AGENDA - City of Fremantle Agenda 5... · ... Consideration Of Principles For Planning ... PLANNING...

AGENDA

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 5

October 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 30 September 2016

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 7 September 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record, with the following amendments: 1. The minutes for item PC1609-03 - Snook Crescent, No.19 (Lot 1303), Hilton –

Second Storey, Ancillary Dwelling And Small Secondary Dwelling Addition To Existing Single House – (Bp Da0275/16) were incorrectly recorded and will be amended to read as follows:

COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the second storey, ancillary dwelling and small secondary dwelling additions to the existing Single House at No. 19 (Lot 1303), Snook Crescent, Hilton, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 7 June 2016. 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 stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to use of the carport hereby approved, the boundary wall located on the

western boundary 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.

Advisory Notes

(i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

2. The Mover for item PC1609-12 - Consideration Of Principles For Planning Controls To Limit Overconcentration Of Fast Food And Restaurant Uses In Fremantle City Centre will be amended to Cr J Strachan.

3. Item PC1609-02 - No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle - Demolition of

existing building and construction of an eight (8) storey (plus basement) mixed use development (72 x Multiple Dwellings, 7 x commercial tenancies) is a committee decision under delegation 2.1, and does not need to be considered by Council.

TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PC1610-1 DEFERRED ITEM- ONSLOW STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16) 1

PC1610-2 DEFERRED ITEM PEARSE STREET, NO. 42 (LOT 501), NORTH FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HEALTH STUDIO (GYM) (AD DA0187/16) 10

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 16

PC1610-3 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 63 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0384/16) 16

PC1610-4 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 193 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HOME BUSINESS, PRIMARY STREET FENCE ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING (COMMUNITY PURPOSE AND SINGLE HOUSE) - (BP DA0353/16) 23

PC1610-5 SKINNER STREET, NO. 3 (LOT 41), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0355/16) 31

PC1610-6 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 229A (LOT 19), NORTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR CONVERSION OF THREE (3) CAR PARKING BAYS INTO ALFRESCO AREA FOR EXISTING RESTAURANT - (SP DA0393/16) 44

PC1610-7 SWEETMAN STREET, NO. 20 (LOT 1), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0359/16) 50

PC1610-8 REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STATE PLANNING POLICY 3.1 - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES 58

PC1610-9 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL DECISIONS UPDATE - INFORMATION REPORT 66

PC1610-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 68

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 69

PC1610-11 NON-STATUTORY CLONTARF ROAD MASTERPLAN - COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 69

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 82

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation 83

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PC1610-1 DEFERRED ITEM- ONSLOW STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16) 3

PC1610-2 DEFERRED ITEM PEARSE STREET, NO. 42 (LOT 501), NORTH FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HEALTH STUDIO (GYM) (AD DA0187/16) 20

PC1610-3 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 63 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0384/16) 51

PC1610-4 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 193 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HOME BUSINESS, PRIMARY STREET FENCE ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING (COMMUNITY PURPOSE AND SINGLE HOUSE) - (BP DA0353/16) 68

PC1610-5 SKINNER STREET, NO. 3 (LOT 41), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0355/16) 82

PC1610-6 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 229A (LOT 19), NORTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR CONVERSION OF THREE (3) CAR PARKING BAYS INTO ALFRESCO AREA FOR EXISTING RESTAURANT - (SP DA0393/16) 110

PC1610-7 SWEETMAN STREET, NO. 20 (LOT 1), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0359/16) 121

PC1610-8 REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STATE PLANNING POLICY 3.1 - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES 128

PC1610-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 133

PC1610-11 NON-STATUTORY CLONTARF ROAD MASTERPLAN - COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 137

Agenda - Planning Committee 5 October 2016

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PC1610-1 DEFERRED ITEM- ONSLOW STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16)

Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PC1609-01, PC1608-4 Attachments: 1: Revised Development Plans

2: Site Visit Photos 3: Previous Planning Committee Report

Date Received: Revised development plans received 6 September 2016 Owner Name: A. Stewart & M. Ryan Submitted by: Ventura Homes Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R25/R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling. The application was previously presented to Planning Committee (PC) on 3 August 2016 and 7 September 2016, where, at the most recent meeting, PC resolved to:

To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increases the setback of the southern garage boundary wall and reduce overshadowing on the adjoining southern properties.

The applicant has provided amended plans which remove the majority of the southern boundary wall proposed to the garage. In light of this change, the application is now considered to be supportable, as the boundary wall and associated building bulk impact was the sole reason why the application was not previously supported. Apart from the change to the boundary wall, the plans remain the same as before. Therefore the application is recommended for planning approval, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Further background relating to the subject site and proposed development is contained in the ‘Background’ section of the previous PC report, which can be viewed at Attachment 3. The application was previously presented to Planning Committee (PC) on 3 August 2016, where the PC resolved to:

To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increases the setback of the southern garage boundary wall and reduce overshadowing on the adjoining southern properties.

On 6 September 2016, the applicant provided revised plans which display the southern boundary wall to the garage being removed. As such, the application is effectively compliant in terms of discretions to the southern adjoining properties. Whilst there may be some form of impact to these properties, the application complies with overshadowing, lot boundary setbacks and building height and, consequently, is recommended for conditional planning approval. Refer to Attachment 1 for the revised development plans provided by the applicant. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House and includes the following: three bedrooms two bathrooms kitchen, dining and living rooms


Page 3

laundry sitting room alfresco garage

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

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the relevant Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The following elements seek design principle assessments:

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

primary street setback (ground and upper floors) boundary wall (south)

The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION Advertising was not conducted again as there were no new discretions being sought in the application. Refer to Attachment 3 for the discussion relating to the previous community consultation. PLANNING COMMENT Residential Design Codes Garage Width

Element Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Garage width 5.5m in width (50%) 5.8m (52%) 0.3m

The proposed garage width is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

It is considered that visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape would be maintained, given that the upper floor of the proposed grouped dwelling that is located over the garage below would reduce the perception of the garage dominating the street.


Page 4

The 30cm difference to the deemed-to-comply is considered minor and, in this regard, the change is considered to be minimal to the extent that it would not be significantly noticeable as viewed from the street.

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Primary Street Setback

Element Required Provided Discretion

Ground floor 5m 4.5m 0.5m

Upper floor 7m 5.4m 1.6m

Clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 entertains variations to the prescribed primary street setback, subject to meeting one of the criteria outlined in the clause. This clause is as follows: 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.

The primary street setbacks to the ground floor and upper floors are considered to, on balance, meet clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP 2.9 for the following reasons:

The proposed setbacks are not considered to result in a projecting element due to the topography of the site, which is a downward slope from east to west of approx. 1.0m (see picture below). In this regard, it is considered that the dominance of the building on the streetscape would be ameliorated by the gradient of the property.


Page 5

There are only two other properties located within the prevailing streetscape to the north. In this regard, reduced primary street setbacks of 0.5m and 1.6m are not considered to be of detriment to the amenity of the surrounding area, given the lack of dwellings to form an ‘established’ streetscape.

The upper floor setback of 5.4m only occupies 55% of the main front line of the upper floor, whereas the remainder of the upper floor is setback at 6.4m. In this regard, the impact of the reduced upper floor primary street setback is considered to be lessened, given the separation between the lounge room and bedroom 3 (refer to below).


Page 6

It is also noted that a portion of the northern adjoining property at 5 Onslow Street is setback at a similar distance to the primary street (approximately 5.2m).

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development Boundary Walls

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

South 1m 0m 1m

The proposed boundary wall is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

As shown in the image below, the boundary wall has been reduced in length by 5.7m so that it now only is 0.3m in length. As such, there is not considered to be a significant building bulk on the southern adjoining property.


Page 7

Image above - Now proposed perspective

Image above - Green dotted area indicating previous boundary wall location which is now deleted form the proposal


Page 8

The overshadowing cast complies with the R-Codes, and the boundary wall does not result in substantial shadow as it effectively a pier on the boundary.

Overall, there is not considered to be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property resulting from the proposed boundary wall.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

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

Green Plan 2020: No trees are proposed to be removed on site. It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private property. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No.5 (Lot 1119) Onslow Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 6 September 2016. 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 stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The new vehicle crossover shall be separated a minimum of one (1) metre from

the power pole situated in the road reserve, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0287/16, on

plans dated 6 September 2016, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen to service both grouped dwellings onsite and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0287/16, on

plans dated 6 September 2016, the redundant crossover and kerb located to the northern verge area shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.


Page 9

6. The existing northern Grouped dwelling on site is to comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), specifically in relation to the provision of onsite vehicle parking as per clause 5.3.3 of the R-Codes, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advisory Notes (i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered,

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

(ii) The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on

the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

a. submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or b. submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure. This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

(iii) In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the City of

Fremantle or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.


Page 10

PC1610-2 DEFERRED ITEM PEARSE STREET, NO. 42 (LOT 501), NORTH FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HEALTH STUDIO (GYM) (AD DA0187/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PC1609-04 - 7 September 2016 Attachments: 1. Development Plans

2. Updated Parking and Noise Management Plan 3. Planning Committee report for PC1609-04

Date Received: 18 April 2016 22 September 2016 - Updated Parking and Noise Management Plan

Owner Name: Holt Beta Trust Submitted by: Daniel Argent & Rebecca Russell Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Showroom Use Class: Health Studio Use Permissibility: A


Page 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before the Planning Committee (PC) as the applicant has provided amended plans in order to address Council’s reason for deferral of the application at the previous PC held 7 September 2016. PC resolved to:

“To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit a parking management plan and additional noise mitigation measures.”

Since this PC meeting, the applicant met with Council and City officers to discuss the specific reasons of deferral. Resulting from this meeting additional information relating to additional noise mitigation measures and car parking arrangements have been submitted which are considered to address the reasons for the deferral as detailed above. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 7 September 2016, the PC resolved to:

“To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit a parking management plan and additional noise mitigation measures.”

Further background information is included in the report previously considered by PC on 7 September 2016 which is included in Attachment 2. DETAIL

Since PC last considered the application, the applicant has proposed a number a new noise mitigation measures and provided further justification in relation to car parking in the locality. In relation to noise mitigation, they are now also proposing the following additional measures to what was already being proposed:

the floor will be covered in 40 mm high density rubber flooring

using mitesco acoustic panelling to the entire southern elevation internal wall of the building which has an Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of A Class 0.90

to the ceiling we will be using quiet space panels with an NRC rating A class 0.90. In relation to car parking, the applicant has provided the following additional information:

“As we have 5 car bays allocated to Unit 3. We will consult a parking contractor to assess the facilities parking and properly mark out parking bays to the correct measurements to ensure that we do not impact upon neighbouring units or utilize their allocated car bays. There are 3 public car parks within a 5 minute walk to the proposed F45 Studio that our members can utilize during our hours of operation. The car park beside Mojo’s with upper level over flow has 35 bays available and upon consultation with McGees parking management it has been made evident that


Page 12

this is for public usage. Another close proximity option is the Public car park outside the post office with 30 car bays available and public car park across the railway line near Bib and Tucker and the Shipping lane with 50 car bays available. Please see attached item 3 for example of available bays during our hours of operation. Members may also commute to the F45 Studio by Train via the footpath from North Fremantle Station located 800m from the studio. Bike racks will be installed enabling pedestrian access on foot or bicycle. Our F45 Studio will also provide shower and change room facilities to those commuting before and after work hours.”

It is noted that the City previously recommended on-balance approval of this application. In this regard, it is considered that the additional noise mitigation measures and applicant’s explanation of the availability of car parking in the locality (in addition to what was discussed by the City previously) that the application can be supported. Please refer to the previous PC report from the meeting held 7 September 2016 (PC1609-04) for further detail, which is contained as ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Please refer to the previous PC report from the meeting held 7 September 2016 (PC1609-04) for further detail, which is contained as ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be readvertised.

PLANNING COMMENT

As the City previously recommended on-balance approval for this application at the PC meeting of 7 September 2016, whereby the planning issues of noise mitigation and car parking were supported at the time, it is considered that the applicant has met the reasons for PC’s deferral of this item. The proposal is still recommended for on-balance approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle.

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle. Alternative Recommendation

The following alternative recommendation for refusal of the application is provided should Council not be satisfied that the proposal should be supported.


Page 13

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Health Studio (gym) at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle, on plans dated 18 April 2016, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and clause 67(a), (b), (n), (t), (y) of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

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

clause 67 of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. 4 by reasons of noise.

3. The intensity and nature of the proposed use is incompatible with the existing and

future character of the area as envisaged by Council. Notwithstanding the above alternative recommendation, Council may also wish to consider granting a time-limited period on any planning approval. Should this be the case, Council may choose a time period which it considers appropriate (e.g. 2 years) and impose a condition of planning approval. This still permits the applicant to apply again in the future for an extension on that term – achieved through a new application for planning approval; should Council be satisfied that the operation of the use has occurred in a manner that does not detrimentally impact the amenity of nearby residential land uses. Any such condition would read as follows:

“This planning approval authorises the Health Studio (gym) to operate from the site for 2 years from the date of this planning approval. Any continued use of the premises for this purpose beyond this period shall require further planning approval from the City of Fremantle.”

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Health Studio (gym) at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 18 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. The Health Studio (gym) hereby permitted shall have opening hours that do

not exceed the following:

a) Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 6:00am to 7:30pm b) Saturdays – 7:00am to 9:00am c) Sunday – not permitted


Page 14

3. The Health Studio (gym) hereby permitted shall have no more than 29 persons on-site at any given time, inclusive of employees, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to use of the premises hereby approved as Health Studio (gym):

a) An ‘air-lock/locker room’ be constructed to the specifications outlined

in the Noise Assessment Level (NAL) report prepared by Hering Storer Acoustics dated 13 July 2016.

b) Additional noise mitigation measures be constructed to the

specifications outlined in the Parking and Noise Management Plan – 3/42 Pearse Street, North Fremantle, dated 22 September 2016.

c) An alternative solution(s) to that outlined in a) and b) above, that

achieves the same level of compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, may be applied and shall be as approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Thereafter the noise mitigation measures are to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the use of the premises as a Health Studio (gym) subject of this

planning approval, a minimum of 2 ‘class 3’ bicycle racks be provided and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0187/16, on

plans dated 18 April 2016, 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.

7. Any signage shall be the subject of a separate planning application.

Advice Note:

i. In relation to condition 4(a) above, the applicant is advised that the specifications should accord to those as recommended by Hering Storer Acoustics in their Noise Assessment Level report as outlined below: Assumed construction of the of the locker room area internally are listed below (or approved equivalent):

Ceiling of locker room area:

1 layer of 13mm thick plasterboard. Walls of locker room area:

64mm thick stud (or wider if height of wall necessitates).


Page 15

1 layer of 13mm thick plasterboard to one side of the stud. 2 layers of 13mm thick

plasterboard to the other.

50mm thick, glasswool insulation, 11kg/m3. The locker room is envisaged to be built across from the existing internal wall of the office (approximately 3 metres in from the external large sliding door), with the ceiling height to be above the top of the large sliding door.

ii. In relation to condition 4(b) above, the applicant is advised that the

specifications should accord to those as outlined in the Parking and Noise Management Plan – 3/42 Pearse Street, North Fremantle dated 22 September 2016 as outlined below:

o the floor will be covered in 40 mm high density rubber flooring

o using mitesco acoustic panelling which has an NRC rating of A Class

0.90

o To the ceiling we will be using quiet space panels with an NRC rating A

class 0.90

iii. In relation to condition 5 above, the applicant is advised to refer to Clause 5.7.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) for further guidance on what is required by this condition.

iv. The proposed land use, all mechanical service systems, and associated

incidental works and equipment are to be designed and installed to prevent emitted noise levels from exceeding the relevant decibel levels as set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended).


Page 16

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PC1610-3 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 63 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0384/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Applicant’s Justification 3 – Northern View from Proposed Balconies 4 – Site Photos

Date Received: 4 August 2016 Owner Name: Jennifer Bruce Submitted by: Anthony Michael Designs Scheme: Residential – R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for two storey additions and alterations to an existing single storey Single house. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs) in regards to the following:

Lot boundary setback

Building Height (External Wall and Roof Ridge)

Visual Privacy The above discretionary assessments are considered to be supportable and, as such, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the western side of Solomon Street near the intersection of Stevens Street. The lot is approximately 531 m2 and currently consists of a single storey Single house with a rear undercroft garage and storage area. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under LPS4 and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The site is not heritage listed nor is it located within a heritage area. The subject site is predominantly east-west oriented with a 2 metre slope down from front to back. DETAIL

On 4 August 2016, the City received an application seeking planning approval for rear two storey additions and alterations to an existing single storey Single house consisting of the following:

Conversion of rear undercroft garage to storage area.

1st floor rear extension consisting of family room, study room and balcony.

2nd floor addition consisting of a games room, bedroom, bathroom, and balcony.

New garage forward of the house.

Relocation of Bed 2 window to face the side boundary rather than the street.

Interior renovations. On 12 September 2016 amended plans were submitted reducing the overall wall height of the upper floor addition by approximately 300mm in order to reduce overshadowing from 32.57% to 29.77% and included elevations of the adjoining lots for a height comparison.


Page 18

On 22 September 2016 further amended plans were submitted deleting the garage from the application. This recent change has resulted in the total overshadowing being reduced from 29.77% to 25% complying with the Deemed- to- comply requirements of the R-Codes. Amended development plans are included as Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Lot boundary setback (South and North)


Visual Privacy The above matters are discussed in detail in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as policy discretions and R-Codes Design principles assessments were being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 30 August 2016, the City had received three submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

overlooking to adjoining properties

location of garage forward of the house detracts from, and is inconsistent with, the streetscape

side boundary wall of the garage is obtrusive

does not meet LPP 2.9: Residential Streetscape

no articulation or respect for the impact of visual bulk and amenity to the northern boundary

overshadowing

overall height

does not meet DGF24 clauses 1 and 4 In response the applicant has deleted the garage from the plans, lowered the wall height and provided justifications for the other variations, which are included as Attachment 2.

PLANNING COMMENT

DGF24: Solomon Street Local Area Design Guidelines (DGF24)


Page 19

DGF24 states, inter alia:

1. The single residential character of the street should be maintained. 4. New houses within Solomon Street should conform with the predominant

streetscape pattern and should address such elements as front setbacks, orientation and screen walls.

In regards to 1, the development fits the single residential character as the proposal is for a single house, as opposed to a grouped or multiple dwelling, and is in keeping with the two storey dwellings on the two northern lots immediately adjacent to the subject site and within the prevailing streetscape. In regards to 4, the amended plans submitted delete the garage from the application, which therefore leaves the front setback and streetscape pattern unchanged. The current proposal complies with DGF24. Lot Boundary Setback

Wall Setback Required Setback Provided Discretion

North wall (Ground) 1.6m 0.75m 0.95m

North wall (Upper) 1.2m 0.75m 0.55m

The setbacks are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The northern walls abut a driveway and a building which also incorporates a nil setback to this boundary on the adjoining lot, so impact in terms of building bulk and loss of ventilation to the adjoining property is considered to be minimal.

The proposed windows on the northern walls are not major openings as they are either obscured or highlighted to prevent any overlooking between the two sites.


Maximum Permitted

Provided Discretion

External Wall Height 6m 8.4m 2.4m

Ridge Height 10m 10.9m 0.9m

The building height variation is due to the steep slope of the lot (2m drop from front to rear) and the retention of the existing house and its current floor to ceiling heights, which precludes the applicant from stepping down the upper storey in line with the slope of the block. The proposal complies with the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The applicant has provided outlines of the elevations of the two northern adjoining sites to show that the proposal graduates and is in keeping with the scale of the developments in the immediate locality particularly as viewed from the street and the rear.


Page 20

The rear of the subject site abuts the parking area of a three-storey, multiple dwelling development and has no detrimental impact to that lot in respect to bulk or blocking of views.

The existing house is not heritage listed nor is it located in a heritage area.

The upper storey is set back approximately 13 metres from the street at a height comparable with the two adjoining dwellings and does not restrict views of significance.

As outlined below in this report, the other variations are considered minor and supportable.

Visual Privacy North:

Major Opening Setback Required

Setback Provided Discretion

Family Room (Lower floor)

6m 1.6m Complies – Abuts solid wall of adjoining building

Balcony (Lower floor) 7.5m 1.2m Complies – Abuts solid wall of adjoining building

Balcony (Upper floor) 7.5m 1.2m 6.3m

South:

Major Opening Setback Required

Setback Provided Discretion

Balcony (Upper floor) 7.5m 3.4m 1.1m

Bed 2 (Lower floor) 4.5m 3.2m 1.3m

Bed 3 (Lower floor) 4.5m 3.2m Existing – no changes proposed to room or window

The setbacks are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Direct overlooking from all balconies is blocked by screening to the north and south.

Overlooking from the lower and upper balcony to the north and south only occurs obliquely and to one corner of each adjoining lot which isn’t considered to be area associated with either adjoining properties exclusive outdoor living areas.

Overlooking to outdoor living areas to the north is effectively blocked by the roof of the adjoining structure (see Attachment 3).

Bedroom 2 predominantly overlooks the driveway of the subject site and a small access-way and blank wall of the southern adjoining lot; no outdoor living areas will be directly impacted.

Overlooking of the adjoining southern major opening from Bedroom 2 will be oblique rather than direct and area visible form this opening is either front setback area of the southern adjoining site or the side wall which includes no existing major openings.


Page 21

Of note is that the adjoining northern owner requested screening to the upper balcony whilst the southern owner had no specific objections to the visual privacy variations. Should Council decide screening is desired to prevent all overlooking to both lots from the balconies and the ground floor Bed 2, the following optional condition is provided:

Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0384/16, on plans dated 22 September 2016, the lower and upper floor balcony located on the north AND the bedroom 2 window and upper floor balcony on the south elevations shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by any one of the following methods:

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

floor level. b) Installation of fixed 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.

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

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

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

Overshadowing

Max. Permitted Provided Discretion

Percentage of adjoining lot to be overshadowed

25% (132.75m2)

25% (133m2)

Complies

The overshadowing has been reduced from 32.57% to 25% through the reduction of the overall height and the deletion of the garage and complies with the R-Codes requirements. Conclusion The variations are minor and supported under the R-Codes, scheme and policies. The proposal is considered to be in keeping with developments in the nearby locality and is therefore conditionally supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil


Page 22

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to the existing Single house at No. 63 (Lot 3) Solomon Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 22 September 2016 and site plans of the existing house, dated 4 August 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Advice Note

i. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.


Page 23

PC1610-4 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 193 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HOME BUSINESS, PRIMARY STREET FENCE ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING (COMMUNITY PURPOSE AND SINGLE HOUSE) - (BP DA0353/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1: Development Plans

2: Internal Heritage Assessment 3: Site Visit Photos 4: Response to submissions by applicant

Date Received: 18 July 2016 Owner Name: J. Mocilac Submitted by: The Planning Group Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 3 Existing Landuse: Community purpose & Single House Use Class: Community purpose, Single House & Home Business Use Permissibility: ‘A’, ‘P’ & ‘A’


Page 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use of the Single House onsite to a Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and Wellbeing Consultants), alterations to the existing primary street fence and signage additions to the existing Mixed Use building located at No.193 South Terrace, South Fremantle. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The applicant seeks a discretionary assessment against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). This discretionary assessment includes the following:

Discretionary land use

The above discretion is considered to be supportable and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the corner of South Terrace and Louisa Street. The site has a land area of approximately 799m² and currently has a single storey Single House with a Community Purpose land use approved in portions of the front of the existing building onsite. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R30. The subject site is adopted under the City’s Heritage List as a level 3 listed property and is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 16 May 1990, the City granted planning approval for a partial change of use from single storey residence to a community use (ref. DA74/90).

On 2 August 2004, the City granted planning approval from Community Use to Child Care Centre, however this approval was not acted upon and has subsequently lapsed (ref. DA239/04).

On 24 March 2005, the City granted planning approval for renovation works at the subject site (ref. DA110/05).

On 2 May 2005, the City granted planning approval for minor variations to the front fence, balustrading and southern verandah approved in DA110/05.

On 12 October 2005, the Western Australian Planning Commission granted planning approval for a two lot freehold subdivision, which was contingent upon obtaining a separate planning approval for a new Single House. This was never acted upon (ref. WAPC128162).


Page 25

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use to Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and Wellbeing Consultants) for a portion of an existing building which is currently approved as Community Purpose and Single house. The applicant is seeking to change three rooms of the existing building currently approved as Community Purpose use to Home Business to be associated with the existing Single House. The details for the proposed Home Business are as follows:

o Opening hours being Monday to Sunday; 8am to 8pm.

o Medical/ health consultation, for example a dietician, naturopath and colonic

hydrotherapy with a maximum of two employees not living in the household.

o Total area of 46m² proposed being under the maximum of 50m² of floor space

for a Home Business.

The remaining two rooms of the front portion of the building onsite are to be retained for the existing approved Community Purpose use and will be used for public Health Education purposes. Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Local Planning Policies. The following criterion is seeking discretion from the City’s LPS4 and requires assessment:

Discretionary land use The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 12 August 2016, the City had received 4 submissions, with two raising objections and the remainder highlighting concerns separate to the application. The following planning issues were raised during the notification period (summarised):

The fencing height proposed is incompatible with the heights of fencing within the prevailing streetscape.

The proposed partial change of use to home business would result in unreasonable traffic impacts emanating from the subject site and exacerbate existing parking issues in the immediate area.


Page 26

Illegal car parking occurs along Louisa Street on a frequent basis and, with the intensification of existing sites through additional uses such as a home business, access issues for vehicles will continue to remain prevalent.

It is noted that some of the submissions raise concern in relation to a café use being proposed at the subject site. These concerns are not considered to be relevant as the development plans clearly do not show any café use being proposed as part of the application.

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Heritage Comment (Internal) The proposal was referred to the City’s internal heritage services for comment as the site is a level 3 listed property on the City’s heritage list. The following comments were made: Heritage comment: House, 193 South Terrace, Fremantle is included on the City of Fremantle’s Heritage List and has a level 3 management category on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. Therefore the City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the streetscape and the local area, and to Fremantle as a collective whole. Statement of Significance House, 193 South Terrace, is a typical rendered masonry and tile single storey house dating from c1892. The place has aesthetic value for its contribution to the streetscape and the surrounding area. It is representative of the typical workers' houses in the Fremantle area. The place is an example of the Federation Bungalow style of architecture. Assessment The proposal is a change of use, alterations to the fencing and new signage. The proposal is acceptable. The signage does appear large in size and consideration should be given if possible to reduce the size. Any new attachments are to happen within the mortar of the brickwork. Recommendation The proposal can be supported on heritage grounds. Refer to Attachment 2 for a full copy of the heritage assessment. PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Home Business

means a business, service, or profession carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which:


Page 27

a) does not employ more than 2 people not members of the occupier’s household, b) will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, c) does not occupy an area greater than 50 square metres, d) does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature, e) in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a result of

the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood, and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight, and

f) does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than normally required in the zone.

The Home Business is considered to be supportable against the definition outlined in LPS4 in the following ways: a) The Home Business is to be carried out within a dwelling, having regard to the

existing Single House operating from the western aspect of the building. The Home Business will not employ more than 2 people not members of the occupier’s household.

b) The Home Business proposed is not deemed to cause injury or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, as the business is considered to be of a relatively low intensity and similar to that of surrounding land uses.

c) The Home Business is limited to 46m² in floor area. d) The proposal will not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature,

having regard to the signage only identifying the name of the business and contact details. It’s also acknowledged that the proposed signage at the front of the building is for the existing Community Purpose use in the building.

e) In relation to vehicles and onsite parking, the vehicle parking requirement outlined in

Table 2 of LPS4 for a Home Business land use are the same as those provided for the existing Community purpose use onsite. Therefore, given the proposed Home Business use merely replaces exists Community Purpose use floor space, there is no resultant additional onsite car parking demand. Notwithstanding the above, with respect to surrounding parking availability, there is on street parking available along Marine Terrace, South Terrace, as well as streets such as Louisa, Silver and Nelson Streets. It is acknowledged that car parking can at times be congested in the immediate area; however it is not considered unreasonable for visitors to the proposed Home Business to park within walking distance of the subject site. In addition, there is access to public transport routes such as the CAT bus service, which operates at a frequency of every 15 mins from 7:00am – 6:00pm each day. Overall, the proposed partial change of use itself is not considered to significantly impact on traffic flows or parking issues emanating from the subject site.

f) The proposal is not considered to involve the use of an essential service of greater

capacity than typically required in a residential zone, as the Home Business is proposed to operate within the existing building with no material changes proposed, which would, therefore, not necessitate upgrades to water or power utilities.


Page 28

Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy As the subject site is adopted under the City’s Heritage List as a level 3 listed property, any proposed fencing to the subject site is to be assessed against clause 2 of LPP 2.8. Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of LPP 2.8 are as follows:

2.1 Fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of places on the Heritage List shall be compatible with, and complimentary to, the heritage character of the listed place with respect to height, materials and heritage character. 2.2 Where a property is included on a heritage list Council may specify the type of building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place.

Having regard to the City’s internal heritage assessment provided, it is considered that the fencing proposed is compatible with the heritage significance of the subject site. The subject site has been identified by the City as a Management Category 3 heritage listing on the municipal heritage Inventory. Meaning the City identified this place as being of cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the streetscape and the local area, and to Fremantle as a collective whole. It is acknowledged that Louisa Street is predominately low height (600mm – 1.4m high) and highly visually permeable fencing. The portion of solid fencing proposed, relates to the existing Single House use onsite, and this dwellings only existing outdoor living area. This is considered to be the key reason why a portion of solid fencing is proposed along Louisa Street, to essentially allow some privacy of this outdoor area for the tenants of the dwelling onsite. Furthermore, given the new timber gate is visually permeable and also slides rather than swinging over the road reserve and thus meets clause 5 of LPP 2.8. On this basis the fencing is supported. Local Planning Policy 2.14 – Advertisement Policy The proposal is considered to be supportable against the general requirements applicable to all signs for the following reasons:

Due to the size of the signage proposed, it is not considered to cause a hazardous distraction to motorists, pedestrians or other road users.

The signage is to relate to the proposed Home Business appropriately.

The sign is deemed to be compatible with the style, scale and character of signage in the surrounding streetscape, having regard to the number of other businesses situated along South Terrace of a comparable nature to the Home Business proposed in this application.

The sign is to be fixed to a wall fronting the front porch of the building and hence not considered to impede vehicle or pedestrian movements.

The sign is not illuminated or animated in its form. The signage is also required to be assessed against clause 2.4.1 of LPP 2.14, which relates to building identification signage. Clause 2.4.1 states the following:

Wall, Fascia or Projecting Signs are deemed acceptable where:


Page 29

a) The advertisement does not project above the fascia of the building and does not exceed the frontage of the tenancy; and

b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per tenancy.

The signage proposed for the existing Community Purpose use onsite is considered to meet the provision as it neither projects above the fascia of the building nor does it exceed the frontage of the tenancy. Further, there is only one sign proposed, and this is on the frontage to South Terrace. On this basis the signage proposed is considered to be supportable against the relevant provisions of LPP 2.14.


Increase the number of people working in Fremantle. Green Plan 2020

No trees are proposed to be impacted by the development. It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private property.

CONCLUSION The application for a partial change of use to Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath & Wellbeing Consultants) has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, particularly against the definition of a Home Business and its associated impacts on traffic and parking difficulties. The partial change of use to a Home Business is considered to be supportable, as the impacts relating to vehicle access are not deemed to be adverse to the extent that it would result in difficulty accessing the site or finding nearby car parking. However, should PC be of a differing opinion and wish to limit the opening hours or number of clients visiting the Home Business at any given time, then the following conditions could be imposed:

1. The number of clients visiting the hereby approved Home Business (health education) is to be limited to a maximum of 20 clients at any given time.

2. The Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath & Wellbeing Consultants) hereby

permitted shall have opening hours that do not exceed normal trading hours, i.e.8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday; 8:00 am to 9:00 pm on Thursday; and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday. Sunday trading is not permitted.


Page 30

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and Wellbeing Consultants), primary street fencing and signage addition at No. 193 (Lot 1) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 18 July 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The signage hereby permitted for the existing Community Purpose use shall not contain any flashing or moving light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

3. The Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and Wellbeing Consultants)

hereby permitted shall not involve the retail sale, hire or display of goods that are not directly associated with the Home Business (health education).

4. This approval allows the Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and

Wellbeing Consultants) hereby permitted to be conducted by John Mocilac and Annette Eckert. If John Mocilac and Annette Eckert cease to operate the Home Business (health education) hereby permitted or occupy the subject site, this approval will expire.

5. The Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and Wellbeing Consultants)

hereby permitted shall not occupy an area of greater than 50sqm. 6. The Home Business (Dietician, Naturopath and Wellbeing Consultants)

hereby permitted shall not employ more than 2 persons who are not a member of the occupier’s household.


Page 31

PC1610-5 SKINNER STREET, NO. 3 (LOT 41), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0355/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Revised development plans

2 – Site Photographs 3 – Internal Heritage Assessment

Date Received: 20 July 2016 Owner Name: James Robertson Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 20 July 2016, the City received an application for two storey rear additions and alterations to an existing single storey Single House at No. 3 Skinner Street, Fremantle. A number of Design principle assessments are sought, including:


Boundary walls

Open space

Visual privacy Due to the receipt of a number of objections that could not be resolved through the imposition of planning conditions, the application is referred to Planning Committee for determination. The application has been assessed against the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Council local planning policies, and is considered to meet the relevant Design principles. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 3 Skinner Street, Fremantle is located on the western side of Skinner Street in the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The site is within the Residential zone and is allocated a density of R25. The street block is bound by Tuckfield Street to the west, Finnerty Street to the south and Skinner Street to the east. As well as being Level 3 on the MHI, the site is listed on the City’s Heritage List; however, it is not located in a designated Heritage Area. The site is currently occupied by a single storey Single House with two garages on the street boundary. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

On 20 July 2016, the City received an application for additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 3 Skinner Street, Fremantle. The proposed works include:

Demolition of rear additions, southern garage and portions of northern garage/workshop.

Rear two storey (plus basement) addition.

Alteration to Garage/Workshop.

Internal bathroom and ensuite addition.

Removal of existing verandah and addition of verandah. The applicant was given the opportunity to review neighbours’ concerns and provided a set of revised plans (dated 7 September 2016), that made the following alterations to the plans in response:

Increase of northern setback for study from 1.07 – 1.2m.

Increase in southern setback for corner of study from nil to 410mm.


Page 33

Reduction in floor area of upper floor (study) from 15 to 13sqm.

Increase in setback of corner of pavilion (north) from 1.6 to 1.79m.

Increase in setback of corner of basement (north) from 1.14 to 2m.

Reduction in shadow thrown over southern property by 13sqm.

Addition of 1.65m privacy screen (details unclear) to study window (southern elevation).

Screening on study (west elevation) – 810mm high obscured, fixed glazing, plus 350mm deep privacy screen to 1.65m.

Screening on study (north) - 810mm high obscured, fixed glazing, plus 350mm deep privacy screen to 1.65m.

Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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


Boundary wall

Open space

Visual privacy The above matters are discussed in detail in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Internal referrals The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate, with the following comments received:

The proposed extension to crossover may affect existing street parking arrangement and existing street trees.

A new crossover application to be submitted.

If required, the City would support the removal of the bottlebrush on the right hand side of the crossover.


Page 34

Parking The application was referred to the City’s Parking services regarding the possible removal of an on-street bay to accommodate a widened crossover. Whilst modification to the existing street bays will be required to accommodate the wider opening to the proposed garage, no loss in street bays will be the result. The standard advice notes informing the applicant of further approvals being required for verge works is recommended. The application was referred to the City’s Heritage services, with the following comments made:

The proposal is for the removal of the existing rear additions, partial removal of the front wall and side additions and construction of new single and two storey additions and alterations and conservation works to the original house. Conservation works to remove impervious materials including cement and paint products will be a positive contribution to the ongoing maintenance and conservation of the place. Repointing and repairs should be undertaken using materials and methods to match original (i.e. lime mortar). The reconstruction of the front verandah is appropriate providing on site analysis (e.g. scarring on the façade) is undertaken to ensure that the form of the verandah is constructed to match original. Replacement verandah flooring with timber boards will assist in allowing the façade to breathe. Demolition of the rear and side additions which are not original is supported. The removal of the garage and partial portions of the front wall attached to the sides of the house is a positive design which will lessen the existing impact of these elements to the original house and will provide a clear understanding of the original house. It is intended to retain the WC and restore the limestone and brickwork.

The proposed additions are appropriately set behind the original house and will not have a negative impact on the heritage values of the residence or the character of the intact streetscape and local area. The design and simple form is acceptable when assessed in terms of the Principles of the Burra Charter;

Article 22 New Work

22.1 New work such as additions and other changes to the place may be acceptable where it respects and does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation.

22.2 New work should be readily identifiable as such, but must respect and have minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place. Therefore the rear additions are compatible with the heritage values of the house and can be supported on heritage grounds.


Page 35

Conditions of approval have been included in the officer’s recommendation relating to the replacement of the verandah and works to existing walls. A full copy of the Heritage assessment can be found as Attachment 3. Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application did not meet Deemed to Comply requirements for a number of design elements. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 August 2016, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

with basement excavation it would be 3 stories

comparable development at 24 Finnerty was rejected in 1994

rear of site should be predominantly open space as per DGF4

shipping container is an unacceptable imposition and visual intrusion on surrounding properties

not compliant with R-Codes for Open Space and Lot boundary setbacks

lot boundary setback variation is unreasonable

steel clad extension would be an imposing structure obstructing views and overshadowing outdoor living areas

eaves may result in stormwater overflow onto neighbouring property;

smoke will drift onto property

potential of undermining of adjoining heritage properties

overlooking is a concern

natural light of existing dwellings will be obstructed

concerns relating to construction process (i.e. obstruction of vehicle access, damage to adjoining buildings)

PLANNING COMMENT

Tuckfield, Finnerty and Skinner Streets Policy (DGF4) The four room portion of No. 3 Skinner Street is identified as having apparent heritage value, with the garage and existing additions to the rear having no apparent heritage value. In accordance with clause 2 of policy DGF4, a heritage assessment has been undertaken to determine the appropriateness of the removal of the additions and portions of the garage. The heritage assessment is supportive of the proposal with conditions. The policy also outlines areas that are identified as being ideal for conservation. It also notes that two storey additions should only be supported for these sites where they are sympathetic in terms of scale and proportion, and retain the character and integrity of the existing house.


Page 36

The additions proposed are to the rear of the existing house, with the garage being replaced on the street front. The second storey element is behind the roof ridge of the existing house and is proposed to be 13sqm in area. Given the existing site topography, the additions to the rear will be obscured from the street by the original house. The area to the rear of the existing dwelling is shown in the policy to be retained as “predominantly open space”. The existing additions at the rear are considered to be more detrimental for the open space component, with the proposed addition opening up the rear yard for a larger, more effective space. As the proposed development is considered to have minimal impact on the streetscape, and results in a positive heritage outcome by reducing the number of later additions in the streetscape, the proposed development is considered supportable against local planning policy DGF4. Demolition An existing single garage, front verandah, rear additions and the majority of a double garage/workshop are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposal. Clause 5.15 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 site is currently on the City’s Heritage List and is Level 3 on the MHI. A Heritage Assessment has been undertaken for the proposal and concluded the structures listed for demolition are of limited significance and these elements of the existing do not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located and therefore the demolition is supported. Lot boundary setbacks

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Study (north) – upper floor 3.3m

1.2m 2.1m

Study (south)- upper floor 1.2m

0.41 – 4.3m 0- 0.79m

Study (west) – upper floor 3.3m

0.65-3.83m 0-2.65m

Study - north The proposed reduced upper floor setback for the study to the north is supported for the following reasons:


Page 37

A large tree that exists on one of the three adjoining northern sites will provide an element of screening of the structure for adjoining properties.

The reduced setback will not restrict access to winter sun for adjoining properties, nor will not significantly restrict access to winter sun for the subject site given the length of the pavilion.

The study structure is only 13sqm in floor area.

The study is angled differently to the ground level pavilion (i.e. Cantilevers over), ensuring it is not one large two storey wall facing the lot boundary.

Adjoining major openings are setback from the lot boundary ensuring they will be able to comfortably access ventilation.

Openings on this elevation are proposed to be screened; however, these major openings will require further screening to satisfy visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes.

As discussed in the Visual Privacy section of this report, it is recommended that the major opening in this elevation (and the western elevation) be screened in accordance with the R-Codes, through a condition. Should such a condition be imposed then the upper floor wall would become a wall without a major opening and thus the current proposed 1.2m setback to the northern elevation would be compliant with the R Codes.

Study - south The proposed reduced upper floor setback for the study to the southern property is supported for the following reasons:

This elevation of the study does not meet deemed to comply for approximately 1.2m of its length.

The elevation does not include any openings and will therefore not impact on privacy.

The angle of the proposed upper floor ensures a setback far greater than required for most of its length to reduce building bulk.

The portion that is proposing a reduced setback abuts an existing boundary wall (single storey) and will only affect roof space of the adjoining southern property. Access to sunlight and ventilation is therefore not considered to be a significant issue.

Study - west The proposed reduced upper floor setback for the study’s western elevation is supported for the following reasons:

Any overlooking from this elevation will be over existing roofs of adjoining properties rather than major openings or outdoor living areas.

The wall is only 2.4m in length, meaning building bulk is unlikely to be significant from this side of the site.

The wall will not directly abut any existing major openings or outdoor living areas on adjoining sites meaning there will be little restriction on access to sunlight or ventilation for adjoining properties.


Page 38

Again, as discussed in the Visual Privacy section of this report, it is recommended that the major opening in this elevation (and the western elevation) be screened in accordance with the R-Codes, through a condition. Should such a condition be imposed then the upper floor wall would become a wall without a major opening and thus the current proposed 1.2m setback to the western elevation would be compliant with the R Codes.

Boundary walls


South- ground floor (1.7m) 0.02m 1.7m

North – ground floor –2.4m 0 - 9.3m 0-0.9m

The proposed southern pavilion boundary wall is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property and is therefore supported against LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development for the following reasons:

It provides an effective space for an outdoor living area for the occupants on an unusually shaped lot.

It is a single storey wall, which will not result in significant building bulk for the adjoining site.

The proposed pavilion wall partially abut 3 portions of existing boundary walls associated with the built form on the southern adjoining site which, for those portions, complies with LPP 2.4 (5.8m total length broken up into 2 x 2.9m portions).

There are no major openings immediately abutting the wall that will have sunlight or ventilation directly impacted as confirmed by a site inspection by City officers. An existing window in the boundary wall of No. 5 Skinner is not being impacted by the boundary wall (See Attachment 2 below for site photo).

The proposed boundary wall is setback 10.3m from the street boundary and will be screened by a fence, ensuring it has minimal impact on the Skinner Street streetscape.

The proposed boundary wall is not considered to result in a significant restriction of shadow for the adjoining site’s existing outdoor living area.

The deck on the adjoining site is covered by a solid roof and is raised above natural ground level, meaning that shadow cast by the proposed boundary wall will not significantly impact the exiting neighbour’s deck.

The northern portion of the pavilion has a roofed structure that will have a pillar abutting the boundary. The remainder of this wall’s lot boundary setback increases steadily away from the boundary, with a large proportion of it being setback to deemed to comply levels. The minor reduction is not considered to result in significant impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties and is supported.


Page 39

Open space


50% (215sqm) Previous - 29.7% (127.8sqm)

87.2sqm

Proposed - 41% (176.4sqm) 38.6sqm

The proposed development incorporates suitable open space in accordance with the Design Principles of the R-Codes as follows:

It provides open areas on the northern side of the site to allow for access to northern sunlight for the addition.

It provides a greater amount of open space and reduces the amount of building bulk in the front area of the lot that assists in separating the heritage listed property from adjoining sites and allowing more vision to side setback areas.

It provides a yard and courtyard for outdoor living that is directly accessible from living areas (pavilion).

It provides sufficient areas for essential services and facilities in setback areas and in the service courtyard.

Additionally, the proposed development is improving the amount of open space by 48.6sqm compared to what is currently on site. The site’s current open space is fragmented and is not all readily accessible or usable. The proposed development not only improves the amount of usable/accessible outdoor living area to the rear, but also removes a number of structures on the street boundary, improving the visibility of the heritage house and separating it from later additions such as the garage. Overall, the works proposed on site will result in a positive heritage outcome that includes more usable open space. Visual privacy

Deemed to Comply 20. Setback Proposed 21. Design Principle Assessment

Ground Floor Pavilion (north) – 6m

1.9 -10.4m 24. 0 - 4.1m

Ground Floor Pavilion (west) – 6m

1.8 - 5.7m 27. 0.3 - 4.2m

Upper floor Study (north) – 4.5m

1.2m 30. 3.3m

Upper floor Study (west) – 4.5m

32. 2.2 - 5.7m 33. 0 - 2.8m

Upper floor Study (south) – 4.5m

35. 0.4m 36. 4.1m

The ground floor pavilion is shown to include the kitchen and is expected to be the main living area for the house. Due to the proposed basement, which partially protrudes above natural ground level (ngl), the finished floor level of the Pavilion is 500mm above ngl. While some of the pavilion is setback the appropriate 6m from the northern boundary (or greater), a portion of it requires a Design principle assessment. The pavilion is not


Page 40

considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and is supported without screening for the following reasons:

A 2.1m high boundary fence is proposed that will not be at the deemed to comply height, but will provide some screening.

The pavilion overlooks a boundary wall of an existing building or a rear ROW, and is not expected to significantly impact on major openings or outdoor living areas on adjoining properties.

While the major opening on the ground floor of the pavilion is not setback to 6m on the western elevation, they are not considered to significantly impact the amenity of adjoining properties given there are existing outbuildings and boundary fencing that will restrict views to outdoor living areas. If Planning Committee is not satisfied that the existing structures are satisfactory screening, a condition of approval could be added to the Officers Recommendation as follows:

Prior to use of the development approved as part of DA0355/16, on plans dated 7 September 2016, the windows to the pavilion located on the northern elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by any one of the following methods:

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

above floor level. b) Installation of fixed 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.



While the openings do propose screening on the upper floor (study), the proposed method may not be sufficient. The following matters should be considered in the assessment of the application:

There is a level of view obstruction proposed through 800mm obscured glass and flat intermittent screens.

The properties to the west and north have backyards adjoining the development site, with areas that are likely to be used as outdoor living areas given their proximity to the primary street and lot boundaries.

There are a number of outbuildings and some vegetation to the rear of these adjoining sites that will assist in screening.

The site slopes down to the west, which may exacerbate overlooking issues.

Lot boundary setback merit based assessments are sought.

It is recommended that the northern and western elevations of the study be conditioned to require additional screening.


Page 41

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. No trees are proposed to be removed during the proposed development of the site.

2. Two new trees are proposed on the rear of the site. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 3 (Lot 41) Skinner Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 7 September 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to practical completion, the boundary walls located on the northern and

southern boundaries, shall be of a clean finish using any of the following treatments:

coloured sand render

face brick

painted surface

other approved finish

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

4. Prior to use of the development approved as part of DA0355/16, on plans

dated 7 September 2016, the windows to the upper floor study located on the west and north elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by any one of the following methods:

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

metres above floor level. b) Installation of fixed 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.




Page 42

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

5. Prior to use of the development approved as part of DA0355/16, on plans

dated 7 September 2016, the windows to the pavilion located on the west elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by any one of the following methods:

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

metres above floor level. b) Installation of fixed 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.



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

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

7. Only lime mortars and no cement or impervious materials are to be used in the conservation works approved as part of DA0355/16 on plans dated 7 September 2016. Conservation works required to rectify the non-compliance with this requirement will be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to the installation of the bull nosed verandah approved as part of

DA0355/16 on plans dated 7 September 2016, documentary evidence and site analysis derived from possible early scarring on the façade (which may be visible during the removal of the existing and non-original verandah), shall be used to guide the design of the bull nosed verandah to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if

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

Advice notes

i. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plans it is the responsibility of the applicant to either:


Page 43

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

ii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal

or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iii. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the City of


iv. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered,

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


Page 44

PC1610-6 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 229A (LOT 19), NORTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR CONVERSION OF THREE (3) CAR PARKING BAYS INTO ALFRESCO AREA FOR EXISTING RESTAURANT - (SP DA0393/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Statutory Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment: 1.Development Plans

2. Site Photos Date Received: 10 August 2016 Owner Name: Vincent Vuletic & Marjorie Vuletic Submitted by: Max Kordyl Scheme: MRS: Urban Zone

LPS4: Local Centre Zone Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Existing ‘Restaurant’ Use Class: As above. Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 45

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has received an application for the retrospective approval for the conversion of three (3) car parking bays into an alfresco area for the existing Restaurant at No. 229A (Lot 19) Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle (the site). The application is referred to the Planning Committee due to a submission being received raising concerns to the discretion sought that cannot be resolved through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbouring tenant. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and the City’s Local Planning Policies (Council Policies) and seeks discretionary decision in relation to the following:

Relaxation of onsite Car Parking Bays (LPS4) The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Local Centre Zone’ under the provisions of LPS4 and the portion of building located at No.229A Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle is currently approved as a ‘Restaurant’ land use. The subject site is located within a designated Heritage Area of the City’s under LPS4. The subject site currently consists of an existing Local Centre complex with two tenancies being 229A – Restaurant use and No.229B – Shop use. The site is 531m2 in area and has an east/west lot orientation. There are three existing onsite car bays located at the front of the existing Shop tenancy located within No.229B Queen Victoria Street. DETAIL

On 10 August 2016, the City received an application for the retrospective approval for the conversion of three (3) onsite car parking bays located at the front of the premises to an outdoor alfresco dining area for the existing restaurant located at No. 229A Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle. The conversion of the car bays includes artificial grass floor covering being laid over the existing bitumen bays and planter boxes surrounding the dining area. The outdoor dining space caters for 30 additional seats for the Restaurant use, as identified on the plans provided. The application also proposes a car bay to be introduced in an existing ‘no standing’ road reserve strip, which is not supported by the City. See Attachment 1 for plans provided.


Page 46

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 5.7.2 – Parking Table, an assessment is made against the relevant variation criteria of LPS4. The above matters are discussed in detail in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy as several Design Principle and discretionary assessments were sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 2 September 2016, the City had received 3 submissions. One submission was supporting the application, whilst the others raised the following relevant planning concerns (summarised):

onsite car parking bay shortfall

the lack of visibility for pedestrians to notice the neighbouring business as a result of the projecting alfresco area

delivery trucks impeding access to the neighbouring business’ car bays The concern raised in relation to lack of onsite car parking being provided is included in the Planning Comment section of this report. With regards to the concern relating to the visibility of the neighbouring business being impacted by the converted space, it is noted that some impact may result from the development and use at the front of site. However, the level of impact is not considered to be significant or any worse than that created by a vehicle being parked in the existing car bays areas at the front of this premises. The built form in the front area is low in height (1.2m) and doesn’t obscure the existing awning and majority of the façade signage of the adjoining businesses, whilst having no impact on the entrances to adjoining business. The site currently has satisfied the requirement of 1 delivery bay, as per LPS4; however, it is not a planning control for the business to utilise the specified area for deliveries to take place. Internal referrals The application was referred internally to the Infrastructure & Project Delivery directorate as part of the process for assessment as the proposal includes a proposed verge infrastructure/ street car bay addition. Tthe City doesn’t support the street car bay for this business, nor a public bay in the same location.


Page 47

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Assessment: Car Parking

Table 3 -Vehicle Parking - LPS4 Requirement

Proposed Use & Car bays Allocation

Car Parking Variation

On site Car bays Restaurant 1 Bay: 5 Seats or 5m2 dining area whichever is the greater 58 Seats existing. 30 Additional eats proposed. Therefore 6 bays required

Deletion of 3 existing on site bays. 0 bays proposed on site.

Variation – 6 additional bays plus 3 on site bays removed, therefore proposes a 9 bay shortfall.

Delivery Bays Restaurant Delivery bays – 1

1

Complies Restaurant 1 Delivery bay

Bicycle Racks Restaurant - 1:100m2 gla 191.82m2 gla = 2 racks

6 racks

Complies - Additional 4 racks onsite

Clause 5.7.3.1 – Relaxation of Car Parking Requirements Assessment, states that Council may reduce or waive the standard parking requirements specified in table 2 subject to the applicant satisfactorily justifying a reduction due to one or more of the following reasons: (i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality Two submissions were received during the community consultation period which raised concerns regarding car parking issues for residential properties within the immediate locality. With respect to these two concerns, the proposed uses are not anticipated to substantially increase car parking issues in the area dramatically more than the already existing ‘Restaurant’ component. The level of increase for car parking demand is not considered to be substantial, as a number of future patrons are expected to walk, ride, travel to the area via communal private car use or some form of public transport (being train, bus or taxi).


Page 48

Below is a table of existing public car parking bays available to the North Fremantle Local Centre which all cliental of all businesses have access to within a trading week. Public Car parking Bays

Location of car parking Distance from site No. car bays

Corner of Tydeman Road and Queen Victoria Street

175m south 30

Queen Victoria Street, South of the Swan Hotel

350m south 50

North Fremantle Bowling Club Car Park / Gordon Dedman Reserve

150m north east 45

North Fremantle Train Station car park

500m north 83

Street parking Within 100m of site 40

Total – 248 bays

With reference to Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4, which allows Council to relax or waive car parking requirements, given that there are over 240 public car parking bays available within 500m of the site, and that the site is within easy walking distance to train and bus public transport routes, the level of increase is not anticipated to significantly be detrimental to adjoining business or adjacent residential properties of this immediate area. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase in commercial and retail development within 800m of Fremantle train station

Increase the net lettable area of retail space . Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land. No trees existed onsite prior to the conversion of the car bays to an alfresco area, which incorporates artificial grass, pot plants (consisting of small trees) and plantar boxes in the design of the space.


Page 49


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the retrospective approval for conversion of three (3) onsite car parking bays to an alfresco dining area to existing Restaurant at No. 229A (Lot 19) Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 10 August 2016.


Page 50

PC1610-7 SWEETMAN STREET, NO. 20 (LOT 1), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0359/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2- Site Photographs Date Received: 21 July 2016 Owner Name: Angela Ferolla and Shane Tholen Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 51

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for a two storey Single House at No. 20 Sweetman Street, White Gum Valley. The application has been assessed against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), local planning policies and requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and requires Design principle assessments against the following:

Ground floor primary street setback

Building height (external wall)

Site works

Retaining walls The application has been advertised to neighbouring landowners and occupiers, with a planning objection received that cannot be resolved via the imposition of conditions of approval. The application is considered to meet relevant Design principles and discretionary criteria, and is recommended for conditional development approval. BACKGROUND

No. 20 Sweetman Street is located in the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area on the southern side of Sweetman Street. The street block is bound by Sweetman Street to the north, Minilya Avenue to the east, South Street to the south and Taylor Street to the west. The site is in the Residential zone and has a density of R20/25. The property is not located in a Heritage Area, nor is it Heritage Listed and is currently vacant. The survey strata lot was created in 2015 as part of WAPC1277-14. The site was subdivided at the R20 density, and therefore has no specific requirements under LPP 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule. DETAIL

On 21 July 2016, the City received an application for a two storey Single House at No. 20 Sweetman Street, White Gum Valley. The development includes:

site works and retaining

double garage

3 x bedrooms

studio

upper floor balcony Revised plans dated 5 September 2016, have been submitted by the applicant that added an upper floor window. Development plans are included as Attachment 1.


Page 52

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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


Building height (external wall)

Retaining walls

Site works The above matters are discussed in detail in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION Internal referrals The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate who advised that a crossover application would be required. A standard condition and advice notes have been included in the Officer’s Recommendation. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as Design Principle and merit based assessments were sought against the R-Codes and LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 August 2016, the City had received one (1) submission. The following issues were raised (summarised):

proposed dwelling a welcome addition concerned about overshadowing – suggests reduction in floor to ceiling heights

or increase lot boundary setbacks difficult to gain vehicle access to garage tree in verge should be retained or repositioned rear elevation well designed

PLANNING COMMENT


Required Proposed Merit based assessment

7m 5m 2m

The proposed development seeks discretionary assessment against LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy for the garage on the ground floor. As the garage is under the main roof of the development (i.e. integrated into the dwelling), assessment is required under


Page 53

Clause 1.1. The remainder of the ground floor meets the required 7m setback, meaning that only a third of the front elevation is seeking a variation. The upper floor of the building is setback in accordance with the deemed-to-comply criteria of the policy (greater than 10m). The proposed variation to the above requirements is considered supportable for the following reasons in accordance with Clause 1.2 of the policy:

The existing prevailing streetscape of Sweetman Street is as follows:

o 18 Sweetman Street – battle-axe leg only

o 16 Sweetman Street – 8.5m

o 14a Sweetman Street – 5m

o 25 Minilya Ave – secondary street elevation (1.5m setback)

As the proposed prevailing streetscape includes an example of a ground floor being setback to 5m, and the site adjoins a corner lot with a 1.5m setback, it is considered the reduced setback of the garage is appropriate for the existing streetscape. Building height (external wall)

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle Assessment

External wall height – 6m 7.2m (maximum) 1.2m

Roof pitch height – 9m 7.4m Complies

Due to the skillion design proposed, the external wall height does not meet the deemed-to–comply requirement; however, the maximum roof pitch is 1.6m below the deemed-to-comply roof pitch height. The proposed building height is supported against the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Any potential building bulk impact as a result of the additional building height on adjoining properties is reduced by deemed-to-comply lot boundary setbacks.

The upper floor roof pitch on the northern elevation is setback 13m from the street, reducing the potential for impact on the streetscape.

Will not impact access to direct sun into buildings or appurtenant open spaces as the lot to the south is currently vacant.

Will not restrict access to daylight for habitable rooms as any existing buildings are separated by vehicle access legs or existing setbacks.

The existing dwelling to the east is higher in topography, reducing the impact of additional building height.

The additional building height is not considered to obstruct views of significance.


Page 54

Site works

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment

Excavation or filling within a site and behind a street setback line limited by compliance with building height limits and building setback requirements

External wall height does not meet deemed-to-comply

Required

500mm above natural ground level

Combination of fill (maximum 900mm), and excavation (maximum 600mm) over the site

400mm

Excavation within 1m of a lot boundary not to exceed 500mm

Excavation up to 1.4m (east)

900mm

The proposed site works (e.g. fill) is supported against the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The vacant site currently slopes approximately 3m (8RL-11RL) from east to west.

Site works in the primary street setback area are predominantly to facilitate appropriate gradients for vehicle access to the proposed garage.

A 55sqm area in the primary street setback area is remaining at natural ground level to reduce the impact of site works on the streetscape.

The FFL of the proposed single house is 8.5RL and 9RL (on a site which has a high point of 11RL), which assists in reducing building bulk on neighbouring properties.

The level of excavation on site is also greater than 500mm from natural ground level on the eastern boundary; however, as this assists in reducing building height and bulk to adjoining properties, the excavation is supported. Retaining walls

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment

Retaining walls setback from lot boundaries in accordance with setback provision of table 1

Nil setback Required

The proposed retaining walls on the southern and western lot boundaries are supported for the following reasons:

The proposed site works are considered to effectively respond to the naturally sloping site and provide an appropriately level development site for the use and enjoyment of residents.


Page 55

The effect of site works on the street is considered appropriate, with portions of natural ground level protected within the primary street setback.

Visual privacy meets deemed-to-comply requirements in relation to all major openings.

Outdoor living areas on the subject site which are retained (south eastern corner), are being excavated and will therefore be below natural ground level and will not result in a visual privacy Design Principle assessment.

Other areas of open space on the site are separated from adjoining properties by a vehicle access leg and are considered to be service areas (i.e. adjacent to laundry/drying court) and will therefore not impact significantly on the amenity of adjoining properties.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

increase the number of people living in Fremantle

protect current tree canopy cover in Fremantle

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

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

1. Two trees existing on site are shown on the site plan to be retained. 2. A standard advice note encouraging deep planting zone has been applied to the

officer’s recommendation. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 20 (Lot 1) Sweetman Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 5 September 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

3. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0359/16, on plans dated 5 September 2016, 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.


Page 56

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0359/16 on plans dated 5 September 2016, any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

5. Prior to occupation of the Single House, the boundary wall located on the western boundary shall be of a clean finish using any of the following treatments:

coloured sand render

face brick

painted surface

other approved finish

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

6. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if

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

Advice notes:

i. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either:

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

ii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal

or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iii. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the City of



Page 57

iv. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

v. The smoke alarms are required to be hardwired and interconnected (where

there is more than one alarm) in accordance with Part 3.7.2 of the Building Code of Australia.


Page 58

PC1610-8 REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STATE PLANNING POLICY 3.1 - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CODES

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment: Proposed amendments report Date Received: 18 August 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has released draft changes to the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) for public comment. The minor changes include:

Administrative changes (i.e. updates to page numbering, clause references, minor alterations to clauses to ensure consistency with Regulations etc.).

Removal of site area design principles.

Reduction in lot boundary setback requirements for walls with major openings.

Removal of overshadowing requirement for walls less than 3.5m in height.

Reduction in required number of Aged or dependent persons dwellings.

Amendment of various definitions. Overall, the changes to the R-Codes are not considered to result in major changes to assessment of development applications, and merely provide clarification in many instances. It is recommended the City provide a submission noting their general support of the changes. BACKGROUND & DETAIL State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) is required to be used by local governments when assessing Development Applications for residential development in Western Australia. A series of amendments to the R-Codes have been proposed by WAPC, to address concerns raised by various stakeholders over the inconsistency and misinterpretation of some provisions. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Nil CONSULTATION

At its meeting on 26 July 2016, the WAPC resolved to publically advertise the proposed amendments to the R-Codes, with comments to be provided by Monday, 10 October 2016.


Page 59

PLANNING COMMENT

The following section of the report discusses the proposed changes and provides comment from City planning officers regarding the proposed changes. Administrative changes A number of administrative changes are proposed to correct existing errors in the R-Codes and/or to bring into compliance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The changes are not considered to result in significant changes to assessment of development or subdivision applications. A list of these changes from the WAPC is included as Attachment 1. Site area

Existing clause

Proposed clause Officer comment

Design principles P1.1 , P1.2 and P1.3

Delete P1.1, P1.2 and P1.3 and replace with: Note: Site area unable to be varied under design principles via the development application process. WAPC is able to vary through subdivision approval process (refer C1.4ii)

Grouped dwellings on lots that do not meet minimum or average lot sizes under the R-Codes are unable to be approved using the Design Principles at present, as they grant authority to the WAPC only (through the process of subdivision). Once a lot of a reduced size is approved by the WAPC, a dwelling can then be approved by a local authority. This amendment is proposed to provide clarity on this for stakeholders. It is noted by officers that by removing the Design Principles, this should change nothing in current assessment practices by City officers. It is presumed that the WAPC will use their current DC1.1 Subdivision of land- general principle to guide decision making in the absence of R-Code design principles. It is recommended that this be noted in the R-Codes to assist applicants.

Street setback

Existing clause Proposed clause Officer comment

P2.2 …. Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

P2.2… Positively contributes to the prevailing or future development context and streetscape as outlined in the local planning framework.

The proposed change allows for future desired streetscape and development context to be taken into consideration, rather than just existing development.

Deemed-to-comply clause C2.4 (relating to projections in to the setback area) is also being amended to provide further detail to assist stakeholders in interpreting the clause. Given the City’s LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy, that excludes structures such


Page 60

as verandahs and porches from the prescribed setback, this change is unlikely to impact assessment of primary street setbacks in the City of Fremantle. Lot boundary setback


P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries or adjacent buildings so as to:

The additional text in P3.1 rectifies an anomaly where setbacks between buildings on the same lot (including parent lots of strata developments) were not covered.

P3.2… Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape

P3.2… Positively contributes to the prevailing or future development context and streetscape as outlined in the local planning framework.

The proposed change allows for future desired streetscape and development context into consideration, rather than just existing development.

Note: The term ‘up to a lot boundary’ means a wall, on or less than 600mm, from any lot boundary, other than a street boundary

Note: The term ‘up to a lot boundary ‘means a wall, on or less than 600mm from any lot boundary (green title or strata lot), other than a street boundary.

The note clarifies that lot boundary setbacks between strata lots should also be assessed.

Table 2b Boundary setbacks – walls with major openings

Boundary setback from wall height of 3.5m or less – 1.5m

Table 2b: Boundary setbacks – Walls with major openings

Boundary setback for wall height of 3.5m or less to 1.2m

The WAPC has indicated that the reduction in the lot boundary setback is to provide further opportunities and flexibility for development. It is noted by City officers that the WAPC proposes to change only walls with major openings, meaning that a wall of the same height and length without major openings, would have a greater setback requirement. It is recommended that the setback for walls without a major opening also be reduced to reflect the same changes for walls with major openings.

Streetscape appearance

Existing clause

Proposed clause Officer comment

Nil 5.2.7 Streetscape appearance P7 Buildings mass and form that -

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) 2015 Regulations allows for the development of Single Houses (not heritage listed or in a heritage area) to be


Page 61

Uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building;

Uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape;

Uses major openings to facilitate street surveillance and activation and minimises building façade taken up by garages, blank walls and servicing infrastructure; and

Positively contributes to the prevailing or future development context and streetscape as outlined in the local planning framework.

C7 Buildings comply with the requirements of any streetscape local planning policy approved by the WAPC in accordance with clause 7.3.2 of the R-Codes

developed without prior development approval when meeting all Deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. A number of councils have policies nominating specific design or character requirements for areas that do not always directly replace deemed-to-comply clauses in the R-Codes. In the instance a site is not a formally designated Heritage Area under a Local Planning Scheme; a character policy cannot currently be enforced when the Single House meets the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the Codes (and therefore exempting the development from requiring approval). The City has a number of character based policies (i.e. LPP 3.7 Hilton Heritage Area); however, Single Houses in these areas generally require development approval as they are in formal Heritage Areas designated by LPS4. The proposed clause will allow Councils to require compliance with such policies (that have been approved by the WAPC), prior to allowing a Single House be exempt under the Regulations.

Vehicular access The alterations to this clause are to add the relevant Australian Standard for off street parking (AS2890.1) into the clause (C5.3), and make minor alterations to C5.4 to ensure clarity for applicants and responsible authorities. Solar access to adjoining sites


C2.1 Notwithstanding the lot boundary setbacks in clause 5.1.3, development in climatic zones 4, 5 and 6 of the State shall be so designed that its shadow cast at midday, 21 June

C2.1 Notwithstanding the lot boundary setbacks in clause 5.1.3, development in climatic zones 4, 5 and 6 of the State shall be so designed that its shadow cast at midday, 21 June

The proposed change will remove the requirement for walls not higher than 3.5m to be exempt from shadow requirements regardless of the percentage they shadow. It should be clarified by the WAPC, via a note in the clause (or equivalent), whether walls less than 3.5m should be included in the shadow calculation when the development includes walls greater than this height. In simple terms, where a development has a two storey portion, is the single storey element also counted in the


Page 62

onto any other adjoining property does not exceed the following limits:

onto any other adjoining property does not exceed the following limits for walls higher than 3.5m

calculation? It is also noted by officers, that the reduction in lot boundary setbacks for walls less than 3.5m high (with major openings) also proposed as part of this review, would increase shadow to southern lots.

The equivalent solar access clause in Part 6 (Multiple dwellings in areas coded R40 or greater) also amended in same manner. External fixtures and utilities and facilities


C5.1 An enclosed, lockable storage area, constructed in a design and material matching the dwelling where visible from the street, accessible from outside the dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 1.5m with an internal area of at least 4sqm, for each grouped or multiple dwelling(s).

Addition of – minimum dimension of 1.5m when provided external to a garage and 1m when provided within a garage

The addition of garage storage dimensions, adds Deemed-to-comply criteria for something that is commonly accepted using Design Principles.

The equivalent external fixtures and utilities and facilities clauses are changed in same manner for Part 6 of the R-Codes also. Ancillary dwellings A note has been added to the Ancillary Dwellings part of the R-Codes as follows:

note: where an ancillary dwelling provides for independent living (such as separate access, laundry and kitchen facilities), the ancillary dwelling may be considered as a separate dwelling for the purposes of the National Construction Code and additional or different construction requirements may apply. This may include an ancillary dwelling located under the same roof as the single house that provides independent living

A note is not a specific Design principle or Deemed-to-comply clause, but is included for interpretation or information purposes. In this instance, it provides a warning that further requirements may apply during the Building Permit phase of development, as an Ancillary Dwelling is considered a separate dwelling under the National Construction Code.


Page 63

Aged or dependent persons dwellings

Existing clause

Proposed clause

Officer comment

C2.1ii. a minimum number of five dwellings within any single development

C2.1ii. A minimum number of two dwellings within any single development

The proposed change significantly increases the ability for the development of Aged or dependent persons dwellings. In the City of Fremantle there are limited large development sites and the ability to develop five (5) or more Aged or dependent persons dwellings is limited. By reducing to two (2) dwellings, further sites may be able to develop this type of housing (without Design principle assessment), which is restricted to people over the age of 55 or a person with a recognised form of disability requiring special accommodation for independent living or special care. It is recognised that this change is consistent with the City’s Strategic Community Plan and will assist in contributing to an increase of the number and diversity of dwellings.

Appendix 1 - Definitions

Existing clause Proposed clause Officer Comment

Grouped dwelling- A dwelling that is one of a group of two or more dwellings on the same lot such that no dwelling is placed wholly or partly vertically above another, except where special conditions of landscape or topography dictate otherwise, and includes a dwelling on a survey strata with common property

Grouped dwelling-

A dwelling that is one of a group of two or more detached or attached dwellings on the same lot which are not located above or below another dwelling or another type of building other than a garage, and includes a dwelling on a survey strata with or without common property but does not include an ancillary dwelling;

This change clarifies that when a building is located above another dwelling (or other type of building with the exception of a garage), it should be assessed as a Multiple Dwelling. It also clarifies that an Ancillary Dwelling is a different type of dwelling than a Grouped Dwelling. City officers advise this is consistent with the approach currently taken in assessment.


Page 64

Multiple dwelling-

A dwelling in a group of more than one dwelling on a lot where any part of the plot ratio area of a dwelling is vertically above any part of the plot ratio area of any other but:

o does not include a

grouped dwelling; and

o includes any dwellings

above the ground floor in a mixed use development

Multiple dwelling-

A dwelling:

o In a building containing

two or more dwellings; or

o In a mixed use

development. But does not include a grouped dwelling

The definition for Multiple Dwelling has been simplified to clarify that when a dwelling is within a mixed use development (i.e. a portion of the site has a land use other than residential), or it sits above another dwelling (not just a garage), it should be assessed as a Multiple Dwelling. The changes to the definitions do not significantly alter assessment, but are more straight-forward to interpret for responsible authorities and applicants.


increase the number of people living in Fremantle

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

increase the number of additional dwellings provided in the city centre Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. There is no requirement to retain vegetation on private land in the current R-Codes or any provisions included in the proposed amendments.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the review of the Residential Design Codes consists of administrative changes, with a few minor alterations that will have implications for assessment of Single Houses, Grouped Dwellings and Multiple Dwellings. City officers have reviewed the proposed amendments, and subject to a few clarifications and suggestions, do not anticipate any significant issues. It is recommended that the City advise the WAPC of their support for the proposed amendments subject to further clarification on the outlined matters in the Officer Recommendation.


Page 65


That the WAPC be advised that the City of Fremantle generally supports the review of the Residential Design Codes, with the following comments:

1. Administrative changes to update the Codes in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) 2015 are noted.

2. An additional note should be added to the Design principle column of 5.1.1 Site Area to inform stakeholders of DC1.1 Subdivision of land-general principles and any other relevant policy used by the WAPC to assess subdivision of land when site area does not meet Deemed-to-comply requirements.

3. Table 2a (Boundary setbacks- walls without major openings) for walls

3.5m or less in height should also be amended along with Table 2b to also allow for a 1.2m or lesser setback for further design flexibility.

4. It is noted that the lot boundary setback reduction for walls 3.5m or less would increase shadow marginally, however overshadowing for walls less than 3.5m would not be required to be calculated under the amendments.

5. Clarification should be included regarding the overshadowing exemption for walls less than 3.5m – i.e. where a development includes a portion of its development greater than this height, will overshadowing from all walls (including those less than 3.5m) be required to be assessed or will only the walls greater than 3.5m be included?

6. The proposal to reduce the Deemed-to-comply minimum number of Aged and Dependent Persons dwellings from five (5) to two (2) is supported.


Page 66

PC1610-9 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL DECISIONS UPDATE - INFORMATION REPORT

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Approvals Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following applications were recently considered by the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel: 1. 52 Adelaide Street, Fremantle: Demolition of existing building and construction

of eight storey Mixed use development (72 Multiple Dwellings and 7 Commercial tenancies).

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of recent Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) decisions. BACKGROUND

52 Adelaide Street The Planning Committee considered a planning application for a Demolition of existing building and construction of eight storey Mixed use development (72 Multiple Dwellings and 7 Commercial tenancies) on 7 September 2016 and resolved to recommend to the JDAP as follows:

That Council recommends to the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel that, subject to the JDAP being satisfied that it has legal ability to grant approval for the development, the JDAP:

APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/16/01060 and accompanying plans 10 June 2016 (Plan reference: SK00; SK01; SK02 (site section CC); SK03 (Basement Floor Plan); SK04 (Ground Floor Plan); SK05 (First Floor Plan); SK06 (Second, Fourth, Sixth Floor Plan); SK07 (Third, Fifth, Seventh Floor Plan); SK08 (Roof Plan); SK09 (East Elevation); SK10 (South Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK11 (West Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK12 (North Elevation); SK13 (Section AA); SK14 (Section BB); SK15 (Westgate Mall Conceptual Plan) in accordance with Clause 10.3.1(a) of the City of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions:

These conditions are available on the Council’s website which formed part of the Planning Committee meeting held 7 September 2016. The JDAP resolved on 19 September 2016 to defer the application. The exact reason for the deferral were not available via the DAP’s website at the time of writing this report.


Page 67


That the Joint Development Assessment Panel Decisions update report be received and noted.


Page 68

PC1610-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

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


That the information is noted.


Page 69

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1610-11 NON-STATUTORY CLONTARF ROAD MASTERPLAN - COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

ECM Reference: 059/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 October 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Clontarf Road Masterplan

Figure 1. Map showing subject site of Masterplan area


Page 70

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CLE town planning and design on behalf of Saracen Properties (the land owner) have presented a non-statutory masterplan to the City to provide context and intent for the future coordinated design, subdivision and development over four large lots within the Strang Street area. The land involved is No’s. 2 (lots 72 and 100) and 4 (lot 25) Clontarf Road and 1 (lot 72) Naylor Street, Beaconsfield as shown in figure 1 above. These lots have a combined land area of 4.7ha. The lots are zoned Residential with a base density of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. Where specific criteria are met, including a minimum site area of 10,000 sq. m., the Scheme provides for development to be approved at a higher R160 density and a maximum building height of 24.5m. The masterplan illustrates a form of development based on satisfaction of the Scheme criteria to enable the R160 density and 24.5m maximum building heights to be achieved. The applicant is seeking an indication of general support for the form of development envisaged in the masterplan through a formal resolution of Council at this stage. This would give the developer a degree of confidence in moving forward with subdivision and development in the area, whilst recognising that such a resolution would not bind the Council in its future determination of individual applications. Officers consider the objectives and principles for future development set out in the masterplan are generally consistent with the intent of the additional development standards in the Local Planning Scheme for development in this area, and the masterplan approach should be supported. Accordingly officers recommend Council accept the Clontarf Road masterplan as a non-statutory document to help guide future development in the area at residential densities up to R160 and with building forms at a scale consistent with the maximum heights provided for in the Scheme. BACKGROUND

Subject area The Masterplan applies to a 4.7ha development site comprising of the following lots:

Address Lot size

1 Naylor Street 73 12,318 sqm

2 Clontarf Street 100 8,349 sqm



The site is bounded by Clontarf Road to the south, Naylor Street to the west, Strang Street and the WA Portuguese Club to the north, and an existing residential subdivision (Butterworth Place) to the east (refer to figure 1 above). Description of the area as provided in the masterplan:


Page 71

“The Masterplan area forms the easternmost portion of the Strang Street industrial precinct, an aging light industrial area where the predominant built form is factory unit style industrial development, interspersed with some more recent residential and mixed use development. The development of the site represents the first stage in the much anticipated urban renewal of the Strang Street area. Presently the site itself is being used for a range of light industrial purposes, with the predominant use being warehousing for the storage of wool and some light fabrication. A number of large industrial sheds and associated site offices are found on the site. It is anticipated that most of the buildings will be removed as development of the site progresses; however elements of the existing buildings may be retained and/or re-used within buildings and/or open spaces through the delivery of the Masterplan. All four land parcels that make up the Master Plan area are in the control of Saracen Properties.”

Statutory Background

Figure 2. Zoning of area

In 2011 Council initiated amendment no. 43 to the Local Planning Scheme (LPS4) on the basis that the Strang Street area was a location capable of supporting more intensive residential and mixed use development to help achieve the urban renewal strategic imperative of the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. The amendment proposed zoning, density and other development provisions intended to encourage such development. Amendment No. 43 was gazetted in August 2015. The amendment rezoned the Strang Street area from Development zone to Mixed Use R25, Residential R25 and R40 and Development Zone (DA7 – the Portuguese Club site) as shown in figure 2 above. In regards to the subject site the four lots are zoned ‘Residential’ with a base density of R25 and a related maximum building height of approximately two storeys.


Page 72

This low base density coding was deliberately applied by the City to create an incentive for land owners to undertake development in a more coordinated, comprehensive manner across more than one land parcel. This was achieved by also including in the scheme amendment development provisions under Schedule 12 of LPS4. These provisions set out criteria which, if satisfied, would enable development to be approved at a density (for residential development) of up to R160 instead of R25, and for building heights to be significantly higher than two storeys (up to 24.5m high in the case of the land the subject of this report). The following extract from Schedule 12 of LPS4 sets out these provisions. The land covered by the masterplan which is the subject of this report is Area 4 and 4a on Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. LPS4 local planning area 4 – South Fremantle Sub area 4.3.5

The sub area text includes general requirements for development in the area and further splits the sub area into five areas. Additional development standards are then provided for each of the areas. If all of the specific criteria under Schedule 12 for each area can be met the additional development standards apply. The additional development standards applicable to the subject site (area 4 and 4a) and the criteria to be met for those standards to apply are set out in Table 1 below.


Page 73

Table 1. Local planning area 4 – South Fremantle 4.3.5 Area 4 and 4a

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

(all criteria to be met)

Additional development

standards

1. The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 10,000 sqm within Area 4 (including Area 4a);

2. Non-residential land uses are restricted to the ground floor unless it is demonstrated to Council’s satisfaction that the non-residential land use meets the local needs for commercial services.

3. Development provides active frontages to public street(s) and public open space. Residential development with frontage to Clontarf Road is to include openings and pedestrian access directly to Clontarf Road.

4. The location and design of new road(s) and footpaths shall demonstrate a high standard of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity with the existing road and footpath network.

5. A portion of the lot area, not less than 7.5m in width, to be provided for the length of the lot adjacent to the common boundaries of 1 Naylor St, 2 Clontarf Rd (Lot 72) and 4 Clontarf Rd. This portion of land shall be transferred at no cost to the City of Fremantle to provide a north-south linkage between Strang St and Clontarf Rd for the purpose of public open space and/or a landscaped dual use pathway, to integrate with the existing areas of public open space at Clontarf Hill and future public open space within Development Area 7 – Lefroy Road Quarry.

Permitted building height within Area 4 is 24.5 metres. Permitted building height within Area 4a is 7.5 metres. Residential density of R160.

Applicant request CLE town planning and design (the applicant) on behalf Saracen Properties (the owner) have presented the Clontarf Road masterplan to the City to provide context and intent for the future coordinated design, subdivision and development of the subject site. The applicant has stated:

“Saracen Properties is looking to develop the Clontarf Road Masterplan area into a high density residential community that offers a range of dwelling types and lifestyle options, having all four land parcels that make up the site under their control (total area 4.7ha). In recognition of the strategic importance of the site, Saracen Properties have voluntarily prepared this Masterplan to offer a more holistic understanding of the potential development of the site and its relationship to the surrounds. The Masterplan is the result of a comprehensive review of the site’s opportunities and constraints, relevant state and local policies and the City’s Local Planning Scheme. While having no statutory status, the Masterplan is an important guiding document that will be a reference point for design and subsequent delivery of subdivision and development across the site.”


Page 74

The masterplan presents three concept scenario plans for the masterplan area to represent three possible ways in which the Masterplan area could be developed. The scenarios reflect varying intensities of development and built form patterns for the site, with the road network and development structure generally consistent between the three scenarios. The three scenarios are briefly summarised below. Concept scenario plan 1: “Business as usual” Scenario plan 1 illustrates predominately single house development, two storeys in height (refer to figure 4). This scenario represents ’business as usual’ development, where the built form height and mass typically mirrors that found on neighbouring land to the east and north west. Plan 1 would deliver approximately 180-250 dwellings, accommodating approximately 500-700 residents within the Masterplan area.

Figure 4. Scenario plan 1 – Business as usual

Concept scenario plan 2: Eight storey maximum development Scenario plan 2 maximises built form in the masterplan area to a maximum height of 8 storeys where applicable under LPS4 (refer to figure 5). A ‘small lot’ two storey built form is applied along the eastern boundary where this area abuts existing single house residential development (Butterworth Place development). Plan two delivers approximately 550-750 dwellings, accommodating approximately 1500-2000 residents.


Page 75

Figure 5. Scenario plan 2 – Eight storey maximum development

Concept scenario plan 3: Centrally located towers up to a maximum of 16 storeys Scenario plan 3 considers the development of tower elements, centrally located within the site and situated on podium heights of 3-4 storeys, to reach a maximum of 16 storeys (refer to figure 6). This approach would deliver approximately 550-750 dwellings, accommodating approximately 1500-2000 residents, which is a similar density to scenario plan 2 with a different built form. The applicant states that the development of tower elements within the masterplan area would mean that a wider variety of housing options can be provided elsewhere in the masterplan area and building height and scale can be reduced on the perimeter. Scenario plan 3 is the preferred option for the applicant. The Local Planning Scheme would need to be further amended to enable the tower buildings indicated in scenario plan 3 to be capable of receiving development approval because the building heights would significantly exceed the maximum of 24.5m currently applying in this location under Schedule 12 (refer to table 1 above).

Figure 6. Scenario plan 3 – 10-16 storey maximum development


Page 76

The applicant has stated:

“Development of the Masterplan area will likely be undertaken via a staged approach, beginning with subdivision into ’super lots’ which will also create some, or all, of the supporting local road network. It is crucial that (post-subdivision), these super lots be considered as having a residential density of R160, as this will allow the full development potential of the Masterplan to be realised. Saracen Properties recognises that the current City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4) prescribes a building height limit of 24.5m or approximately 8 storeys. With the Masterplan considering building heights that exceed this limit, a future amendment to LPS4 may be undertaken to increase to the currently prescribed height limit.”

Refer to attachment 1 for a copy of the Clontarf Road Masterplan. The masterplan is further discussed in the Planning Comment section of this report. Preliminary consultation with the City of Fremantle To date, the applicant has engaged with the City on the preparation of the masterplan through the following processes:

25 November 2015: A Stakeholder Visioning Workshop was held to identify key objectives and outcomes for the Masterplan area. The workshop was attended by City of Fremantle councillors, senior City of Fremantle planning staff, Saracen Properties and their consultant team. The workshop was preceded by a short site visit and inspection of the surrounding neighbourhood from Clontarf Hill.

25 January 2016: The City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee received a presentation of the masterplan proposal and conceptual development of the site.

9 May 2016 City: The Design Advisory Committee received a further presentation of the masterplan proposal and conceptual development of the site, including the three concept scenario plans in the current version of the masterplan.

5 September 2016: A presentation of the masterplan was made to elected members at an informal briefing session.

CONSULTATION

Public consultation The masterplan is a non-statutory document which the applicant has prepared voluntarily. There is no requirement under LPS4 for such a document to be prepared or approved by the Council prior to applications for subdivision and/or development approval being submitted for determination. Any applications, when submitted, will be assessed against the relevant development provisions in Schedule 12 of LPS4 which were the subject of community consultation in 2012 as part of scheme amendment no. 43. Further community consultation may be required for individual subdivision or development applications in the subject area, in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals.


Page 77

The masterplan is intended to serve as a guiding document to help in the preparation of more detailed development proposals for the site. With the exception of the tower elements in scenario plan 3, the form of development shown in the masterplan is consistent with the current Scheme provisions introduced through amendment no. 43 and therefore no community engagement is considered necessary to be undertaken on the masterplan at this time. Community engagement would be necessary if the applicant pursed the third concept scenario plan in the masterplan. This plan would require an amendment to LPS4 to allow for additional height for the tower building elements. The applicant recognises this and has notified the City this scenario will not be pursued at this stage. If at a future date this approach is proposed a scheme amendment would need to be lodged by the applicant and the scheme amendment process would provide the opportunity for further community engagement on the issue of increased building heights. Design Advisory Committee consultation A summary of the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) comments from its 9 May 2016 meeting are reproduced below: CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER

Generally supportive of the level of detail provided for this concept stage of the proposal, further detail will be examined at individual DA stage.

CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, EASE OF MOVEMENT, LEGIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY

Acknowledge the movement networks have been explored further from the DAC workshop but DAC reiterates that pedestrian movements need to be clear, strong robust and legible patterns particularly to the north, south and east linkages of the site.

QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM

Further exploring the introduction of commercial/retail uses to the ground floor central locality of the three envisaged towers on site is encouraged.

Investigation into the provision of podium car parking and basement parking is also encouraged.

Supportive of the small parklets/green spaces throughout the site as such public spaces are considered to be key focal points for the future community.

OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

Generally, the concept and master plan design approach is supported and encouraged. More refined detail is needed to fully understand the development’s design quality and functionality.

The proposed height increase to the centre area is supported, as it allows for broader dwelling mixture and typology of buildings.


Page 78

Whilst the centralised greater building height/towers are generally supported, further investigation (particularly to the northern most located towers) into overshadowing and other potential amenity impacts created on the southern portion of the site.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Overall, DAC are supportive of the general intent and contextual analysis, the collaborative design/master plan approach for the site.

Again increased height could be supported provided that the height is distributed appropriately across the site and impacts (shadow) created by the additional height is addressed and results in high quality design. It’s acknowledged that a Scheme amendment process is required to enable the sought building height.

PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of the masterplan for the subject site is to provide context and intent to guide the future coordinated design, subdivision and development of the subject area. Although the document would have no statutory status, officers nevertheless consider that there would be benefit in the Council passing a formal resolution in relation to the masterplan to give some direction to the applicant regarding Council’s views on the merits of the form of development indicated in the plan. This would not bind the Council in its future consideration of individual development applications on their merits. Having regard to the Design Advisory Committee’s comments, officers consider it would be appropriate to inform the applicant that the City supports in general terms the overall site layout, road and pedestrian connections, and range of building typologies and forms illustrated in Figure 12: Scenario 3 of the masterplan document (reproduced as Figure 6 in this report). However, it should be reiterated to the applicant that any future proposal for building heights exceeding those currently specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4 would require an amendment to LPS4 to be approved, and any proposal to amend the Scheme would need to be supported by a clear justification addressing potential overshadowing and other amenity impacts, and mechanisms to secure high design quality. The applicant is also seeking a Council resolution that addresses one specific matter. Under the current provisions in Schedule 12 of LPS4 one of the criteria to be met in order to develop at a density of R160 and a maximum building height of 24.5 metres on the subject land is:

The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 10,000 sqm within Area 4 (including Area 4a).

This requirement was included as part of scheme amendment no. 43 to encourage and incentivise a coordinated approach to development across the area as a whole, and avoid ad hoc redevelopment of individual lots in separate ownership. At the time it was not anticipated that one owner would control all of the lots in Area 4. The applicant is likely to undertake future redevelopment of the land on a staged basis, involving at an early stage a revised subdivision of the current four large lots to enable creation of the supporting road and pedestrian network and a series of development plots suitable for staged implementation over time. This could result in the site area of a


Page 79

particular development being less than 10,000 sq. m. at the time that a development application is submitted. The applicants are concerned that this could result in an interpretation of the current scheme provisions that would prevent the higher R160 density coding and 24.5m maximum building height being applied in assessing an application at a future date. Such an interpretation was not the City’s intent when scheme amendment no. 43 was introduced – the intent was to encourage what the applicant has already done i.e. assemble large land parcels and adopt a comprehensive planning approach to coordinated redevelopment of the area. The preparation of the masterplan by the applicant can be seen as part of this process. To give the developer confidence in moving forward with subdivision and development without concern that individual sites would revert to the lower R25 density code once subdivided, a resolution of Council at this time could give some indication of how this matter would be assessed through the statutory planning process when considering future subdivision and development applications in the area. There are provisions within LPS4 to vary site and development standards under clause 5.8. Clause 5.8.2 deals with variations to site and development requirements other than building height and states: 5.8.2.1 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;

(b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and

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

The requirement for a minimum land parcel of 10,000 sq. m. in order to develop at R160 density and building heights up to 24.5m is a site and development requirement under Schedule 12 of the Scheme that could be varied by Council using its discretionary power under clause 5.8.2. Officers consider that where a development proposal on land within the masterplan area demonstrates consistency with the overall layout and built form of development illustrated in the masterplan, in addition to satisfying points (a) to (c) inclusive of clause 5.8.2 above, it would be reasonable for Council to consider exercising its discretion to vary the minimum land parcel requirement in order to approve development in cases where the area of the application site is less than 10,000 sq. m. Council could resolve to inform the applicant that the above approach is likely to be taken in relation to future applications. This would not however bind Council to a particular decision in relation to any future application.


Page 80

CONCLUSION The owner of No. 2 (lots 72 and 100) and No. 4 (lot 25) Clontarf Road and No.1 (lot 72) Naylor Street, Beaconsfield has voluntarily prepared the non-statutory masterplan document described in this report to provide context and intent for the future coordinated design, subdivision and development of the subject land in accordance with the provisions of LPS4. Officers consider the owner should be commended for taking this initiative, and for engaging with the City and the Design Advisory Committee during preparation of the masterplan. Officers recommend that the land owner should be informed that the City generally supports the objectives and principles for future development set out in the masterplan. However, as the owner already recognises, any future proposal for building heights exceeding those currently specified in LPS4 would require a scheme amendment to be approved. Any such proposal to amend the Scheme would need to be supported by a clear justification addressing potential overshadowing and other amenity impacts, and mechanisms to secure high design quality. It is also recommended that the owner be advised that if a future development application demonstrates consistency with the overall form of development illustrated in the masterplan, but as a result of staging of the whole development an individual application site has an area less than the 10,000 sq. m. requirement prescribed in the Scheme provisions for this area to enable development at R160 density, the Council will entertain exercising its discretion under clause 5.8.2 of the Scheme to vary the minimum land area requirement. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Supports the preparation of the ‘Clontarf Road Masterplan’ dated June 2016 on behalf of Saracen Properties as a non-statutory document that provides context and intent to guide the future coordinated design, subdivision and development of the properties at No. 2 (lots 72 and 100) and No. 4 (lot 25) Clontarf Road and No. 1 (lot 72) Naylor Street, Beaconsfield.

2. Advises Saracen Properties that the City of Fremantle supports in general

terms the masterplan objectives and principles contained in section 4 of the ‘Clontarf Road Masterplan’ document. However, the indication within the document of potential building heights in part of the Masterplan area exceeding maximum heights currently specified in Local Planning Scheme No. 4 is a matter that would require further consideration through a scheme amendment process in order for the City to decide whether it would support any increase in maximum permissible building heights.


Page 81

3. Advises Saracen Properties that in considering applications for subdivision

or development approval relating to land currently forming any part of No. 2 (lots 72 and 100) and No. 4 (lot 25) Clontarf Road and No. 1 (lot 72) Naylor Street, Beaconsfield, the City of Fremantle will have regard to the content of the ‘Clontarf Road Masterplan’ in addition to the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. In the case of any application that would require the Council to exercise its discretionary power under clause 5.8 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to vary site and development standards and requirements in Schedule 12 of the Scheme in order for approval to be granted, the Council will have regard to whether the proposed development is generally in accordance with the built form and layout of development illustrated in the Masterplan, in addition to the considerations specified in clause 5.8.


Page 82

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 83

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

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

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

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

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

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

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


Page 84


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.

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.


Page 85


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 86

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.

Date post:	09-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duonghuong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

AGENDA - City of Fremantle Agenda 5... · ... Consideration Of Principles For Planning ... PLANNING...

Documents