22 September 2014. The application was advertised to surrounding landowners before amended plans were provided on 26 November 2014.


Page 64

DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for two storey (with loft) additions and alteration to existing Single House, including;

The partial demolition of an existing single storey Single House and associated carport and outbuildings;

The development of a two storey Single House utilising the remaining footprint of the existing dwelling;

In addition to the two storeys proposed, a loft space consisting of a store area and study space wholly contained in the roof of the dwelling;

A rear deck, pool and landscaped area as well as new driveway to Martha Street.

The amended plans submitted 26 November 2014, differ from the original plans in the following ways;

An increase in the setback of buildings on the upper floor from 4.5m to 5.25m;

An increase in the length of the boundary wall to the eastern boundary from 6.3m long to 6.8m long;

An increase in the size of the rear (south) balcony, but with additional privacy screening provided;

Reorganisation of internal space including changes to the use of certain rooms (ie. bedroom 2 and ensuit are switched);

Modification to the layout of the proposed loft space;

Reduction in the overall height (roof peak) from 9.2m to 8.8m;

Modification to external cladding, wall and opening arrangements. Amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and planning policies. Merit based assessments are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Street setback;

Lot boundary setbacks and boundary walls; and,

Visual privacy These merit based assessment are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 65

CONSULTATION Heritage The application was referred to the City’s Heritage department for assessment as substantial demolition of the existing dwelling is proposed. The Heritage department provided a heritage assessment which is summarised as follows;

The subject site is not included on the City’s Heritage List. The dwelling was constructed in the early 1960’s;

The single storey pale face brick house is symetrical in form and has a low pitched roof which is clad in corrugated asbestos;

The dwelling has historical value as an early 1960’s residence that form part of the ongoing development of Fremantle;

It is noted that Toodyay stonework to the facade of the building has recently been removed and this diminishes the aesthetic of the place;

The dwelling is of limited heritage sginficance and is considered to be below the threshold to warrant inclusion of the Heritage List.

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. The application was first advertised between 30 September and 16 October 2014. At the conclusion of this advertising period, 4 submissions were received including 4 objections; which are summarised as follows;

Bulk and scale; The proposed building scale is not in keeping with the existing house and development in the rest of the street;

Height; The proposed building height is significantly above development in the rest of the street;

Street setback; The proposed street setback, particularly on the ground floor, is well forward of adjoining development and is imposing;

Privacy; The setback of windows on the upper floor is insufficient to protect visual privacy, particularly to the east;

Storage area; The loft storage area will likely be used as a living room. This space has views over all surrounding properties;

Solar access; The proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of light to western adjoining properties;

Level difference; The difference in ground level between the site and western adjoining properties means the building will appear significantly higher from these locations;

Side setbacks; The limited side setbacks result in a significant impact of bulk and scale to adjoining properties;


Page 66

Following submission of amended plans, the City re-advertised the proposal from 3 December 2014 to 5 January 2014. The City received 4 additional submissions including 3 objections and 1 supporting submission (subject to imposition of planning conditions). All issues previously raised were reiterated in the submissions. The following additional issues raised are summarised as follows;

Screening; Screening material should be provided to forward balconies to protect views;

Ground levels; The plans indicate the ground level of the site is proposed to be increased.

Further discussion of the matters raised above are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Applicants submission Following the community consultation period, the applicant provided a submission responding to the objections received and that provides justification against the setback of the proposed development to Martha Street (see Attachment 3). The submission is summarised as follows;

There is clear discretion available under LPS4 to vary policy criteria where due regard is given to the circumstances of each application;

The prevailing streetscape is confined to only a small amount of buildings with varying development forms. The slope and width of Martha Street also results in a unique pattern of development;

Only 15% of the streetscape comprises dwellings of original character;

Only 8% of the street meets the provisions of LPP2.9;

Of the remaining 92% of properties, 46% are considered to vary the ground floor setback criteria and the other 46% are considered to vary the upper floor setback criteria;

Given the variability of the surrounding streetscape and the absence of an consistent pattern of development, the proposed setbacks to Martha Street should be supported.

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

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

(f) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2 and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme,

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

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


Page 67

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

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

5.1.2 Street setback


Ground floor 5m 2.5-3.7m 1.3-2.5m

Upper floor 7m 5.3-5.5m 1.5-1.7m

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

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

The subject site is adjoined by the following development;

A single storey (with loft) dwelling immediately to the west of the subject site (at the street corner) at No. 150 Solomon Street, setback ~1.5m to the Martha Street elevation. It is noted this building does not fall within the definition of ‘prevailing streetscape’ pursuant to LPP2.9;

A two storey dwelling immediately to the east of the subject site (No. 15 Martha Street) setback ~4.0m on the ground floor and ~12.5m on the upper floor. The upper floor addition is setback so it is largely obscured from view from the street;

Single storey outbuildings on the rear boundaries of No. 2-4 and 6-8 Agnes Street, which forms the Martha Street frontage to these lots. These lots are located further east of the subject site than No. 15 Martha Street;


Page 68

A two storey dwelling setback approximately 5m to the ground and upper floor opposite the subject site at No. 20 Martha Street. This building falls outside the ‘prevailing streetscape’.

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

The setback of 2.5-3.7m graduates the level of setback between a corner lot (No. 150 Solomon Street) and the eastern adjoining property (No. 15 Martha Street) which are setback ~1.5m and ~4.0m (respectively) at the ground floor level;

This portion of Martha Street is considered to contain a range of streetscape elements and building compositions

The lesser setback will not set an undesirable precedent for lesser setbacks to upper floors as it exists in a streetscape that does not contain features of heritage, streetscape or cultural significance.

However the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant criteria in relation to the upper floor;

There is only one two storey building within the prevailing streetscape and this element is setback beyond the prescribed 7m setback – to the extent it is largely obscured from the street;

This portion of Martha Street slopes upwards from west to east. The two storey element of the proposal will be highly visible from the street and largely inconsistent with single storey character on the southern side of Martha Street;


Page 69

The pattern of development in a wider context than the prevailing streetscape is varied, however there is a general character of single storey buildings with two storey or loft elements setback from the street with limited prominence. For that reason, the proposed upper floor is considered to represent a ‘projecting element’ into the streetscape.

Recognising the variability within the streetscape, should the Council form the opinion that the upper floor setback will not represent a projecting element, an alternative recommendation for approval is included in the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks


Upper floor - east

1.8m 1.5m 0.3m

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

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property given its presentation as a two storey building from this perspective; and,

The wall (largely) is adjacent to a portion of the adjoining site which contains an outbuilding and consists of a side setback area. As a result there is not significant impact on light access, access to ventilation or significant adverse impact of bulk and scale as viewed from a habitable portion of the adjoining site.


Ground floor - west

1.9m 1.3m 0.6m

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

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property given the exercise of discretion is sought relating to the ground floor element only;

The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings owning to its orientation to the western elevation; and,

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


Page 70

5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall - garage)


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

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

an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or

greater dimensions.

6.8m long x 3.3m high on the

eastern boundary

See comments.

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

The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight as measured by the R Codes owing to its location of the eastern boundary and its setback to the existing dwelling contained on the adjoining site. The boundary wall is separated from the adjoining dwelling (at No. 15 Martha Street) by a vehicle parking space;

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary; and,

The boundary wall is not considered to impact unreasonably on views of significance even though these are present in the locality.

5.4.1 Visual privacy


Balcony – upper floor – south and

east

7.5m 2.0m – east; 6.2m - south

5.5m – east; 1.3m – south.

Bed 2 – ground floor - west

4.5m 1.2m 3.3m

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of the R-Codes in relation to the cone-of-vision from the upper floor balcony affecting an outdoor living area on the eastern adjoining property at No. 15 Martha Street. A condition of approval specifying screening of this elevation to restrict the cone-of-vision is recommended should the application be approved. However the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant merit based criteria of the R-Codes in relation to the cone-of-visions arising from Bedroom 2 and the upper floor balcony as it affects the southern boundary in so far as;

The balcony will overlook a side and rear boundary setback area on the southern adjoining property at No. 2A Agnes Street;


Page 71

Bedroom 2 is raised 520mm above natural ground level near the western boundary. This opening adjoins a boundary wall constructed on No. 152 Solomon Street that is considered to sufficiently restrict availability of views to the rest of this property.

CONCLUSION The application is recommended, on-balance, for refusal on the basis of the setback of the upper floor when considered in the context of the surrounding street. Should the Council consider the streetscape within this portion of Martha Street to be sufficiently varied to the extent that the proposal is not considered to project into the streetscape pattern, the following alternative recommendation for approval is provided;

That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey (with loft) additions and alteration to existing Single House at No. 13A (Lot 150) Martha Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 26 November 2014, subject to the following conditions;

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

plans dated 26 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commenced within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0470/14, on

plans dated 26 November 2014 all screening material shown on the plans hereby approved as well as screening to the upper floor balcony so as to restrict the cone-of-vision to the eastern boundary shall be either:

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

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

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





Page 72

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey (with loft) additions and alteration to existing Single House at No. 13A (Lot 150) Martha Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 26 November 2014, for the following reasons: 1. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of

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

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

Cr Massie MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow the applicant to address streetscape concerns raised in the officers report and matters raised by the Planning Services Committee. CARRIED: 5/1

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan


Page 73

PSC1502-7 DARLING STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 162), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0476/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 22 September 2014;

10 December 2014 (amended plans) Owner Name: John Horwood Submitted by: Inhouse Building Design Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

Not within heritage area Existing Landuse: Lot currently vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 74

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP2.9) specifically the upper floor front setback.

The applicant is also seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ in relation to:

Lot boundary setbacks

Lot boundary walls

Open space

Building height

Visual privacy The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to the above and the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4 (Boundary Walls), and could otherwise be made to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards pertaining to visual privacy via a condition of approval. The proposal is not considered to comply with LPP2.9 in relation to upper floor setback. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R20/R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), having been subdivided at the higher R25 density and is located within the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area 6 – (LPA 6) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Darling Street to the west, South Street to the south, Samson Street to the north and Carrington Street to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List, nor is it within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 326m2, has a predominantly north-south orientation and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site slopes downwards by approximately 0.7m from its rear (east) to the street (west). A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:


Page 75

On 11 May 2012, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted conditional approval for a two lot green title (freehold) subdivision of No. 278 (Lot 1) South Street, White Gum Valley (refer WAPC145355). This resulted in the subdivision of the subject site.

DETAIL

On 22 September 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley. On 10 December 2014, the City received amended development plans, which broadly included the following changes:

Increase upper floor setback from street from 4.97m to 6.789m;

Change from skillion roof to a hipped roof. A copy of the proposed development plans is contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 October 2014, the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, of which raised the following concerns relevant to planning:

Visual privacy;

Building bulk; STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. LPS4 and Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

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

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

(f) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2 and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme,


Page 76

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

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

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

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

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

Required Proposed Discretion

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

3.20m (garage)

3.80m

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

6.789m 3.211m

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

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

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

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

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

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or

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


Page 77

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

Address Characteristics

North 1 of 3 No. 12 (Lot 26) Darling Street

Dwelling: Single storey

Ground floor setback: ~9.5m

Upper floor setback: N/A

2 of 3 No. 10 (Lot 360) Darling Street




3 of 3 No. 8 (Lot 32)

Darling Street




Ground floor setback

The proposed reduced ground floor setback to the garage is setback further than that of the dwelling on the corner lot to the south, which has a secondary street setback of approximately 2.60m to Darling Street and accordingly is not considered to result in a projecting element into an established streetscape. As such, the proposal is considered to be supportable against the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (i, ii and v). Upper floor setback

There are only three properties contained within the prevailing streetscape, all of which are located to the north of the subject site. Of those three properties to the north, all are single storey dwellings and therefore the proposed upper level primary street setback discretion cannot be supported against the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (i) of LPP2.9. Further to this, the proposed 6.789 metre setback to the primary street for the upper level is considered to result in a projecting element to the streetscape vista and therefore does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP2.9. The proposed reduced upper level street setback discretion will not facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree and as such does not satisfy the discretionary criteria of Clause 1.2 (iii) of LPP2.9. In relation to Clause (iv), it is considered that there is a prevailing streetscape so this discretionary clause is not applicable. In relation to Clause (v), the site is on a lot that directly adjoins a corner lot; however the existing development on that corner lot is single storey in nature. As it does not contain a two storey dwelling on that corner lot, there are no grounds to consider a reduced setback.


Page 78

In light of the above discretionary criteria prescribed by Clause 1.2 (i, ii, iii, iv and v) of LPP2.9, the City does not consider the proposal to satisfy any of the above discretionary criteria in relation to the upper floor setback and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal. Furthermore, in addition to the living room on the ground floor, it has a secondary living room, inclusive of a sitting room and bar on the upper floor. Given the site is only 326m2, this is considered excessive and that it represents overdevelopment of the site. It was suggested by the City to the applicant that there is scope to redesign the upper floor in a number of ways, potentially pushing the upper floor closer to the northern and/or southern boundaries. Lot boundary setbacks

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Eastern (ground floor) setback = 1.50m 1.00 – 1.63m

Nil - 0.50m

Eastern (upper floor) setback = 1.80m 1.50 – 2.2m

Nil - 0.30m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

It is not considered to present a significant amount of building bulk to the eastern adjoining property, due to the use of varying finishes and materials, use of windows (major and non-major openings) and varying setbacks along its length;

It is considered to provide for adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties;

In relation visual privacy to the north-east, the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy, or has otherwise been conditioned so as to comply.

Lot boundary walls


South-western boundary (garage) = 1.00m 0.00m 1.00m

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported for the following reasons:

The subject site is irregularly shaped. The proposed south-western boundary wall abuts driveway and on-site car parking area for the southern adjoining property at No. 278 (Lot 161) South Street. In this regard, given the location of the garage in this location and also the boundary wall against the driveway and on-site car parking area for the southern adjoining property, it is considered to make more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupants;

It is not considered to compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1 of the R-Codes by way of building bulk, as the boundary wall itself is relatively short in its length (6.20m) which is typical length for a boundary wall for a garage. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’


Page 79

requirements of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy, or has otherwise been conditioned so as to comply;

It is considered that the proposed boundary wall ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for southern adjoining property is not restricted;

It is considered that due to the cadastral lot boundary being approximately 45 degrees to the street to which the boundary wall is to be located, that this angle will assist in reducing its impact upon the streetscape.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal should also be supported against the design principle assessment criterion provided by Council’s LPP2.4.

Open space


50% (163m2) of the site as open space

48.3% (157.46m2)

1.7% (5.54m2)


The proposal is considered to have sufficient open space for its context to reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character;

It is considered to provide access to natural light for the dwelling;

It is considered that there is sufficient open space around the dwelling so as to reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the applicable density coding;

It is considered that the amount of open space proposed provides an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape;

It is considered that there is sufficient open space to provide opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits and access within and around the site.

Building height


External wall height up to 6.00m Up to 6.50m 0.50m


It is noted that the natural topography of the site (ie natural ground level) immediately beneath the area of the wall that exceeds the 6.00m ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards is the lowest point on the lot. In this regard, if the lot was consistently levelled (ie flat) it is probable that the development would likely satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards in relation to external wall height.

The extent of the external wall that exceeds 6.00m relates to the south-western corner of the upper floor (above the balcony and living room).

It is not considered that it presents any significant adverse impact upon the southern adjoining property, given that it complies with lot boundary setbacks to this boundary for that wall element. This, along with the inherent openness of design of balconies is considered to assist in reducing impacts of building bulk;


Page 80

This portion of wall is considered to provide adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces, as well as daylight to major openings into habitable rooms.

It is not considered that it will detrimentally impact access to views of significance. Visual privacy

Required Provided

1 6.00m setback for upper floor, ‘living’ (western elevation) to southern adjoining property (within 45 degree cone of vision)

3.40m

2 7.5m setback for upper floor, front ‘balcony’ (northern elevation) to northern adjoining property

3.20m

3 7.5m setback for upper floor, front ‘balcony’ (southern elevation) to southern adjoining property

2.50m

In relation to 1 and 2 above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

In relation to 1, the upper floor living will not directly overlook any major openings or the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property, with the cone of vision limited to overlooking the driveway and parking area and Darling Street beyond;

In relation to 2, the upper floor front balcony will not directly overlook any major openings, nor the outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the northern adjoining property with the cone of vision limited to overlooking the front setback and carport areas.

In relation to 3 above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

the upper floor balcony will partially overlook the rear outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the southern adjoining property;

Accordingly, if the application is approved, it would be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that 3 above be modified so as to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements in relation to visual privacy.

LPP2.2 – Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule

The application has been assessed against, and is considered to comply with the requirements of LPP2.2. Notwithstanding, as the application is recommended for refusal should it ultimately be approved, it would be required to be accompanied by standard conditions to ensure compliance with LPP2.2. LPP2.8 – Fences Policy

The application has been assessed against, and is considered to comply with the requirements of LPP2.8. Notwithstanding, as the application is recommended for refusal should it ultimately be approved, it would be required to be accompanied by standard conditions to ensure compliance with LPP2.8.


Page 81

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes, or can otherwise been addressed via conditions of planning approval to assure compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements pertaining to lot boundary setbacks; lot boundary walls; open space; building height; visual privacy and the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4. However, the proposal is not considered to comply with Council’s LPP2.9 pertaining to upper floor setback;

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be REFUSED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley, as detailed on plans dated 10 December 2014, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area under clause

10.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy.

lost: 3/4 Cr R Fittock used his casting vote AGAINST the recommendation resulting in it being LOST.

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie


Page 82

Cr R Fittock MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 10 December 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the south-western boundary

shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0476/14, on plans dated 10 December 2014 the upper floor front balcony on the southern elevation shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level,

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





4. That the dwelling achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star rating of 7.0 stars that is certified by a NatHERS energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0476/14, on plans dated 10 December 2014, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 83

6. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0476/14, on plans dated 10 December 2014, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry, or an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge, shall be installed or and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. All fencing within the Primary Street setback area of No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley, shall be a maximum height of 1.8 metres and visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level as per clause 1.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.8 - Fences Policy, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Cr J Wilson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to alter condition 3 to state the following: 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0476/14, on

plans dated 10 December 2014 the upper floor front balcony and living area on the southern elevation shall be either

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 10 December 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the south-western

boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


Page 84


face brick;


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

3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0476/14, on plans dated 10 December 2014 the upper floor front balcony and living area on the southern elevation shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor






4. That the dwelling achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star rating of 7.0 stars that is certified by a NatHERS energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


plans dated 10 December 2014, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


plans dated 10 December 2014, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry, or an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge, shall be installed or and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. All fencing within the Primary Street setback area of No. 14 (Lot 162) Darling

Street, White Gum Valley, shall be a maximum height of 1.8 metres and visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level as per clause 1.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.8 - Fences Policy, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 85


CARRIED: 4/3 Cr R Fittock used his casting vote FOR the decision resulting in it being CARRIED.

For Against

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan



Page 86

PSC1502-8 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 124 (LOT 70), NORTH FREMANTLE - SINGLE HOUSE ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING - (AA DA0691/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 February 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1410-156 (1 October 2014) Attachments: 1 – Amended development plans (17 December 2014)

2 – Previous officers report and development plans (DA0260/14)

Date Received: 17 December 2014 Owner Name: Rosetek Holdings Submitted by: Design management Group Scheme: Mixed Use Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 87

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a Single House addition to an existing office building. A similar application was previously considered by the Planning Services Committee (PSC) at its meeting of 1 October 2014 and refused on the basis that it did not satisfy the discretionary criteria relating to building height of clause 5.8.1.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The reasons for refusal were stated as follows;

1. The proposal is inconsistent with Schedule 12 (Clause 3.1) of LPS4 and clause 5.8.1.1 (b) in respect to the proposed external wall height;

2. The proposal is considered inconsistent with the predominant height

patterns of adjoining properties when considered from the southern and eastern elevations.’

Following discussions with the applicant, an amended proposal which includes a modified upper floor seeking to address the substantive height issue were lodged. The application continues to seek merit based assessment against the City’s planning framework in relation to height and a number of elements including street setback, boundary setbacks and vehicle parking. The amended proposal addresses previous concerns relating to the graduation of scale to adjoining properties on Pamment Street (southern and eastern boundaries) by providing greater separation between building forms and a lower external wall height. The proposed upper floor is now only 1.9m above the existing height of the office building contained on-site and a significant portion is setback 5.8m from the eastern boundary The amended proposal is considered to address the discretionary criteria of clause 5.8.1.1 and is therefore recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned Mixed Use and coded R25 pursuant to LPS4. The site is located within the ‘North Fremantle’ local planning area and is also located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Stirling Highway, on the northern corner of Pamment Street and has a site area of approximately 867m2. On 17 July 1978 the City approved an application for the use of the site as a ‘Used Car Sales Yard’ (DA42/93). On 21 December 1999 the City granted approval for the redevelopment of the site as a ‘Commercial/Office Building’ (DA755/99). On 29 June 2012 the City granted planning approval for ‘Signage Additions to Existing Office Building’ (DA0251/12). The Planning Services Committee meeting on 1 October 2014, refused to grant planning approval for a ‘Single House and Office Addition to existing Office Building’ (DA0260/14) (see the previous officers report and development plans at Attachment 2).


Page 88

Following discussion with the applicant, the proposal was amended and a new application lodged (see Attachment 1). DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for a Single House and office additions to an existing office building including;

A single house addition to the upper floor of an existing two storey office building;

A first and ground floor addition to the existing office building including a ground floor amenity area and first floor office area extension;

Ground floor landscaping and pool addition;

Removal of an existing crossover to Stirling Highway.

The application differs from that previously refused as part of DA0260/14 in the following ways;

An increase in the eastern setback for a large portion of the upper floor from 3.8m to 5.8m;

A relocation of the bulk of the facade on the upper floor as viewed from Pamment Street, away from the eastern boundary, albeit that the wall length of this portion of the building remains the same; and,

Modifications to the internal layout of the proposal and external appearance, in particular the facade detailing to Stirling Highway.

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

Building height (external wall);

Lot boundary setbacks;

Street setback; and,

Vehicle parking. The merit based assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 22 January 2015, the City had not received any submissions.


Page 89

Main Roads WA The previous proposal was referred to MRWA for comment (see Attachment 2) as it abuts a primary regional road reservation. The comments made by MRWA in relation to the previous proposal (DA0260/14) are considered to remain applicable to the current proposal. The modifications to the proposal do not materially affect the matters MRWA previously raised in their submission. Conditions and advice notes reflecting the MRWA advice are recommended. Design Advisory Committee The previous application (DA0260/14) was considered by the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on two occasions (see Attachment 2). The final advice of the DAC concluded that;

‘The previous DAC comments from the July 2014 meeting that have not been adequately addressed are repeated below:

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

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

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

Additional matters include:

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

The officer’s report summarised that Council, should it wish to approve the proposed development (DA0260/14), could apply a condition specifying further DAC consideration prior to the issue of a building permit. A similar condition is recommended. It is apparent the applicant has had regard to the previous concerns of the DAC in formulating the new proposal.

PLANNING COMMENT Building Height


External wall 7.5m Up to 12.4m 5.4m

The proposal does not meet the maximum height requirement specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The exercise of discretion pursuant to clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 is sought in respect to building height. Clause 5.8.1.1 specifies as follows;


Page 90

‘5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to building that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following – (a) The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties

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

the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; (c) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining;

and, (d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’

The existing Office building is 8.0m high on its southern and eastern elevations. The proposal therefore triggers the initial provision of clause 5.8.1.1. Drawing SK.04 (see Attachment 1 demonstrates this clear extent of graduation on this elevation;

The existing building currently falls away towards its southern and eastern boundary resulting in a greater existing and proposed wall height on these elevations. These are largely caused by previous excavation works to the Pamment Street elevation to create an undercroft vehicle parking area. The proposal is considered to satisfy clause 5.8.1.1 in relation to its presentation to Stirling Highway for the same reasons as described in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the previous officers report (see Attachment 2). The amended proposal is now considered to satisfy clause 5.8.1.1 in relation to the Pamment Street (south and east) elevations in the following ways;

The proposed wall is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties. The most immediate properties are non-residential in nature and the proposal is not considered to interrupt amenity to further removed properties along Pamment Street in terms of light access, building bulk and scale or visual privacy;


Page 91

The adjoining building at No. 1 Pamment Street contains a single storey, non-residential building of a lesser wall height than the 7.5m prescribed requirement. The proposed development is setback 5.8m from this boundary at the street alignment. This is considered to provided sufficient graduation between the high (albeit single storey building adjoining and the main mass and scale of the current proposal.

The external wall height proposed is not considered to impact on an adjoining place of heritage significance or contradict any provisions in a planning policy of the City.

The extent of graduation achieved to the southern elevation is best demonstrated by drawing SK.05 (see Attachment 1);

It is also noted that the extent of height proposed is extenuated by the fact that the natural ground level of the site was considerably lowered at the time of construction of the existing office building. Lot boundary setbacks


East – Living/Guest

7.0m 3.0m 4.0m

East – Bed 1 & Bed 2

7.5m 5.8m 1.7m

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

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


Page 92

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

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

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

Street setback


Upper floor 7.0m 3.0m 4.0m

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 93

Vehicle parking


Office 1.7 bays (2 bays) No additional bays 3 bays

Single House 1 bay

The vehicle parking provided on-site is considered to meet the merit criteria of the R-Codes and c5.7.3.1 of LPS4 is supported for the following reasons;

There is sufficient available off-site parking available nearby to the subject site, particular along Pamment Street;

The subject site is located adjacent to high frequency public transport and cycling infrastructure along Stirling Highway; and,

Other nearby non-residential land use assist in the provision of reciprocal off-site parking.

CONCLUSION The amended proposal is considered to address the discretionary criteria of clause 5.8.1.1 and is therefore recommended for conditional approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single House addition and alterations to existing Office building at No. 124 (Lot 70) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 17 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commenced within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the application shall be presented to

the City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee, with advice sought regarding the following matters;

Solar protection to west facing openings and habitable areas;

The legibility of the entry point between commercial and residential lobbies;

The composition, materials and finishes of the facade of the building; and,

Natural light access to the internal corridor of the upper floor dwelling.


Page 94

Any advice raised by the Design Advisory Committee shall be given due regard and the plans modified thereto, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.


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

5. Redundant crossovers shall be removed and the verge and vegetation made

good at the full expense of the application. 6. Any damage done to the verge and its vegetation, within the Stirling Highway

road reservation, shall be made good at the full expense of the applicant. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 95

PSC1502-9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21)

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

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 96

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.57 PM.


Page 97

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 98


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 99


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 100

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.

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee

4 February 2015

Page 2

MINUTES - City of Fremantle - PSC... · The following member/s of the public spoke against the...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantle - PSC... · The following member/s of the public spoke against the...