MINUTES · 2018. 3. 8. · Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 September 2016 Page 2 SWEARING...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

SWEARING IN CEREMONY 2

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 3

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 5

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR 5

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 5

TABLED DOCUMENTS 5

LATE ITEMS NOTED 6

COMMITTEE REPORTS 6

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 7 SEPTEMBER 2016 6

PC1609-02 ITEM WITHDRAWN NO. 52 (LOT 2) ADELAIDE STREET, FREMANTLE -DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT (8) STOREY (PLUS BASEMENT) MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (72 X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) 6

PC1609-09 PHILLIMORE STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 1846), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (CJ DA0002/16) 7

PC1609-11 SCHEME AMENDMENT 68 - MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS - MIXED USE ZONE HAMPTON ROAD & BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - REVIEW OF BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCHEME AMENDMENT INITIATION 31

PC1609-12 CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE 54

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 12 SEPTEMBER 2016 62

SPD1609-01 KINGS SQUARE UPDATE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2016 62

SPD1609-03 INFORMATION REPORT - NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE 66

SPD1609-04 FUTURE OF FREMANTLE PORT 70

SPD1609-05 PERTH FREIGHT LINK UPDATE REPORT 72

SPD1609-06 BOUNDARY REVIEW INFORMATION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2016 75

SPD1609-07 KNUTSFORD ST DEPOT SITE REDEVELOPMENT 77

SPD1609-08 UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE - SEPTEMBER 2016 80

SPD1609-09 CITY SUBMISSION ON THE STATE GOVERNMENTS PERTH TRANSPORT PLAN 82

SPD1609-02 UPDATE ON FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - SEPTEMBER 2016 90

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND lEGISLATION COMMITTEE 14 SEPTEMBER 2016 93

FPOL1609-3 AMENDMENT TO PROCUREMENT POLICY INCLUDING THE PRINCIPLES OF NO BUSINESS IN ABUSE 93

FPOL1609-4 ADVERTISE PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD CLOSURE PORTION OF MEWS ROAD, FREMANTLE FOR AMALGAMATION WITH THE ADJOINING RESERVE NO. 27807 MANAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (DOT). 97

FPOL1609-5 LEIGHTON GREYWATER PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FEASIBILITY; EXPANSION OF FUTURE GREYWATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES GREEN PLAN 2020 WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES UPDATE 105

FPOL1609-6 APPROVAL OF LEASES: HILTON PARK BOWLING AND RECREATION CLUB INCORPORATED; AND FREMANTLE MEN'S COMMUNITY SHED INC. 115

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 124

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 124

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 124

COUNCIL ITEMS 124

C1609-1 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO THE STRATEGY AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE 124

C1609-2 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE 127

C1609-3 OVERDUE DEBTS REPORT - 31 AUGUST 2016 130

C1609-4 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - AUGUST 2016-22 SEP 2016 133

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 141

CLOSURE OF MEETING 141

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

FPOL1609-5 MINOR AMENDMENT – LEIGHTON GREYWATER PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FEASIBILITY; EXPANSION OF FUTURE GREYWATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES GREEN PLAN 2020 WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES UPDATE –SUBMITTED BY CR RACHEL PEMBERTON 4

PC1609-12 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION – CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE – SUBMITTED BY CR RACHEL PEMBERTON 5

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

28 September 2016

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 28 September 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Deputy Mayor, Cr Dave Coggin declared the meeting open at 6.01 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Cr Dave Coggin Deputy Mayor/East Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward (arrived 6.10pm) Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Beaconsfield Ward Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Officer Ms Fiona Hodges Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Graham Tattersall Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Ms Marisa Spaziani Director People & Culture Mr Tom Griffiths Acting Director City Business Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Mr Justin Lawrence Acting Manager Development Approvals Ms Annie Matan Senior Project Officer (Transport) Ms Tahnee Bunting Strategic Planning Officer Ms Chantelle Blight Public Relations Officer Ms Linda Keys Minute Secretary There were approximately 15 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.


28 September 2016

Page 2

SWEARING IN CEREMONY

At the extraordinary election held on 16 September 2016 Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge was elected as a Beaconsfield Ward Councillor. In accordance with Section 2.29 of the Local Government Act 1995 a declaration of office must be made by a person elected as a councillor in the prescribed form before acting in the office. The following member was sworn in as a Councillor for the period September 2016 to October 2017 by Mr John Alberti, Justice of the Peace: Hannah Fitzhardinge BEACONSFIELD WARD Deputy Mayor Dave Coggin welcomed Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge to Council.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Deputy Mayor/East Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Sam Naber City Ward

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-09. David Hawks The following member/s of the public spoke in relation to South Street traffic congestion and welcomed the newly appointed Councillor Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge. Andrew Luobikis Cr I Waltham arrived at 6.10 pm during public question time. The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-11: Robert Boston The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-09:


28 September 2016

Page 3

David Anthony Alex Gillian

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr D Coggin declared a financial interest in item number SPD1609-2, as he has previously worked for one of the stakeholders. Cr I Waltham declared a impartiality interest in item number FPOL1609-6, as she is a member of Hilton Bowling Club.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Cr D Coggin Cr S Naber request for a leave of absence from 28 September 2016 to 28 September 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

MOVED: Cr D Coggin Cr B Jones request for a leave of absence from 24 October 2016 – 18 November 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin


28 September 2016

Page 4

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

MOVED: Cr D Coggin Cr A Sullivan request for a leave of absence from 2 December 2016 to 19 December 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr D Hume attended LHRC Memorial Services which included the Army, Navy, and Airforce. The service was well attended. Cr J Strachan attended various meetings of the South West Group, Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) and Ross Uniting Church. Cr J Strachan also attended the Australian Electric Vehicle Association and advised the association was delighted to have representation from the City of Fremantle Council. Cr J Strachan was advised he was nominated as a Deputy Member for Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Cr S Wainwright attended the St Pat’s memorial which marked the anniversary of John Pat’s death in custody in 1983. Cr S Wainwright attended the Freight Policy Forum. It was well attended and highlighted that freight from Fremantle Port has decreased in comparison to last year. Cr J McDonald attended same sex ballroom dancing. Cr J McDonald advised the environment was warm and friendly.


28 September 2016

Page 5

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 24 August 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR

Cr Dave Coggin welcomed the new Director of Community Development, Ms Fiona Hodges.

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

1. Additional documents

a) Amedment to the officers recommendation relating to FPOL1609-5 - Leighton Greywater Public-Private Partnership Feasibility; Expansion Of Future Greywater Reuse Opportunities Green Plan 2020 Water Conservation Initiatives Update

b) Alternative recommendation relating to PC1609-12 - Consideration of principles for planning controls to limit overconcentration of fast food and restaurant uses in Fremantle City centre

2. Email from Ms Nadine Weller relating to FPOL1609-6 - Approval of Leases – Hilton Park Bowling and Recreation Club Incorporated; and Fremantle Men’s Community Shed Inc.


28 September 2016

Page 6

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 7 SEPTEMBER 2016

PC1609-02 ITEM WITHDRAWN 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)

This item was originally scheduled for the 24 August Council meeting as the due date for the RAR was 25 August. However, there were differences of legal opinion in this application and the applicant requested an extension of time to allow the lawyers to discuss. This extension was granted with a new 9 September RAR due date, which in turn allowed the item to go to the 7 September Planning Committee. The Committee considered the item and exercised its delegated authority with a 6-0 vote for an amended alternate recommendation. Due to an administrative oversight the determining body in the original Planning Committee report was not changed from Council to Committee which is why it appears on this month’s Council Agenda. As Planning Committee has exercised its delegated authority this Item will be withdrawn from the September Council meeting on 28 September.


28 September 2016

Page 7

PC1609-09 PHILLIMORE STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 1846), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (CJ DA0002/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: 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 3 – Heritage Assessment 4 – Fremantle Ports’ submission 5 – Correspondence from the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator 6 – Independent Transport review

Date Received: 5 January 2016 Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: Alexander Gillam and David Anthony Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Small Bar Use Permissibility: A


28 September 2016

Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City is in receipt of an application for works to an existing building at No. 2 Phillimore Street, Fremantle (former weighbridge) for the purposes of a Small Bar. Due to the size of the building, works are required to provide essential facilities such as toilets, as well as extending a covered area for seating. The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning requirements, as well as Heritage and Traffic, by internal and external departments. It is considered that a number of issues raised can be resolved through the imposition of conditions, or are not relevant planning concerns. On review of the issues raised by internal and external agencies in relation to parking and safety risks associated with the proposed land uses, the application is recommended for on balance conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 2 Phillimore Street, Fremantle, also known as the “Former Weighbridge”, is located to the north of Phillimore Street, Fremantle. The site is zoned City Centre under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located in the West End Conservation Area Heritage Area. It is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The site is currently has a weighbridge and associated building, and is not presently occupied by a tenant. Planning history for the site is as follows –

18 November 1999 – DA720/99 – Trading in public places (retailing other: Scoot car Hire)

28 January 2015 – Essential terms and conditions of draft lease approved by Council and Minister for Lands, however both parties are awaiting development approval before executing the final lease. The City’s Commercial Properties department has advised that it is not uncommon for lease applicants to finalise a development application prior to signing a lease, to ensure they can fulfil all requirements. It is noted that the definition of Small Bar in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) limits the number of people on site to 120 persons.

Site photographs are included as Attachment 2. DETAIL

On 5 January 2016, the City received an application for additions and alterations to an existing building for the purposes of operating a Small Bar. Since lodgement of the original plans, a number of revisions have been presented by the applicant in an attempt to rectify Heritage concerns. The revised set of plans (dated 13 May 2016) presented to Planning Committee propose the following works for the Small Bar -

Removal of parking infrastructure (sign and meter) and street light;

Planter boxes and landscaping;

Single storey additions;


28 September 2016

Page 9

Protection of existing weighbridge and scales.

Internal fit out Development plans have been provided as Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of LPS4 and local planning policies. In this particular application the areas outlined below seek discretions:

Land use; and

Car parking;

A detailed discussion regarding the above is provided in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is proposing discretionary land use and car parking. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 March 2016, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised:

Location is unsafe for pedestrians and motorists;

Access to other locations around the City will result in disturbance to residents;

Area will require more monitoring and cleaning;

Shipping containers will not complement west end architecture – should be limestone or brick;

Building too high;

Barrier suggested around road and zebra crossings;

Additional activity and enjoyment on this site welcomed;

Noise is a major concern particularly from cool room and bar equipment;

Changes to onsite parking;

Security risks in having licensed premises near building.

State Heritage Office (SHO)

Due to the subject site’s location within the West End Conservation Area, and being in the vicinity of places on the State Register of Heritage Places, the application was referred to the State Heritage Office for comment.

SHO has reviewed the proposed plan and has provided the following advice –


28 September 2016

Page 10

The proposal will not impact on the state registered places in the vicinity, or on the identified significance of the West End, Fremantle area. As such there is no objection to the proposed development.

Heritage

The City’s Heritage department has reviewed the proposal, and has provided the following recommendation –

That the current proposal be supported on heritage grounds with the following conditions:

Further detail is required on the colour and texture of zinc cladding and bin storage screen.

Further detailed information is required describing how the weighing equipment will be conserved and incorporated into the design in its original location.

That good conservation practice is employed when repairing the original masonry structure and that cement is not used in the mortar for these repairs.

Advice Note: Traditional building techniques and materials are recommended for the conservation of traditionally constructed buildings. The works should be on a like for like basis informed by inspections, including materials analysis if required, undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience in using these materials and techniques.

Conditions of approval have been recommended in accordance with the above. Full assessment is included as attachment 3.

Infrastructure and Project Delivery

The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments –

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Comment Applicant Response Planning Officer Comment

Metered ticket machine needs to be relocated to within carpark if remaining in CoF ownership.

The comments from the Infrastructure Dept. are valid concerns, some of which appear to be general comments that require further input from the COF. As such we request any of those items which require detailed input, be located by the COF on a drawing or be made conditional on the

See response from parking below.

Streetlight column shown to be relocated but no indication of where. Light serves ticket machine but also junction.

Condition of approval for lighting plan (that includes replacement of the streetlight) for the site. It is not the applicants’ responsibility to light surrounding public spaces.


28 September 2016

Page 11

All stormwater to be retained on premises.

approval. Standard condition.

Need to indicate access points for pedestrians across Phillimore Street, Cliff Street, Customs Place to the development

Condition of approval, for clear entry points to be indicated (i.e. through signage) on site.

Maintain one way access

Maintain 5.8m width throughout for access lane

This is not provided today for the entirety of the access through the carpark. Width of access has been improved with the removal of some bays. Additionally, it is not reasonable to require the applicant make changes to CoF outside of their lease area.

2 bays on the east (right) side north of the loading area will not be able to remain

These bays have been altered to become small, motorcycle bays and are no longer shown on plans.

Demarcate or construct (preferable) entrance area to clearly show aisle through area.

Provided on plans.

Liaise with parking over loss of bays

See parking comments below.

Lighting engineer should design compliant lighting for the development

Condition of approval for lighting plan for the development.

In addition to the above comments, the City commissioned an independent traffic safety audit of the proposal and existing intersection (see Attachment 6). The following table outlines the issues currently existing with the site and its associated car park –

FINDING RECOMMENDATION

Existing Conflicting Movements: The proposed development site is located within the central island of a semi-roundabout arrangement with a large number of conflicting turning movements immediately surrounding the site due to the number of intersecting side roads and as well as

Ban the existing practice of permitting access to/from the central island of the roundabout by vehicles for parking.


28 September 2016

Page 12

roads within the central island.

Pavement Markings: The Stop line for southbound vehicles approaching Phillimore Street from the circulatory carriageway is worn and faded making it difficult to observe. Drivers may be unaware of the need to stop at this intersection and not come to a complete halt prior to making a turning movement, potentially resulting in a right angle collision with an opposing vehicle

Re-mark the Stop line

The above issues have been raised with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, and will be actioned where possible. The following table relates to issues with the proposal. A condition of approval has been included in the Officers Recommendation to address the findings.

FINDING RECOMMENDATION

1. Vehicle Movements: Weighbridge Laneway The closure of the weighbridge laneway at the southern side of the roundabout is to be effected by planter boxes, storage blocks and furniture which may not be observed by road users (for instance at night). Without more conventional means to delineate the closure of the laneway, drivers may still attempt to enter the laneway and collide with patrons.

Ensure the proposed closure of the existing weighbridge laneway at either end is adequately designed/delineated to ensure vehicles do not mistakenly use the access, for instance at night when the closure may not be readily apparent to approaching drivers.

2. Pedestrian Access Arrangements: No pedestrian facilities such as kerb ramps have been proposed to allow access for the mobility impaired between the central roundabout island and the footpath network surrounding the site on the outside of the roundabout. Such, pedestrians will need to share the entrance/exit to the central island with vehicles potentially resulting in conflicts between the two road users.

Determine pedestrian desire lines to/from the site as part of a Transport Statement or Transport Impact Assessment for the development. Appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities such as kerb ramps should subsequently be provided within both the central roundabout island and the surrounding footpath on the outside of the roundabout to enable safe and direct access. Treatments such as pedestrian fencing to guide pedestrians to appropriate crossing points and hence encourage their use should be installed. Any new proposed pedestrian facilities should have an independent design stage road safety audit undertaken with the audit findings adopted.

3. Interaction with Passing Vehicles: Provide a suitable form of fence/chain to


28 September 2016

Page 13

The design shows outdoor tables/furniture located immediately adjacent to the kerb line on the eastern side of the site with no fence/barrier to separate the road from the alfresco dining/drinking area. Patrons sitting close to the edge of the kerb may inadvertently get struck by passing vehicles (e.g. by wing mirrors or vehicle overhangs). The new amenities storage block/bin store area (and new zinc panel roof allowing access to the above areas) are located immediately adjacent to the proposed kerb line of the access road. The wing mirrors of vehicles passing too close to the kerb line may accidentally collide with these structures.

prevent alfresco patrons from sitting/standing too close to the kerb. Ensure the edge of the structures are located sufficiently away from the access road kerb line. Australian Standard guidance with regards to the lateral placement of traffic signs (taken as a proxy for the above structures) indicate that the edge of the sign should be a minimum of 300mm from the kerb face (or 500mm where the mountable or semi mountable kerbs are used.

4. Vehicle Movements: Car Park Access Increasing numbers of vehicles searching for parking spaces in the public parking area adjacent to the proposed development may result in vehicles queuing back up into the roundabout whilst waiting for a parking space and/or vehicles reversing out into the roundabout from the spaces adjacent to the circulatory carriageway. This may potentially cause rear-end collisions with following vehicles on the roundabout carriageway. Vehicles may accidentally use the access road increasing the exposure to risk of any pedestrians/vehicles generated by the proposed development.

Close two parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory carriageway within the car park to allow at least one vehicle to wait clear of the circulatory carriageway within the car park. Provide a different road surface colour/texture or threshold treatment at the car park access to denote that the road serves a different purpose to the surrounding circulatory carriageway.

A full copy of the report is included in Attachment 6.

Parks and Gardens

Parks Comment Applicant Response Planning Officer Comment

Safety concern – no pram ramps connecting pedestrians to the island and the area is completely surrounded by roads

The comments from the Parks and Gardens Dept. are valid concerns, some of which appear to be general comments that require further input from the COF.

Kerb ramps have been shown on the site plan to access the site. Also as a result of the independent traffic safety audit, pedestrian desire lines will


28 September 2016

Page 14

As such we request any of those items which require detailed input, be located by the COF on a drawing or be made conditional on the approval.

be marked. This is included as a condition of approval.

CoF infrastructure relocation required

Condition of approval to relocate sign, streetlight and parking meter to appropriate location.

Footpaths should be 1.2m wide

The footpath proposed on the edge of the lease area (adjoining the car bays), is shown to be 1.2m on the plan.

600mm offset from the edge of the road required for infrastructure

Condition of approval.

Bin collection needs to be confirmed

No comments were received from the City’s Waste Department. Condition a waste management plan.

In small area such as this, road side planting is not encouraged

Given the City’s commitment to the Green Plan, planting on the site is encouraged. However, to ensure safety of pedestrians and motorists, confirmation from the Infrastructure department is recommended when choosing species. A condition of approval to provide a landscaping plan is provided in the Officers Recommendation.

Loss of 6 car bays, but addition of 1 disabled bay

18 bays previously, now 12 plus a loading bay, disabled bay, two motorcycle bays and bicycle racks.

Parking

Parking comment Applicant response Planning Officer comment

Ticket machine will need to be relocated to the nib at the other end of the car park. Approximate cost of $2500. Who is paying for this?

- The expression of interest for the site, offered the premises “as is”, with both the lease draft and applicants expression of interest documentation


28 September 2016

Page 15

Main car park sign will need to be shifted. Approx. cost of $300

acknowledging that costs are to be covered by the applicant.

Where is main car park light being relocated to? Not only necessary for the lighting of the car park but provides addition security for pedestrians in the area.

Lighting of subject site to be conditioned. Lighting of the City car park should be undertaken by the City.

Loss of 5 parking bays. Lost revenue approximately $23, 800. There is a shortage of bays in this area and it is expected that those parking in this location would move to the Fremantle Port parking area and hence the income would be lost.

Revenue for the City is not a relevant planning consideration. The City’s Commercial Properties department has confirmed that this was not considered as part of the lease.

Shortage of parking in the area. New business moving into the building across road, and it is expected their presence will increase the parking demand in this area.

This is discussed in the parking assessment below.

The proposed concerns raised by internal departments, relate largely to the movement of vehicles and pedestrians around an existing building, car park and intersection. The safety of pedestrians on the development site is something that should be considered, and a number of conditions of approval have been recommended to improve lighting and pedestrian access to the site, as well as relocating City infrastructure. Environmental Health

The Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal, and has requested the following advice notes be applied–

The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

The proponent must make application during the Building Permit application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the

mailto:[email protected]


28 September 2016

Page 16

City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

Any person proposing to alter, demolish or remove materials containing asbestos in buildings or fences must comply with the regulations that prescribe:

Under ten (10) square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos can be removed without a licence and in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Removal of more than 10 square metres must be completed by a licensed person or business for asbestos removal. All asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and accompanying regulations and the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition [NOHSC: 2002 (2005)]. Note: Removal of any amount of friable asbestos must be done by a licensed person or business and an application submitted to Worksafe, Department of Commerce. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au

The proponent must make application to establish the alfresco dining area so that the premises comply with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Alfresco Dining Areas 2014. Submit detailed plans to the City’s Licensing officer for approval prior to construction. The alfresco dining area is required to be licensed under the City’s Local Laws. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

Fremantle Ports

Fremantle Ports has reviewed the application and have raised the following concerns –

Freight rail impacts – i.e. noise and vibration impacts, and possible constraints on inner harbour operations

Pedestrian safety – Increased pedestrian activity in area with multiple vehicle access, turning and merging points increases the risk of injury or fatality.

Car parking – Site unlikely to comply with LPS4. Cumulative impacts arising over time if multiple car parking variations in West End approved.

Additionally, they have requested information on the following –

How the proposal (land use and physical development) will interface with the freight rail line to ensure that the rail line and the operations of the inner harbour are not adversely impacted;

How pedestrian safety throughout this locality will be protected given the location of the subject site within the centre of a traffic island and adjacent to the three freight rail crossings; and

How the City of Fremantle will manage any cumulative impacts in the area associated with the potential continued approval of car parking variations.

In response to the above, City officers provide the following comments –

To mitigate the impacts of the existing Freight Rail on the proposed Small Bar, a standard condition of approval for a noise management plan is recommended as


http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/



28 September 2016

Page 17

per SPP 5.4 (Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning);

Pedestrian safety is only partially the applicants responsibility for the subject site as the land is owned by the City as is the surrounding land, however the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team have reviewed the proposal and an independent traffic safety audit has been undertaken and recommended changes to the subject site that will improve this. Conditions of approval have been recommended to address these concerns. Additional parking demand is noted, however as an objective of LPS4 is to “reduce reliance on, and the impact of, private motor vehicles”, the lack of parking on site is considered to be appropriate. Also, given the prominence of heritage listed buildings in the West End, the full provision of car parking is not always appropriate as it would require demolition of heritage fabric. The alternative is refuse all change of use applications that do not meet the minimum parking requirement.

Public parking bays, street bays and multistorey car parks are also located within walking distance of the proposed land use.

Public Transport Authority

The application was referred to the Public Transport Authority, due to the subject site’s proximity to an operating railway line. The following comments were provided –

Please be advised that while the Public Transport Authority (PTA) has no objections to the building extension per se, the proposed use of ‘small bar’ is unacceptable for safety reasons. It is concerning that intoxicated bar patrons could enter the rail reserve, which may result in serious injury if not death.

Furthermore, a small bar will bring an increasing amount of people to the area which will cause additional traffic in the vicinity and at the level crossing. As such, can you please provide information regarding how the City intends to manage this issue, including the provision for additional parking bays?

These matters are addressed in the Risk section of the report below. Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) The application has been forwarded to the ONRSR on request of Fremantle Ports as there is no statutory requirement to refer the proposal to the ONRSR. A response was received on 18th February 2016, advising that they had no comment on the proposal. Further to this response, on 26 May 2016, the City received an email from the Chief Executive Officer of the ONRSR noting that while they had provided a “no comment” response, that this did not infer a “non-objection”. It was furthermore requested, that if the rail managers (PTA and Fremantle Ports), raised safety concerns, that on request, the ONRSR could provide comment on the safety concerns.

The application was re-referred to the WA Branch Director for comment on these safety concerns, who provided comment. In this comment the following was received (summarised) –


28 September 2016

Page 18

A reiteration that the ONRSR did not believe it should comment on development applications in regards to a position or level of support or objection, and only wished to make comment if the Rail Manager had safety concerns as a result of the DA;

Noted that the PTA had raised concerns about safety, and included their comments;

Comments are on safety only;

Existing risks include night operations, limited visibility around bend and level crossing;

PTA would need to consider increased risk to train operations. Potentially would need to reduce train speeds or invest in higher levels of risk controls at considerable expense.

Comment is included as Attachment 5. PLANNING COMMENT

Phillimore Street Integrated Master Plan The Phillimore Street Integrated Master Plan was developed by Fremantle Ports and the City of Fremantle in 2005.

It is noted the Weighbridge is envisaged to be upgraded for a compatible use, with the car parking area surrounded to be for an “interpretive reconstruction of the former Phillimore Gardens”. There is no elaboration on what a compatible use is, however it is considered that guidance on this should be taken by the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (see land use discussion below). None of the works to upgrade the public


28 September 2016

Page 19

area or consolidate the intersection have been undertaken, and the proposed additions are not considered to prevent this happening in the future. The proposed additions to the weighbridge would not require substantial change if the works to the adjoining public spaces went ahead, with only the alfresco area on the eastern side (occupied by minor and/or temporary structures such as bike racks and tables and chairs) likely to have to move. This could be easily accommodated within the proposed gardens on the western/northern side of the weighbridge. Land use The proposed land use of Small Bar is an ‘A’ use in the City Centre under LPS4 meaning – That the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after fiving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4 Clause 8.2 of LPS4 includes provision for a change of use to Small Bar to be exempt from requiring planning approval in the City Centre zone. This is, however only for existing buildings, and in this instance new buildings are being constructed on site. The application is therefore required to be assessed against the objectives of the City Centre zone as follows –

i) Provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

Small Bar is included in the ‘Entertainment Use Classes’ section of the Zoning Table of LPS4, and is considered to be an appropriate contributor to the mix of land uses for a regional centre. Additionally, given the Weighbridge’s separation from existing buildings, its impact on adjoining properties by way of noise or other amenity impacts, are considered to be limited.

ii) Comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12,

There are no specific objectives for this site in Schedule 12.

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

development

The application has been reviewed by the City’s Heritage department, who support the proposal with conditions, having regard to the existing building as well as the West End as a heritage area.


28 September 2016

Page 20

Car parking

Required Provided Merit based assessment

8 bays Nil 8 bays

*The parking table of LPS4 does not include a calculation for Small Bar. In this instance, in accordance with Clause 5.7.1c), the calculation for Hotel/Tavern has been used (1:2.5 sqm public bar area) The car parking calculation has been done on the extension only, as a change of use to an existing building is exempt from requiring planning approval under Clause 8.2 of LPS4.Technically, this means that the existing weighbridge structure is exempt from requiring car parking (i.e. if there were no additions proposed, no car parking would be required). To accommodate the Small Bar land use, further structures are required on site for storage and toilet facilities. Additional covered areas have also been proposed, which is the portion being assessed for car parking. Car parking is supported for the following reasons against 5.7.3.1 of LPS4 –

There is street parking in the vicinity of the development;

There is a train station and bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the development;

The previous land use of the site was approved with no car parking on site (previously required 3), reducing the discretion to five (5) car bays;

The proposal includes the restoration of a building that is considered to have some significance, and it retention limits the ability to provide parking on the small site;

Bicycle racks are proposed in the verge. Notwithstanding the above, in a number of the referral comments received back, both external and internal agencies have raised concerns with car parking in the West End. Should Planning Committee identify that this is an issue, the lack of parking provided on site could be used as reason for refusal. An alternative recommendation is provided for Committee’s consideration. Risk As outlined in the consultation section of the report an independent Transport Review was undertaken to identify potential traffic and road safety issues associated with the proposal. The report identifies several conditions of planning approval that could mitigate any safety issues as a result of the development in terms of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The majority of these findings can be encompassed into a condition of planning approval that generally requires a Traffic Impact Statement to be submitted that would 1. Remark faded stop lines to improve the legibility of the current traffic controls in the

area; 2. Ensure closure of the weighbridge at both ends by the installation of appropriate

physical barriers; 3. Determine and mark desired pedestrian lines to and from the site (eg kerb ramps,

fencing, bollards);


28 September 2016

Page 21

4. Provide a different road surface colour/texture at the car park access to improve legibility

5. Potentially close 2 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory carriageway.

The report also states that (summarised):

The site is located within the central island of a semi-roundabout arrangement with a large number of conflicting turning movements immediately surrounding the site due to the number of intersecting side roads and as well as roads within the central island.

This results in an existing undesirable situation, regardless of the type of proposed development.

Zero crashed involving road users travelling to and from the central island appear to have occurred over the past 5 years which reflects the previous safety performance of the intersection arrangement despite the large number of permitted conflicting movements.

Concerns raised with the City with regards to intoxicated pedestrians inadvertently walking along or crossing the railway tracks are noted. As part of this, specific pedestrian crossing facilities of the railway line to the south of the site that are formally controlled and prevent access when trains are approaching are known to exist. Whilst this may be the case for when trains are running, the pedestrian crossings remain open for the remainder of time. Intoxicated pedestrians wishing to cross the railway line at these alternative sites outside of train movements can potentially walk down the railway track, potentially resulting in similar concerns to those expressed for the site at Phillimore Street.

Furthermore, whilst separate pedestrian crossing facilities over the railway line exist at Wardan Lane off Mews Road to the south of the site, pedestrians can still cross underneath the barrier when it was lowered if they wished to attempt to cross the railway line. Such a location is also much closer to a higher number of restaurants and cafes selling alcohol.

Given the above, the concern that drunken pedestrians may access the railway line at the Phillimore Street site and are more at risk than elsewhere appear to be over exaggerated. In addition, whilst drivers of vehicles have a better chance to swerve or stop their vehicle prior to any collision compared to a train driver, safety concerns relating to intoxicated patrons leaving the site and walking along/crossing the rail line when a train is coming are just as valid with respect to walking in or crossing the road when vehicles are in the vicinity of the site. Accordingly, such a matter and risk is considered to be potentially more relevant for any assessment of a liquor licensing application.

Based on the above comments from the independent traffic safety audit, it is considered that the risk issues associated with potential intoxicated patrons can be addressed through the recommendations of the report which are recommended as conditions of planning approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:


28 September 2016

Page 22

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle.

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle.

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

Green Plan 2020:

No trees are proposed to be removed as part of this application. CONCLUSION AND ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION The proposed Small Bar at No. 2 Phillimore Street, Fremantle is a suitable land use, given its location within the City Centre. Additionally, it makes use of a building that is currently vacant and provides additional activation in an area of the City Centre that lacks activity. However, there are a number of outstanding issues regarding traffic and safety concerns, as well as infrastructure removal and ongoing waiving of parking requirements in the West End. These issues have been raised by internal departments, as well as external referral agencies. It is not considered that a different land use would necessarily significantly reduce any of the concerns raised. Should Planning Committee consider the safety issues raised to not be capable of resolution by imposition of relevant conditions recommended by Officers below, an alternative recommendation has been provided for refusal. That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The application does not meet the minimum car parking requirement of Table 2 – Vehicle Parking of Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

2. The site is not suitable for the land use of Small Bar, having regard to traffic and

pedestrian safety as per clause 67s) and u) of the Deemed Provisions in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 May 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.


28 September 2016

Page 23

2. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16, the recommendations outlined for the proposed development in the report by Opus International Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd dated 20 June 2016, shall implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The matters to be addressed include (but not limited to):

a. Ensure closure of the weighbridge at both ends by the installation of

appropriate physical barriers; b. Addressing of pedestrian safety through-

i. Submission of a Transport Statement or Transport Impact Assessment to determine desired pedestrian lines to and from the site;

ii. Undertaking of an independent design stage road safety audit of the statement and/or assessment and adoption of findings;

iii. Installation of recommended facilities and markings in accordance with the audit.

c. Installation of fencing and/or barrier to protect alfresco patrons; d. Ensure edge of structures separated from kerb face in accordance relevant

Australian Standard; e. Potentially close 2 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory

carriageway. f. Provide a different road surface colour/texture at the car park access to

improve legibility

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

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

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16, on

plans dated 13 May 2016, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

7. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan (including the relocation of the streetlight) must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed by a qualified person, so as to assist in providing a safe approach and exit for pedestrians accessing and occupying the site.


28 September 2016

Page 24

8. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16 on plans dated 13 May 2016, the recommendations of an approved outdoor lighting plan shall be implemented. All lighting shall be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. 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.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit further detail is required to be provided

regarding the colour and texture of zinc cladding and the bin storage screen to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to the issue of a building permit, detailed information is required describing how the weighing equipment will be conserved and incorporated into the design in its original location to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to commencement of development, documentation detailing the repair of the

original masonry structure and type of mortar to be used in this repair is to be submitted and approved by the City’s Heritage Department, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with this documentation, unless otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed Noise Management Plan must

be submitted to and approved by the City of Fremantle which demonstrates that the development has been designed to meet the relevant requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 ‘Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4). The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person in accordance with the SPP 5.4 Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant is to relocate the existing

parking sign, parking meter and streetlight to a suitable location as determined by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice notes

i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.



28 September 2016

Page 25

ii. The proponent must make application during the Building License application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. Any person proposing to alter, demolish or remove materials containing asbestos

in buildings or fences must comply with the regulations that prescribe:

Under ten (10) square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos can be removed without a licence and in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Removal of more than 10 square metres must be completed by a licensed person or business for asbestos removal. All asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and accompanying regulations and the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition [NOHSC: 2002 (2005)]. Note: Removal of any amount of friable asbestos must be done by a licensed person or business and an application submitted to Worksafe, Department of Commerce. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au

iv. The proponent must make application to establish the alfresco dining area so that

the premises comply with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Alfresco Dining Areas 2014. Submit detailed plans to the City’s Licensing officer for approval prior to construction. The alfresco dining area is required to be licensed under the City’s Local Laws. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

v. In relation to the Noise Management Plan, the City acknowledges that there may need to be concessions granted for the existing Weighbridge Building to protect existing heritage fabric.

vi. Traditional building techniques and materials are recommended for the

conservation of traditionally constructed buildings. The works should be on a like for like basis informed by inspections, including materials analysis if required, undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience in using these materials and techniques. Cement mortar is not generally appropriate for these buildings. For further advice, please contact the City’s Heritage Department on 9432 9999.

vii. The plans indicate the removal of City of Fremantle infrastructure (ie. parking

meter, street light, signage). The applicant should liaise directly with the relevant department (ie. Infrastructure and Project Delivery and Commercial Parking) prior to removing this infrastructure, to negotiate costs and relocation requirements.

In relation to the Traffic Impact Statement, the applicant is advised to contact the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate to discuss a program of works and costings required to implement the strategies outlined in the statement.





28 September 2016

Page 26

LOST 3/4 Cr J Strachan used his casting vote AGAINST the recommendation resulting in it being LOST.

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr J Strachan MOVED an Alternative Recommendation as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The application does not meet the minimum car parking requirement of Table 2 – Vehicle Parking of Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

LOST 2/4

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr J Strachan MOVED an Alternative Recommendation as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

2. The site is not suitable for the land use of Small Bar, having regard to traffic and pedestrian safety as per clause 67s) and u) of the Deemed Provisions in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

LOST 2/4

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION


28 September 2016

Page 27

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 May 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. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16, the recommendations outlined for the proposed development in the report by Opus International Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd dated 20 June 2016, shall implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The matters to be addressed include (but not limited to):

a. Ensure closure of the weighbridge at both ends by the installation of appropriate physical barriers;

b. Addressing of pedestrian safety through- i. Submission of a Transport Statement or Transport Impact

Assessment to determine desired pedestrian lines to and from the site;

ii. Undertaking of an independent design stage road safety audit of the statement and/or assessment and adoption of findings;

iii. Installation of recommended facilities and markings in accordance with the audit.

c. Installation of fencing and/or barrier to protect alfresco patrons; d. Ensure edge of structures separated from kerb face in accordance

relevant Australian Standard; e. Potentially close 2 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the

circulatory carriageway. f. Provide a different road surface colour/texture at the car park access

to improve legibility

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

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

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16, on plans dated 13 May 2016, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction


28 September 2016

Page 28

of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

7. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan (including the relocation of the streetlight) must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed by a qualified person, so as to assist in providing a safe approach and exit for pedestrians accessing and occupying the site.

8. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16 on plans dated 13 May 2016, the recommendations of an approved outdoor lighting plan shall be implemented. All lighting shall be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. 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.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit further detail is required to be provided regarding the colour and texture of zinc cladding and the bin storage screen to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to the issue of a building permit, detailed information is required describing how the weighing equipment will be conserved and incorporated into the design in its original location to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to commencement of development, documentation detailing the repair of the original masonry structure and type of mortar to be used in this repair is to be submitted and approved by the City’s Heritage Department, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with this documentation, unless otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed Noise Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Fremantle which demonstrates that the development has been designed to meet the relevant requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 ‘Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4). The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person in accordance with the SPP 5.4 Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer,


28 September 2016

Page 29

City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant is to relocate the existing parking sign, parking meter and streetlight to a suitable location as determined by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice notes

i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

ii. The proponent must make application during the Building License

application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. Any person proposing to alter, demolish or remove materials containing

asbestos in buildings or fences must comply with the regulations that prescribe: Under ten (10) square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos can be removed without a licence and in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Removal of more than 10 square metres must be completed by a licensed person or business for asbestos removal. All asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and accompanying regulations and the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition [NOHSC: 2002 (2005)]. Note: Removal of any amount of friable asbestos must be done by a licensed person or business and an application submitted to Worksafe, Department of Commerce. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au

iv. The proponent must make application to establish the alfresco dining area

so that the premises comply with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Alfresco Dining Areas 2014. Submit detailed plans to the City’s Licensing officer for approval prior to construction. The alfresco dining area is required to be licensed under the City’s Local Laws. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.






28 September 2016

Page 30

v. In relation to the Noise Management Plan, the City acknowledges that there may need to be concessions granted for the existing Weighbridge Building to protect existing heritage fabric.

vi. Traditional building techniques and materials are recommended for the conservation of traditionally constructed buildings. The works should be on a like for like basis informed by inspections, including materials analysis if required, undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience in using these materials and techniques. Cement mortar is not generally appropriate for these buildings. For further advice, please contact the City’s Heritage Department on 9432 9999.

vii. The plans indicate the removal of City of Fremantle infrastructure (ie. parking meter, street light, signage). The applicant should liaise directly with the relevant department (ie. Infrastructure and Project Delivery and Commercial Parking) prior to removing this infrastructure, to negotiate costs and relocation requirements.

In relation to the Traffic Impact Statement, the applicant is advised to contact the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate to discuss a program of works and costings required to implement the strategies outlined in the statement. SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 31

Cr B Jones vacated the chamber at 6.52 pm during the following item and returned at 6.53 pm prior to determination.

PC1609-11 SCHEME AMENDMENT 68 - MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS - MIXED USE ZONE HAMPTON ROAD & BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - REVIEW OF BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCHEME AMENDMENT INITIATION

ECM Reference: 218/075 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PC1603-9 and PC1605-8 Attachments: 1. Previous item PC1603-9 – minutes of OCM 23 March

2016 2. Previous item PC1605-8 – minutes of OCM 25 May

2016 3. Schedule of submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to report back to Council on the submissions received on the Brockman Place and Hampton Road boundary of the area proposed to be subject to amendment no. 68 to Local Planning Scheme 4 and recommend that Council reconsider the initiation of the scheme amendment.


28 September 2016

Page 32

On 25 May 2016 Council resolved to revoke a previous resolution to initiate scheme amendment 68 (PC1603-9) after legal advice raised concerns about the procedure and validity of the resolution made under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. As part of the 25 May 2016 resolution Council resolved to seek landowner comment on two options for the boundary of the scheme amendment area that Council had considered previously:

Option 1: Original Officer and Planning Committee Recommendation - includes all of the mixed use zone lots within Brockman Place and Hampton Road in the amendment area.

Option 2: Previous March 2016 Council resolution – includes only the lots in the southern portion of the Brockman Place and Hampton Road mixed use zone in the amendment area.

Comments were sought from affected landowners in June and July. The City received six submissions on the boundary options: five from private landowners and one from Main Roads WA. All five private landowner submissions stated a preference for the option 1 scheme amendment area. It is recommended that Council resolve to initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) in line with Council’s previous resolution, which excludes those lots on the northern side of Brockman Place. However, if having regard to the submissions received Council now considers it would be preferable to include the entire Brockman Place/ Hampton Road area in the scheme amendment area as originally proposed, wording for an alternative recommendation to this effect is included in the Conclusion section of this item. BACKGROUND On 2 March 2016 Planning Committee considered a report relating to a proposed amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) to apply revised development controls under Schedule 12 of LPS4 to properties in the Mixed Use zoned area adjoining Hampton Road and Brockman Place, South Fremantle (item PC1603-9). The intent of the proposed amendment would be to introduce new development provisions into LPS4 to enable redevelopment of the area. The planning requirements proposed in the amendment are summarised in the table 1 below. Table 1. Scheme amendment No. 68 proposed planning requirements

Provisions Current LPS4 requirements Proposed planning requirements

Zoning Mixed use Mixed use - No change

Density R25 R25 to remain as the ‘base’ coding. Up to R100, R160 and R-AC3 depending on development site area and where certain development standards are met.

Sub area Within South Fremantle LPA in Schedule 12 – no specific sub area applicable

Specific sub area within the South Fremantle LPA in Schedule 12 with specific development standards applicable.


28 September 2016

Page 33

Height 7.0m external wall height A range of building heights (up to 15m, 17.5m and 24.5m) depending on development site size and where certain development standards are met.

Setback Not prescribed Properties fronting Hampton Road to be setback a minimum of 15m Nil setback to all other boundaries.

Planning Committee resolved to support the amendment in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. As the Planning Committee does not have delegated authority to make decisions on scheme amendments, the item was subsequently considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 March 2016. Prior to consideration of the item by Council, an elected member gave notice of a proposed amendment to the Committee and Officer’s recommendation. The proposed amendment made changes to the boundary of the area to be subject to the development provisions in Scheme Amendment No. 68 and as a consequence removed the following properties from the scheme amendment area:

No. 223 (Lot 304) Hampton Road



No. 7 (Lot 49) Brockman Place

No. 8 (Lot 47) Brockman Place

No. 9 (Lot 48) Brockman Place Reason for change to officer's recommendation:

To exclude certain key areas that require a more coordinated approach to planning than can be achieved through this scheme amendment. This will allow for further investigation into these larger sites to the north of Brockman Place and the opportunity to consider further the road linkages, Public Open Space and potential green links.

On 23 March 2016 Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 68 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 on the basis of the amended recommendation described above (refer to attachment 1). The City subsequently received correspondence on behalf of one of the affected landowners which raised concerns about the validity of the resolution passed by Council on 23 March 2016. As a result Council revoked the 23 March 2016 Council decision on scheme amendment 68 at the 25 May 2016 Ordinary meeting of Council (refer to attachment 2). At the same time Council resolved to reconsider the amendment following consultation with landowners regarding options for the boundary of the area to be covered by the scheme amendment. CONSULTATION Landowner Consultation

As resolved on 25 May 2016 all landowners within the proposed scheme amendment area were contacted after the revocation resolution. Comments were sought from landowners to determine their view on the two boundary options for the scheme


28 September 2016

Page 34

amendment area that had been before Planning Committee and Council in March 2016. A request for submissions was sent to landowners on 7 June 2016 and closed on 26 July 2016. During this period a total of 5 submissions from private landowners within the area and one from Main Roads WA were received. The private landowner submissions were generally supportive of the original boundary as recommend by officers to Planning Committee, which includes all lots zoned Mixed Use in the Brockman Place/Hampton Road area. Additional comments were made in relation to the primary street setback to Hampton Road and minimum lot size requirements. These comments along with the two boundary options are discussed in the planning comments section of this report. Refer to attachment 3 for the full schedule of submissions. Public Notification

Should Council resolve to initiate this amendment to the Scheme, the amendment will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment, prior to the commencement of advertising. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Town Planning (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a standard amendment and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Approvals.

PLANNING COMMENT The comments provided within this section of the report specifically detail the two boundary options for proposed scheme amendment 68. Discussion on the proposed amendment provisions is contained within the previous 23 March 2016 report to Council (refer to attachment 1). The proposed provisions of the scheme amendment also comprise the officer recommendation for this item. As part of the 25 May 2016 resolution Council resolved to seek landowner comment on two options for the boundary of the amendment area previously considered by Council:

Option 1: Original Officer and Planning Committee Recommendation - Includes all of the mixed use zone lots within Brockman Place and Hampton Road in the amendment area

Option 2: Previous (now revoked) Council resolution – Includes only the lots in the southern part of the Brockman Place and Hampton Road mixed use zone in the amendment area.

A comparison of these two options is provided in the table below (Table 2).


28 September 2016

Page 35

Table 2. Comparison of boundary options for the Scheme amendment area

Option 1 – Original recommendation Option 2 – March 2016 Council resolution

Area: Option 1 scheme amendment area includes all 14 of the mixed use zoned lots in the Brockman Place/Hampton Road area.

Area: Option 2 scheme amendment area is reduced in size compared to option 1. It includes seven lots located in the southern part of the mixed use zone area adjoining Brockman Place/Hampton Road.

Purpose: The additional development requirements of this option would allow for comprehensive redevelopment of the Brockman Place Mixed Use zoned area. The approach reflects a similar approach taken on the opposite side of Hampton Road in Scheme amendment No. 43 - the Strang Street area. Scheme amendment 43 introduced into LPS4 provisions to revitalise and redevelop the Strang Street locality by rezoning the properties and providing additional development requirements up to a density of R-AC3.

Purpose: The additional development requirements of this option would allow for redevelopment in the southern part of the mixed use zone only. A separate planning exercise, probably culminating in another scheme amendment would be required for the northern part of the original amendment area and could additionally include the South Fremantle shopping centre lots to the north. The purpose of this separate amendment process would be to coordinate development and access in the area including consideration of possible new/revised road connections.


28 September 2016

Page 36


Reason for the approach: Landowners in Brockman Place approached the City in 2014 and expressed interest in possible revitalisation opportunities for the area. Initial discussions occurred with several landowners on Brockman Place and the west side of Hampton Road as well as some interested land owners to the east of Hampton Road. Due to the large interest expressed by those in the area west of Hampton Road, the original recommended boundary accounted for all of the existing Mixed Used zoned lots in this area.

Reason for the approach: To allow for development in a more restricted area of Brockman Place in the short to medium-term. Through a separate planning exercise further investigation can then be undertaken into the development opportunity of the remainder of the Brockman Place mixed use zone and also the South Fremantle shopping centre Local centre zoned area. Consideration of additional road linkages, potential Public Open Space and additional green links can also be included in the exercise, which might ultimately result in a separate scheme amendment.

Development outcomes: The scheme amendment provisions will enable redevelopment opportunities to occur consistently across the mixed use zoned lots in the short to medium-term [once gazetted]. Depending on site area and access development could occur at a density of R100, R160 or RAC-3 and heights of 15m, 17.5m or 24.5m respectively.

Development outcomes: Redevelopment of those lots in the southern part of Brockman Place will be able to develop in the short to medium-term [once gazetted]. Depending on site area and access development could occur at a density of R100, R160 or RAC-3 and heights of 15m, 17.5m or 24.5m, respectively. An uncertain timeframe would apply to the northern lots as further studies, investigation and landowner coordination and engagement would be required. It would be premature to comment now on the development outcomes for the northern lots that might eventuate from such a planning exercise.

Potential consequences: This option may compromise longer term comprehensive redevelopment of a broader area.

Potential consequences: The option removes the certainty of future potential redevelopment of the northern lots in Brockman Place in the short to medium term future under the proposed amendment. Redevelopment of the lots north of Brockman Place would be uncertain until more work including extensive landowner consultation and probably an additional scheme amendment can be completed.


28 September 2016

Page 37


Landowner views: All five of the submissions received from private landowners on the amendment’s boundary options stated a preference for option 1.

Landowner views: In the submissions received on the amendment’s boundary options no submission showed a preference for option 2.

Resources required: The amendment is straightforward and can be accommodated within current officer workload and resources.

Resources required: The current amendment is straightforward and can be accommodated within current officer workload and resources. The additional planning work involved in preparation of a ‘masterplan’ or similar document to guide a potential future scheme amendment to facilitate a more comprehensive redevelopment of a larger area including the northern part of Brockman Place and other land to the north is not provided for in the 2016/2017 budget or strategic planning work program. A provisional project to undertake this work has been listed for consideration as part of the 2017/18 budget, subject to further clarification of the scale and extent of required community engagement.

The proposed development controls (applicable to both options) respond to the differing lot sizes and potential access arrangements through the use of specific development standards (e.g. sites larger than 4000 sq m and/or with acceptable access arrangements have the opportunity for higher density development). The development controls are considered to be flexible enough to allow for comprehensive development to occur while still ensuring minimum standards are achieved. The original recommendation (Option 1) boundary would allow for redevelopment of all of the lots in the Mixed Use zoned area. The option is supported by the landowners that responded to the City’s request for comment on the options. Conversely, option 1 may reduce opportunities to secure broader planning outcomes across a larger area, as landowners who might redevelop under the proposed scheme amendment provisions may have little interest or incentive to participate in a broader planning exercise. Option 2 which omits the northern lots in Brockman Place from the amendment area (as shown in the map and discussion above), would preserve the opportunity for a more comprehensive approach to future redevelopment of the wider area including possibly the South Fremantle shopping centre and could consider the potential for revised road layouts, the provision of Public Open Space and potential green links. However these outcomes would require more extensive support from a greater number of landowners and potentially the use of statutory mechanisms such as a developer contribution scheme to equitably fund outcomes such as new public open space or acquisition of land to accommodate new road connections. As stated in the table above this further work


28 September 2016

Page 38

beyond the scope of the current scheme amendment would require additional resources and could not realistically be started until the 2017-2018 year at the earliest, subject to budget and other resource requirements. For consistency with Council’s previous (although subsequently revoked) March 2016 resolution, officers recommend initiation of scheme amendment 68 on the basis that the area subject to the amendment should be limited to the area defined by the ‘option 2’ boundary. However, all the landowner submissions strongly support the scheme amendment applying to the area defined by the ‘option 1’ boundary. If having regard to these submissions Council now considers it would be preferable to include the entire Brockman Place/ Hampton Road area in the scheme amendment area as originally proposed, wording for an alternative recommendation to this effect is included in the Conclusion section of this item below. Other points raised in submissions Primary street setback requirements for Hampton Road The amendment (regardless of boundary option) proposes a 15m setback from Hampton Road. Vehicle parking within this setback area is not mandated in the amendment. All five of the landowner submissions questioned the need for the proposed minimum 15m primary street setback requirement. Rowe Group on behalf of their client provided the following comment - Application of a 15m setback to Hampton Road for development at the subject site is considered inappropriate and unnecessary for the following reasons:

The proposed 15m setback is excessive and unnecessary as a BRT could be located in the existing road reservation;

Hampton Road is to become a key arterial route and therefore development along Hampton Road should be more compact to create a more interactive urban interface;

It is premature to resolve to impose a 15m setback to the subject site as the mode and route for any proposed public transport network alterations remain unresolved between the interfacing local authorities of the City of Fremantle and the City of Cockburn; and

Hampton Road has not been earmarked for future road widening by Main Roads Western Australia.

The reason officers propose the 15m setback from Hampton Road is twofold - 1. To respond to the potential bulk of development by including a setback distance

for buildings viewed from Hampton Road. 2. To provide consistency with the setbacks required introduced on the opposite side

of Hampton Road in the Strang Street area. Additionally, the setback would ensure that any new development as a result of scheme amendment 68 does not undermine or compromise the future use of Hampton Road as a


28 September 2016

Page 39

Bus Rapid Transit Corridor and as a key north-south connection to Fremantle and Cockburn. Main Roads WA stated in their submission: As Council is aware this precinct will be impacted by future widening of Hampton Road and Cockburn Road and to accommodate the proposed Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) alignment which is still in the early planning stages. The State Government’s draft Perth Transport Plan which is currently the subject of public consultation identifies Fremantle to Cockburn Coast as a planned high priority public transit corridor which could be served by either bus rapid transit or light rapid transit. Accordingly, it is considered the scheme amendment provisions as currently recommended provide enough flexibility for any future redevelopment to be compatible with any upgrades to Hampton Road, which the Department of Transport may ultimately implement. Consequently no change to the proposed 15m setback requirement is recommended at this stage. Minimum lot sizes The amendment proposes additional density and height where certain criteria can be met. These are summarised in table 3 below. Table 3. Proposed amendment provisions

Density height Proposed criteria to be met

R100 15m Applicable to development sites fronting Hampton Road with access from Hampton Road and below ground or rear parking provided

R160

17.5m Applicable where development is accessed from an alternative public road to Hampton Road and below ground or rear parking provided

RAC-3 24.5m 4000 sqm development site Development accessed from alternative public road other than Hampton Road and below ground or rear parking provided

One landowner submission suggested that smaller lots should have the same or similar redevelopment potential so that redevelopment can appear consistent within the adjoining larger lots, in density and height. The intent of requiring minimum lot sizes for development is to ensure that the uniquely smaller sized lots are appropriately developed depending on their size. The larger sized lots have a greater capacity to incorporate additional heights and density without resulting in overdevelopment of the lot. For this reason the larger lots within the area have been provided with additional development height and density. Additionally the minimum lot size requirements may encourage coordination between lots and the opportunity for amalgamation and shared visioning for future redevelopment. CONCLUSION


28 September 2016

Page 40

It is recommended that Council resolve to initiate amendment 68 to LPS4 with the option 2 scheme amendment boundary. The introduction of development standards to trigger density increases are intended to work similarly to the adjacent mixed use area along Hampton Road. The amendment will allow for redevelopment at increased density when specific development standards are met, to assist in the delivery of a southern gateway into Fremantle along the Hampton Road corridor. If however Council prefers on balance to initiate this amendment to apply to the larger area defined by the option 1 boundary (i.e. the entire mixed use zone area as originally recommended by officers and Planning Committee in March 2016), wording for an alternative recommendation has also been provided below. Alternative Recommendation:

Should Council now consider that it would be preferable to include the entire Brockman Place/ Hampton Road area in the scheme amendment area as originally proposed, the following map and setback table would be applicable to replace those contained in part 1 (a) of the Officer’s recommendation:

Site Frontage to: Minimum Street Setback (metres)

Minimum side and rear setbacks

No. 223 Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil




28 September 2016

Page 41

No. 229A Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil

No. 229A Hampton Road Brockman Place Nil Nil

No. 229B Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil

No. 229B Hampton Road Brockman Place Nil Nil


No. 233-235 Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Council resolves that:

1. Pursuant to regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to prepare the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

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

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

4.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub Area 4.3.7


28 September 2016

Page 42

Within sub area 4.3.7, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC. Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land use will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road. In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton Road, the ground floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Setbacks Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in the table below:









No. 233-235 Hampton Road

Hampton Road 15 Nil

A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle. To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres. Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street setback area of any Lot. Additional development standards In applying (k) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 4.3.7; Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply;


28 September 2016

Page 43

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

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

Additional development standards

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

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



Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

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


28 September 2016

Page 44

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



The development site comprises of a minimum land area of 4,000 square metres. Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

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

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

2. In its opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following reasons:

(a) this scheme amendment is an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(b) this scheme amendment is an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;

(c) this scheme amendment is an amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.

3. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the relevant

Scheme Amendment documentation.

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

5. That the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days

commencing on the day on which the notice is published in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area.

6. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western

Australian Planning Commission for information.


28 September 2016

Page 45

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council resolves that:





Sub Area 4.3.7


28 September 2016

Page 46













A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle. To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres. Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street setback area of any Lot. Additional development standards In applying (k) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 4.3.7; Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply;


28 September 2016

Page 47

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








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




28 September 2016

Page 48




2. In its opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following reasons: (a) this scheme amendment is an amendment that would have minimal impact

on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment; (b) this scheme amendment is an amendment that does not result in any

significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;


3. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the relevant

Scheme Amendment documentation.


5. That the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days

commencing on the day on which the notice is published in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area.

6. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western

Australian Planning Commission for information.


28 September 2016

Page 49

Cr A Sullivan MOVED: To defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council. To enable consideration of this matter to be dealt with at an informal elected member meeting. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright LOST: 4/6

For Against

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr David Hume Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Bryn Jones Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council resolves that:





Sub Area


28 September 2016

Page 50

4.3.7







28 September 2016

Page 51








A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle. To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres. Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street setback area of any Lot. Additional development standards In applying (k) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 4.3.7; Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply; A portion of lot area of 229B Hampton Road, not less than 6m in width, to be provided for the length of the lot only where the common boundary of 1/6 Brockman Place is shared. This portion of the land shall be transferred at no cost to the City of Fremantle to provide an east west linkage between Brockman Place and the Former South Fremantle Landfill site for the purpose of a landscaped dual use path; and Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:





Criteria to be met in order for additional Additional development


28 September 2016

Page 52

development standards to apply standards


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






2. In its opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following reasons: (a) this scheme amendment is an amendment that would have minimal

impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(b) this scheme amendment is an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;


3. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the

relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.


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


28 September 2016

Page 53

circulating in the scheme area.

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

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 7/3

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright


28 September 2016

Page 54

PC1609-12 CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE

ECM Reference: 117/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: None

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration some key principles which could form the basis of an amendment to the local planning scheme and a local planning policy to address the potential negative impacts of an overconcentration of Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant land uses upon the character and vitality of Fremantle city centre. On several occasions recently some elected members have expressed concern to officers regarding this issue. Should Council wish to direct officers to undertake further work on this issue, the principles set out in this report will be used to guide the drafting of local planning scheme and policy provisions which will subsequently be reported back to Council for further consideration. BACKGROUND

On several occasions recently some elected members have expressed concern to officers regarding the potential negative effects of a high concentration of certain land uses upon the character and vitality of Fremantle city centre, especially in the city’s primary commercial streets. In particular, concern has been expressed about the possible impacts of a large number of fast food outlet uses, including uses which may function as a dual takeaway and dine-in (i.e. restaurant) operation, concentrating their location in relatively few streets. This report outlines some of the key planning and economic development policy considerations associated with this issue. It also identifies, in principle, an approach to amending the current statutory planning framework controlling changes of land use in the city centre which could be adopted in the event that elected members do wish to exercise a greater degree of control over certain uses. Should Council wish to direct officers to undertake further work on this issue, the principles set out in this report will be used to guide the drafting of local planning scheme and policy provisions which will be reported back to Council for further consideration. Like traditional town and city centres in many parts of the world, Fremantle is facing the challenge of significant changes in the role of the ‘high street’ as a result of a range of


28 September 2016

Page 55

social and economic trends, including alternative forms of retailing. A common theme of many studies which have been undertaken in the last few years into strategies to revitalise traditional high streets is the importance of differentiation from other centres, building on the unique attributes and character of a particular place to attract people to visit. A related issue is the importance of providing a diversity of offerings in terms of retail, leisure and other services. Uses other than traditional shops have for a long time been an important part of Fremantle’s attraction ‘mix’ – the prime example being the clustering of food and drink hospitality uses along the ‘Cappuccino Strip’ section of South Terrace. Whilst clusters of similar uses such as this can undoubtedly act as a positive feature which attracts people and consequently expenditure into a centre, if taken to extremes an over-concentration of a single use or narrow range of similar uses can have the opposite effect. This was highlighted in submissions made to the Economy Committee of the London Assembly in the preparation of its report ‘Open for Business: Empty shops on London’s high streets’ published in March 2013: ‘The Committee has heard that reduced diversity has an impact on footfall, because fewer people will be attracted to the high street. Jenefer Greenwood, former Director of Sales and Lettings at property firm Grosvenor, explained the impact of over-concentration: “People stop coming. People stop visiting. It is driving down value to the community because you do not have, yet again, another offer. It is a replication. Actually, it does not matter whether it is a betting shop or a mobile phone shop. It is the users. You just do not want six out of ten shops the same. It is the variety and it is the palette that you are offering that brings people to the high streets”.’ In the context of Fremantle city centre as a whole, a replication of the level of concentration of food and drink uses that exists along the Cappuccino Strip in other streets might therefore be seen as detrimental to the overall diversity of uses within the centre which is important to the vitality and attractiveness of Fremantle CBD and its ability to service the full range of needs of residents and visitors. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The basis of statutory planning control over land uses is the level of permissibility granted to a particular use in any specified zone through the zoning table in the local planning scheme – Table 1 in the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Each land use class defined in the Scheme is designated as falling within one of the following categories of permissibility, on a zone-by-zone basis: Permitted (‘P’) – the use is permitted without planning approval (however ‘works’ associated with the use, e.g. a new shopfront, may require approval even if the use does not); Discretionary (‘D’ or ‘A’) – the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval (the difference between a ‘D’ and ‘A’ use is that an application for approval of an ‘A’ use must be advertised for comment prior to determination);


28 September 2016

Page 56

Not permitted (‘X’) – the use is not permitted in the zone in question under any circumstances. The land uses (as defined in LPS4) which are relevant to the subject matter of this report are: Fast food outlet: means premises used for the preparation, sale and serving of food to customers in a form ready to be eaten without further preparation, primarily off the premises, but does not include a lunch bar or restaurant. Restaurant: means premises where the predominant use is the sale and consumption of food and drinks on the premises and where seating is provided for patrons, and includes a restaurant licensed under the Liquor Control Act 1988 but does not include Hotel, Tavern, Small Bar, Licensed Premises-Other or Night Club. Lunch bar: means premises or part of premises used for the sale of takeaway food (in a form ready to be consumed without further preparation) within industrial or commercial areas. ‘Lunch bar’ is a land use intended to be applicable to industrial areas, not main activity centres. However, currently this land use is permissible in the City Centre zone and therefore recommendations later in this report are proposed to apply to lunch bar as well as fast food uses to avoid any anomalies. These land use definitions are taken from the Model Scheme Text produced by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and are expected to be used in all local planning schemes without modification. In the zoning table in LPS4, within the City Centre zone the land uses ‘Fast Food Outlet’ and ‘Lunch Bar’ are currently ‘P’ uses and Restaurant is an ‘A’ use. However, notwithstanding the effect of the zoning table which would ordinarily require planning approval to be obtained for any proposal to use a property as a restaurant (by virtue of its designation as an ‘A’ use), under current clause 8.2(s) of LPS4 a change of use of an existing building in the City Centre zone to a Restaurant (or alternatively to a Shop, Small Bar, Office or Consulting Rooms) may occur without planning approval being required. This provision was introduced into LPS4 by Council in 2013 (scheme amendment no. 52) in order to streamline the planning process for certain changes of use in the city centre. Consequently under the current provisions of LPS4 the use of any property in the City Centre zone as either a Fast Food Outlet (or Lunch Bar) or a Restaurant could commence without planning approval being required (subject to no associated physical works to the building which in themselves require planning approval being involved). LPS4 defines objectives for each zone. The objectives for the City Centre zone are as follows: Development within the city centre zone shall –


28 September 2016

Page 57

(i) Provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community uses, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) Comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12, (iii) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by

development. The aims of the Scheme (clause 1.6.1 of LPS4) include:

(i) Develop a diverse and attractive city centre that functions as a town centre and a regional centre.

CONSULTATION

None applicable at this time. Should Council resolve at a future date to amend the local planning scheme and/or prepare a local planning policy to address the issues discussed in this report, appropriate consultation would need to be carried out which might include stakeholder engagement prior to or in addition to formal statutory consultation processes. PLANNING COMMENT

It is generally accepted that the planning system has a legitimate and useful role to play in managing the functioning and wellbeing of town and city centres through regulation of the location of particular land uses. However a challenging issue for planning authorities is how to determine what degree of regulation is appropriate – how to provide reasonable flexibility to accommodate changes resulting from normal market forces and at the same time ensure sufficient diversity of land uses is maintained to provide a vibrant, interesting centre with sufficient choice of uses and facilities to serve the needs of all sectors of the community. Takeaway food, and restaurant, uses have a role to play in contributing to the overall mix of uses, particularly at street level, which enliven town centres and help attract people to them. However in some planning jurisdictions (more commonly in the UK than in Australia) it is recognised that an overabundance of the same use, especially when concentrated into a small area e.g. a single section of the same street, can detract from the vitality of the centre. An overconcentration of a single use in one location is likely to mean that only people who are consumers of the product or service offered by that use are likely to visit that part of the centre, rather than the street attracting a range of visitors for different purposes. A further factor with takeaway food and restaurant uses is that they tend to have different opening hours to retail shops or high street service uses such as banks – generally opening later in the morning and staying open into the evening. Whilst this can have night time place activation benefits, the downside is that streets with high concentrations of takeaway food and restaurant uses can feel ‘dead’ in the earlier part of mornings, especially on week days. A balanced mix of uses can help optimise the sense of activation in a street because different types of businesses may operate different trading hours which in combination cover an extended portion of each day. In response to these issues some planning authorities have adopted policies which seek to limit the overall quantity and/or the clustering and concentration of specific land uses in centres, especially in what are deemed to be key commercial streets, in order to maintain the vitality, viability and amenity of the centre. Examples of such policies vary in


28 September 2016

Page 58

their detail, but a common feature is the use of some form of control to limit the clustering of the same specified use(s) in close proximity – e.g. no more than ‘x’ number of the same use will be permitted in adjoining premises, no more than ‘x’% of the total number of properties in a street frontage shall be approved for the same use, no more than ‘x’ metres of frontage in the same use. If elected members are minded to support the introduction of a similar form of control in Fremantle city centre, a local planning policy would be the most appropriate planning instrument through which to exercise such control. Further comment on this matter is provided below under the heading ‘Local planning policy considerations’. Local planning scheme considerations A local planning policy can only be applied to the assessment of changes of use which require planning approval. Under current provisions of the local planning scheme, as explained in the previous Statutory and Policy Assessment section of this report, the use (as distinct from any physical works such as a new shopfront) of any property in the City Centre zone as either a Fast Food Outlet or a Restaurant can occur without planning approval being required. If the Council wishes to exercise greater control over the location of either or both of these uses, as a first step LPS4 will need to be amended to require planning approval to be obtained for these uses. This would involve the following:

In the case of Fast Food Outlet (and Lunch Bar) uses, amending the zoning table (Table 1) to make these land uses a ‘D’ or ‘A’ use instead of a ‘P’ use in the City Centre zone (officers consider ‘A’, meaning all applications would be required to be advertised, would be most appropriate);

If Council also wished to exercise greater control over the location of Restaurant uses, delete ‘Restaurant’ from the list of uses referred to in clause 8.2(s). Because Restaurant is already designated an ‘A’ use in the City Centre zone in the zoning table, planning approval would then be required for all proposed restaurant uses in this zone.

It should be noted that because of the wording of the land use definition of ‘Restaurant’ (see Statutory and Policy Assessment section above), businesses which might give an initial impression of being a Fast Food Outlet actually operate in manner consistent with the definition of a Restaurant because they provide seating for customers. A further complication is the existence of businesses which effectively operate as a dual use of Fast Food Outlet and Restaurant, i.e. the trade of the business is split almost equally between food and drink consumed on the premises and off the premises. In order to avoid complex interpretation and compliance issues, officers recommend that if Council does wish to exercise greater locational control over food and drink-related uses the approach should apply to both of the above land uses. A scheme amendment incorporating both of the dot points above would achieve this by requiring planning approval to be obtained for the commencement of any Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant use in the City Centre zone, unless the subject property already has a current planning approval for such use. Local planning policy considerations If Council does support amending LPS4 to make both Fast Food/Lunch Bar and Restaurant discretionary (‘A’) uses in the City Centre zone, it would be appropriate to also adopt a local planning policy to guide the Council in exercising its discretionary power to approve such uses.


28 September 2016

Page 59

As a starting point for drafting such a policy, officers suggest that it should be based on the principles outlined below. It would be helpful to obtain Council’s preliminary direction on these principles prior to undertaking further work on this issue.

1. The purpose of the policy is not to prevent the establishment of new Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant uses in the city centre, but rather to prevent excessive concentrations of such uses in particular locations e.g. in a single section of the same street frontage.

2. The policy should apply to all uses which fall within the land use definitions of Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant contained in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

3. The policy measure used to avoid over-concentration of similar uses should be expressed in a quantitative manner, but must be easily understood and capable of assessment without reliance on complex calculations and/or data which requires regular updating. Best practice examples of similar policies already used in other planning jurisdictions should be considered in preparing the draft policy.

4. The policy measure referred to in 3 above should not apply to defined street frontages which constitute the existing ‘Cappuccino Strip’, in recognition that this area performs a unique function as part of Fremantle city centre’s overall retail, hospitality and tourism ‘offer’.

5. With the exception of defined street frontages referred to in 4 above, the policy should apply to all land zoned City Centre in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

6. The policy should include guidance on exceptional circumstances in which proposals that do not comply with the policy measure to limit over-concentration referred to in 3 above may nevertheless be approved, e.g. premises which have remained vacant for a long period despite active marketing at a realistic market value, or forced relocation of an existing business at the end of a lease period where relocation options are limited.

7. The policy should include guidance on design matters relating to physical alterations to premises associated with a proposed Fast Food Outlet or Restaurant use, to encourage development which is compatible with Fremantle city centre’s distinctive architectural character and cultural heritage significance rather than generic, brand-related design approaches.

Subject to Council’s feedback on the above matters at this stage, officers will prepare a further report setting out the details of a recommended local planning scheme amendment and local planning policy for Council’s further consideration. CONCLUSION This report outlines a possible approach to stricter control through the planning system over the location of Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant uses in Fremantle city centre, which the Council may wish to adopt in response to concern which has been informally expressed by some elected members regarding the potential negative impacts of an overconcentration of such land uses upon the character and vitality of the city centre. If Council do wish to support further work on this issue, the principles set out in this report and in the recommendation below will be used to guide the drafting of local planning scheme and policy provisions which will be reported back to Council for further consideration.


28 September 2016

Page 60

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr Jon Strachan That Council:

1. Resolves that, in principle, it does wish to exercise a greater degree of control than currently applies through the local planning scheme over the location of new Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant uses in Fremantle city centre, in order to safeguard against the potential negative impacts of an overconcentration of such land uses upon the character and vitality of the city centre.

2. Subject to adoption of recommendation 1 above, authorises officers to prepare an

amendment to Local Planning scheme No. 4 to:

Amend the zoning table (Table 1) to make the land uses ‘Fast Food Outlet’ and ‘Lunch Bar’ both ‘A’ uses instead of a ‘P’ use in the City Centre zone; and

Delete ‘Restaurant’ from the list of land uses referred to in clause 8.2(s).

3. Subject to recommendation 1 above, authorises officers to prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the determination of development applications for changes of use to Fast Food Outlet (and Lunch Bar) and Restaurant uses in the City centre zone. The draft policy shall be based on the following principles:

i. The purpose of the policy is not to prevent the establishment of new Fast Food

Outlet/Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant uses in the city centre, but rather to prevent excessive concentrations of such uses in particular locations e.g. in a single section of the same street frontage.

ii. The policy should apply to all uses which fall within the land use definitions of Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant contained in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

iii. The policy measure used to avoid over-concentration of similar uses should be expressed in a quantitative manner, but must be easily understood and capable of assessment without reliance on complex calculations and/or data which requires regular updating. Best practice examples of similar policies already used in other planning jurisdictions should be considered in preparing the draft policy.

iv. The policy measure referred to in (iii) above should not apply to defined street frontages which constitute the existing ‘Cappuccino Strip’, in recognition that this area performs a unique function as part of Fremantle city centre’s overall retail, hospitality and tourism ‘offer’.

v. With the exception of defined street frontages referred to in (iv) above, the policy should apply to all land zoned City Centre in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

vi. The policy should include guidance on exceptional circumstances in which proposals that do not comply with the policy measure to limit over-concentration referred to in (iii) above may nevertheless be approved, e.g. premises which have remained vacant for a long period despite active


28 September 2016

Page 61

marketing at a realistic market value, or forced relocation of an existing business at the end of a lease period where relocation options are limited.

vii. The policy should include guidance on design matters relating to physical alterations to premises associated with a proposed Fast Food Outlet or Restaurant use, to encourage development which is compatible with Fremantle city centre’s distinctive architectural character and cultural heritage significance rather than generic, brand-related design approaches.

4. Requests officers to present the draft local planning scheme amendment and

draft local planning policy referred to in 2 and 3 above to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee.

COUNCIL DECISION

Cr R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting to enable consultation with the Chamber of Commerce, BID and local businesses and to complete work on updating the 2010 Retail Model Plan. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

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

Cr Jon Strachan


28 September 2016

Page 62

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 12 SEPTEMBER 2016

Cr R Pemberton MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SPD1609-1, SPD1609-3, SPD1609-4, SPD1609-5, SPD1609-6, SPD1609-7, SPD1609-8 and SPD1609-9. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


The following item number SPD1609-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1609-01 KINGS SQUARE UPDATE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2016

ECM Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September 2016 Previous Item: C1211-1, C1211-2, C1302-1, PSC1302-27, SGC1408-

17, C1505-1, C1604-4, SPD1608-1. Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Kings Square Project Director Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Project Update Report on Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment is provided for information to Elected Members. It covers the following subjects:

Update on securing a State Government department

Civic Administration building design

Public Realm design


28 September 2016

Page 63

BACKGROUND

Since identifying the Kings Square precinct in 2010 as a priority area for redevelopment, the Council has taken the following proactive steps in advancing this major project:

Signing of a MOU in 2011 to explore development options with the owners of the Myer building;

Preparation of a draft Business Plan in 2012 and inviting public comment;

Adoption of a Final Business Plan in February 2013;

Signing of a Project Development Deed (PDD) in May 2013 with Sirona – owner of the Myer building and prospective developer.

A decision was made in February 2013 to hold an architectural design competition for the Civic Administration building component of the redevelopment;

Establishment and funding of an independent jury panel for the design competition;

Appointment of Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) as the winning practice to progress with design work.

In April 2016 the Council granted an extension to the sunset dates set out in the PDD for the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment to enable additional time to secure a major State Government tenant that, in turn, will provide the economic foundation for the total project to move forward. It was noted that a further extension of time may be granted by the Council, on condition that Sirona have been successful in securing a State Government commitment to accommodate a major office tenant that will underpin the viability of the overall project.

COMMENT

The following provides a project update of key activities regarding the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment: Securing a State Government Department A key component of the partnership with Sirona is the securing of a major office tenant in the redevelopment plans. This is one of the fundamental economic objectives – that a major commercial investment underpins the project, bringing significant numbers of additional office workers into the core of Fremantle. Sirona has made a significant investment in a bid to secure a government tenant as part of the Kings Square Redevelopment. The City requires Sirona to provide formal evidence of this future commercial lease by 9 November 2016. It is expected that this evidence will be in the form of a Heads of Agreement between the State Government and Sirona. The detailed leasing arrangements; formal announcement by the State Government; and property sale will then follow – taking up to an estimated 6 months. Civic Administration Building Design Kerry Hill Architects have been engaged to develop the concept plans for the new Council building. One of the key tasks to progress with now is to undertake a full cost review of the current design, working with the architects and an independent quantity surveyor. This will assist with any necessary adjustments to scope and procurement strategies to ensure that the project costs to the City are in line with the budget framework of the Business Plan.


28 September 2016

Page 64

Public Realm Design The original Business Plan and Design Competition identified improvements that would be required to the public realm. In particular, the concept of an ‘urban room’ and streetscape improvements to Newman Court and High Street (the pedestrian section that runs diagonally through Kings Square). The design of the public realm needs to be fully considered in terms of integrating these important spaces and ensuring that their public functions are retained and enhanced. In addition, it is advisable to consider the urban design of Kings Square as part of a broader and integrated network of streets and squares in the city centre. The Freo 2029 Transformational Moves document clearly identifies city projects that link with the Kings Square redevelopment, including:

Queens Street enhancement;

New City Square;

Adelaide Street enhancement;

Point Street. It is therefore proposed to investigate how to integrate the urban design of these key projects with the Kings Square public realm. More detail about a comprehensive urban design approach will be developed and provided in a further Report to the Strategy and Project Development Committee.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Emerging issues

Nil Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil


28 September 2016

Page 65

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

Under the PDD, the City of Fremantle is currently committed to working in partnership with Sirona to redevelop the Kings Square Precinct. Essentially, one of the few remaining key barriers to the overall project progressing is with securing a major office tenant. Whilst this matter is being addressed by Sirona, the City of Fremantle is progressing with various activities to advance the overall project, as detailed in this Report.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on the Kings Square Project for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 66


SPD1609-03 INFORMATION REPORT - NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE

ECM Reference: 226/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September 2016 Previous Item: SPD1608-3 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Project Manager (City Assets) Decision Making Authority: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City Depot is proposed to be relocated from its existing location at Knutsford St Fremantle, to a new site at 2 Jones St in O’Connor. Several design options have been explored in the Financial Year 2015/16 with the Base Option being selected during an informal meeting of Elected Members in early June. A review of the Base Option and associated development costs in early August led to the decision to consider alternative options with the aim of managing the potential project cost within a budget of $8m. Key activities completed this period include the review of the Base Option and development of potential alternative design options. The key activities planned for the next period include the review of potential alternative design options and a determination with respect to project viability/affordability at 2 Jones st O’Connor. A revised Project Schedule will be developed once a review of the proposed alternative design options has been undertaken. The Project Budget for Financial Year 2016/17 is $3,000,000 and in line with the previous programme, architectural, superintendency and sub-consultants have been engaged to provide professional services for the life of the project. It is recommended that this Project Report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

The City is planning to relocate its Depot from its existing location at Knutsford St. The current Depot is nearing the end of its usable life and relocation of operations would allow the Knutsford St property to be redeveloped in accordance with Council direction. A new site for the Operations Centre was purchased at 2 Jones St in O’Connor. The site incorporates a warehouse building, an office with an area and a hardstand area of suitable to accommodate depot operations.


28 September 2016

Page 67

The consultants Christou Design were engaged in Financial Year 2015/2016 to carry out architectural and superintendency services over the life of the project. The Design Brief prepared last financial year, following consultation with depot users and review of the findings from the City of Fremantle Depot Scoping Study (Aqumen, 2010), was used to develop various design options to develop the site. These were then costed and the design options and cost estimates presented to the Elected Members during several informal meetings. Approval was received to progress the Base Option to Design Development at an informal meeting of Elected Members in early June. Christou Design engaged the required sub-consultants to implement this and a more detailed cost estimate of the Base Option was developed. Review of the Base Option and cost estimate was undertaken by the design team and the new Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery in early August. The decision was made to consider further design concepts with the aim of reducing development costs. Christou Design have developed and costed a revised concept which involves developing a reduced area of the warehouse. Review of this revised concept and cost estimate is scheduled for late August.

COMMENT

Schedule

The Project Schedule previously presented can no longer be achieved due to the investigation of further development options. A revised Project Schedule will be developed once review of the alternative design option has been undertaken. Progress

The key activities carried out this period include;

Design Development of the Base Option;

Cost Estimate for the Base Option; and

Investigation of alternative design options. The key activities planned for next period include:

Review of alternative design options, costings and project variables.


Key Project Risks

Schedule risk. Late completion of Project due to delay in procurement confirmation;

Financial risk. Increase in consultant fees due to investigation of additional design options; and

Operational / Functional Risks associated with a reduced project cost.


28 September 2016

Page 68

Emerging issues

Confirmation of Design Brief. Items and services to be provided at the new Operations Centre are budget constrained and yet to be confirmed; and

Delivery schedule currently undefined. Decision on design concept must be obtained before a schedule can be determined.

Financial

The Project Budget for Financial Year 2016/17 is $3,000,000. Twenty percent of this budget has been committed to architectural/ superintendency and sub consultants to design and implement compliance requirements for the life of the project. Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The Project is investigation alternative design options for the New Operations Centre.


Not applicable.


28 September 2016

Page 69


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on the New Operations Centre for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 70


SPD1609-04 FUTURE OF FREMANTLE PORT

ECM Reference: 165/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September 2016 Previous Item: C1604-3; SPD1608-4 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Project Officer (Transport) Decision Making Authority: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item is a continuation of the update report presented to Council in August 2016 which established a base for future discussion. Since the August 2016 report there has been little progress on this issue. This report on the Future of Fremantle Port is for receiving and noting by Council.

COMMENT

There have been very few key recent actions in regards to the potential sale of the Fremantle Port. The Fremantle Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2016 was introduced to Parliament in May 2016 in order to enable the long-term lease (99 year) of Fremantle Port to the private sector. It has yet to be debated in the Legislative Assembly. The state National Party, who have had a change of leadership during this time, have asserted that they do not support the selling of Fremantle Port. A motion was put forward in Parliament on the 19th of August 2016 by the State Opposition opposing the sale of the port. This motion was tied, with the National Party voting with Labor. The Speaker used his vote to defeat the motion.


Emerging issues

1. The uncertainty around whether the privatisation/sale of the port will occur continues to be the primary issue.

2. A land owner group have lodged with the WAPC a request to re-zone the northern portion of the industrial zone adjoining Port Beach Road / Walter Place from industrial to urban. The State will need to consider the importance of this industrial land to port operations and how, if at all, it impacts on the proposed sale of the Port. Council have received a separate briefing on the proposed re-zoning.

City officers will continue to monitor this and previously identified issues closely and will continue to meet regularly with FPA.


28 September 2016

Page 71


No new updates to strategic and policy implications.


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on the Future of Fremantle Port for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 72


SPD1609-05 PERTH FREIGHT LINK UPDATE REPORT

ECM Reference: 165/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September 2016 Previous Item: SGS1506-3; SPC1505-1; SPD1608-5 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Project Officer (Transport) Decision Making Authority: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since the August 2016 update report to Council there have been a number of developments in regards to the Roe 8 approval process and to the planning of the Perth Freight Link (PFL). Of note is: that the approval process of Roe 8 is still being contested; the Federal Government has appealed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s ruling that they release the documents pertaining to the planning of the freight link; and the Western Australian State Government has released their draft transport plan. This draft plan, supported by a freight network plan, contains further details on the ‘last mile’ of the PFL, referred to as ‘Fremantle Port Connect’. This is summarised in the comment below. In addition, this project (Roe 8 and PFL) is becoming a state election issue (the state election is in March 2017). This project update report on the PFL is for receiving and noting by Council.

BACKGROUND

In June 2015 the Council adopted a position to not support the State Government proposals for Sections 1 and 2 of the PFL as currently proposed, due to insufficient planning and inadequate analysis of the implications associated of the current proposal. Since this time, the Council has been calling on the State and federal governments to put the current proposal on hold until further long-term freight planning and better options are developed. This report follows on from the August report to Council.

COMMENT

15 July 2016 – On Roe 8 the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the State, overturning the December decision by the Supreme Court.

29 July 2016 – The Western Australian State Government released their draft transport plan (Transport @ 3.5million). This includes a dedicated rail bridge for freight, and lists ‘Fremantle Port Connect’, connecting the Fremantle tunnel at Canning Highway to the Inner Harbour. “In the Central sub-region, Perth Freight Link will be constructed to improve road freight access to the Inner Harbour. This entails providing a freeway / expressway standard link between the Roe 8 extension and the container terminals at Fremantle Port’s North Quay, with grade


28 September 2016

Page 73

separation at all intersections, terminating on Tydeman Road west of Queen Victoria Street. The scope also includes duplicating Stirling Bridge” (Road Network Plan, p12). The Freight Plan, Map 6 (p81) ‘Metropolitan Principal Road Freight Network Strategic Investment Priorities by 2.7 million’ – ‘Inner Harbour Precinct’ shows grade separation at: Stirling Hwy and Marmion St, Stirling Hwy and Canning Hwy, Stirling Hwy and Tydeman Rd, Tydeman Rd and Queen Victoria St, and Walter Place and Curtin Ave; the extension of Curtin Ave through to Tydeman Rd as a ‘new road 2 lanes with a crossing from Stirling Hwy to Curtin Ave as new road 4 lanes with median with complete grade separation by 3.5m’; and ‘Curtin Avenue will be upgraded to 4-lane divided standard for its full length to West Coast Highway’ (2050). The road plan modelling assumes that the outer harbour will be operational by about 2040 and that heavy vehicles to and from the ports (inner and outer) will grow by 3% per annum between 2031 and 2050. This plan is out for public comment until 28 October 2016. Council have been provided with a separate briefing on this draft Plan, which will form the basis of the City’s comments back to the State.

1 August 2016 – The Federal Government appealed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s ruling that they release the documents pertaining to the planning of the PFL. Alannah MacTiernan, the Applicant, has indicated that she will ask the court to speed up the hearing so that a ruling can be made before the contracts are awarded.

24 August 2016 - The WA Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by traditional owner Corina Abraham. The appeal maintained that the WA government failed to follow procedural fairness in regards to cultural heritage.

Ongoing – Community group Save Beeliar Wetlands have been crowdfunding to support a High Court challenge to the EPA’s approval. They have raised $45,000 in the last week or two (goal is $50,000). They have implied that that will be seeking special leave to appeal the Roe8 approvals decision at the High Court.


Emerging issues

Main Roads and the Western Australian Government have indicated that they will proceed with issuing contracts.

On-going appeals to decisions pertaining to Roe 8.

The issue of what relevant information might be found in the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development documents and would this change the nature of how Council approaches the issue remains.

The outcomes of the WA state election to be held in March 2017. The PFL has become a prime election issue. The state Labor party continues to make announcements that if elected they will pursue planning for the outer harbour.


28 September 2016

Page 74

Officers will continue to monitor these issues very closely, particularly the release of documents related to the planning of the freight link between the Federal Government and the state.


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on the Perth Freight Link for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 75


SPD1609-06 BOUNDARY REVIEW INFORMATION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2016

ECM Reference: 098/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SPD - 12 September, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Update on local government boundary issues facing the City of Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

The only current boundary issue is the request from community members to review the southern boundary to include Hamilton Hill and a portion of North Coogee.

COMMENT

The LGAB met with council on Wednesday 7th September, 2016. The council advised the Board that whilst it was supportive of the proposition the Council did not feel the state government is in a position to progress any consideration whilst it has the view that all affected local governments need to agree to a proposal for the government to support it. The LGAB also ran a community meeting on the issue after meeting with council at the Hilton Community Hall.


Emerging issues

Community proposal for the southern boundary to be amended.

Financial

At this time no financial costs. Legal

Local Government Act 1995 Operational

For the City to consider its response to the proposal.


28 September 2016

Page 76

Organisational

Nil at this time.


Nil.


Part of the LGAB process.

CONCLUSION

Nil.


Simple Majority


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on local government boundary reform for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 77


SPD1609-07 KNUTSFORD ST DEPOT SITE REDEVELOPMENT

ECM Reference: 115/084 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Projects Officer Decision Making Authority: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 23 March 2016, Council considered the assessment of redevelopment options for the depot site and authorised the CEO to negotiate a development agreement with LandCorp. A business plan will also be subject to Council approval. The CEO has set up a working group, chaired by the Director of Strategic Planning and Projects and involving the mayor and two elected members. The role of the working group, which had its first meeting on 5 September, will be to identify desired outcomes and oversee definition of agreement principles and the business plan.

BACKGROUND

On 23 March 2016, Council considered the assessment of redevelopment options for the depot site and authorised the CEO to negotiate a development agreement with LandCorp. A business plan will also be subject to Council approval. A working group, chaired by the Director of Strategic Planning and Projects and involving the mayor and two elected members, had its first meeting on 5 September. The aims of this meeting were to: agree terms of reference; agree process for defining desired outcomes; confirm requirements for valuation and business plan; and note upcoming consultation and timeline.

COMMENT

At its August meeting the Strategy and Project Development Committee discussed the need for a quadruple bottom line approach, the opportunity for coordinated street scaping, the potential for increases in density and height and opportunities to demonstrate consolidated parking. The planning review associated with preparation of the development agreement carries with it the opportunity to better define outcomes and to resolve design and street scaping principles for the precinct as a whole. LandCorp is currently setting up a One Planet Framework through which quadruple bottom line outcomes can be defined and monitored. It is intended that the working group will play a key role in identifying and prioritising ideas and sustainability initiatives and defining measurable outcomes and


28 September 2016

Page 78

triggers. These will be a critical part of the development agreement and form the basis of assumptions for valuations. A review of some of the provisions in the now very dated Knutsford East Structure Plan is also being investigated. Meetings and workshops will be held with precinct landowners and stakeholders over coming months to explore changes to the structure plan which will make development both more sustainable and more viable. These include mandated commercial uses, public open space requirements and allowable heights and densities. Parking requirements could also be included in these discussions. Further opportunities through the engagement of broader precinct stakeholders include: the potential to develop design principles for the overall Swanbourne and Knutsford St precincts; and involvement in research to explore consultation practices which support Low Carbon Living. The current project timeline is as follows:

Define dev outcomes & consult on possible SP amendments June – Dec 2016

Negotiate & execute development agreement Sept – June 2017

Initiate statutory planning changes March 2017

Operations move to O’Connor Mid 2018

Commence site clean up and development Mid to late 2018

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Emerging issues

A key issue for the working group will be defining measurable outcomes and triggers and the appropriate valuation assumptions which flow from these. The group will need to determine the balance of these against desired financial outcomes. The group will also need to sanction the methodology and timing of valuations and the City’s requirement to prepare a Business Plan to support a) the preparation of the agreement, b) the execution of the agreement and c) the actual land transfer.

Financial

See emerging issues regarding valuations above. Legal

Future contracts required.


See note above regarding engagement of precinct and structure plan landowners in review of structure plan provisions, precinct design principles and low carbon living initiatives.


28 September 2016

Page 79

CONCLUSION

The project is progressing in accordance with its timeline which would see the draft development agreement and business plan come to Council for approval in June 2017, with execution of a development agreement immediately following.


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council receive and note this report on Knutsford Street Depot site redevelopment dated September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 80


SPD1609-08 UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE - SEPTEMBER 2016

ECM Reference: 053/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To receive update on progress of development at 2 Point Street, Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

Progress towards commencement for development by SKS is within the final six months of the contractual requirement.

COMMENT

The City is seeking a meeting with SKS to ensure progress towards commencement of development is occurring. The due date to start commencement is January, 2016 and whilst the detail matter of de-watering the site is in discussion, the need to ensure a commencement by due date also needs to be considered.


Emerging issues

Commencement date under the sale contract is January, 2017. As this date draws near the City will be liaising with SKS to ensure it focussed on meeting that date.

Financial

Nil. Legal

Nil. Operational


28 September 2016

Page 81

The City is in discussion with SKS and their contractor in regard to de-watering management issues and planning. The City is currently awaiting formal submission on these matters. Organisational

Nil at this time.


Nil.


Nil.

CONCLUSION

Nil.


Simple Majority


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on the redevelopment of 2 Point Street, Fremantle for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 82


SPD1609-09 CITY SUBMISSION ON THE STATE GOVERNMENTS PERTH TRANSPORT PLAN

ECM Reference: 165/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 September 2016 Previous Item: SPC1507-4 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Project Officer, Transport Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Government of Western Australia, through the Transport Portfolio, has released for public comment their draft transport plan (‘Transport @ 3.5 Million: Perth Transport Plan for 3.5 million People and Beyond’; referred to as the ‘Perth Transport Plan’) along with a suite of technical plans. This report summarises the key content and issues raised by the draft Perth Transport Plan and corresponding technical plans, as relevant to the City of Fremantle, and outlines the City of Fremantle’s main submission points:

I. Overall the City welcomes an integrated transport plan for the metropolitan region.

II. Clearer transport and land use integration is needed. Transport can be used to support liveable, vibrant and productive activity centres, enable these centres to meet their infill targets (in line with in ‘Directions 2031’) along with enhancing accessibility to the Perth CBD and between centres.

III. The current draft Plan would be strengthened by striving and planning for a much greater mode shift change towards transport modes that are favourable to achieving the above objectives.

IV. The Plan does not adequately provide for the growth expected in the southern metropolitan area, particularly in terms of public transport.

V. Transport infrastructure enhancements need to be used as a tool to support economic development, high quality regeneration and liveability. Better triggers are needed to define when infrastructure spends are to occur in line with these goals, along with clearer governance structures.

This report recommends a submission be made by the City, broadly in line with the above points and the further details outlined in the Comment section of this report: the closing date for submissions is October 28th 2016.


28 September 2016

Page 83

BACKGROUND

On 29 July 2016, the State Government released their draft transport plan (‘Transport @ 3.5 Million: Perth Transport Plan for 3.5 million People and Beyond’; referred to as the ‘Perth Transport Plan’) and five related technical plans for comment (available: http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/projects/perth-transport-plan-for-3-5-million.asp). In simple terms this draft Plan is intended to provide the transport underpinning for the State’s policy direction as set out in ‘Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million’. This report summarises the key content and issues raised by the draft documents as relevant to the City of Fremantle context, following the order presented in the Plan: Vision and Outcomes; Integrated Transport Network; Optimising the System; and The Way Forward.

Perth Transport Plan: Vision and Outcomes The Plan sets the vision for Perth as a ‘vibrant, connected and productive city’, supported by a number of objectives: ‘optimises the use of the existing network and as it grows: integrates with land use and across the public transport, active transport and road networks; delivers high frequency, ‘turn up and go’ mass rapid transit connected with effective public transport feeder services; provides a safe, connected active transport network of primarily off-road cycle ways and walkways; and maintains a free-flowing freeway and arterial road network for the efficient distribution of people and freight’ (p.5). Priorities for implementation are given through population figures: 2.7 million people being the most immediate priorities, 3.5 million people the longer term priorities and then beyond 3.5 million people for the long term priorities. These population figures (at present) approximately correspond to 2031, 2050 and beyond 2050, respectively. All of the major projects mentioned within the Plan require further planning. Three of the major projects mentioned are already budgeted: Perth Freight Link, Forrestfield Airport link and Northbridge link.

The Plan outlines the transport mode use goals for Perth at 3.5 million people, using a number of measures: all-day mode share, peak period trips to the Perth Central Business District (CBD) and motorised persons-kilometres travelled in the morning peak period. For mode share see table 1 in Comment section of this report. Further mode use shift goals at include: 65% of peak period trips to the Perth CBD to be by public transport (currently 47%) and for peak period motorised trips measured in persons-kilometres 68% by car (53% as driver, 15% as passenger) and 32% by public transport (8% bus, 23% rail, 1% light rail) (p.6).

Perth Transport Plan: Integrated Transport Network This section of the Plan is divided into various transport modes (each supported by a technical plan): Public Transport Network, Road Network, Active Transport Network and Freight Network. Key elements of each as relevant to the City’s context follow.

Public Transport Network This includes: new public transport lines, optimisation of existing system (for example: signal optimisation, bus priority lanes, extension of platforms to enable bigger train car sets, and/or the closure of underperforming stations, etc.). The various types of public transport covered are heavy passenger rail, subway, light rail (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT) and bus priority. The public transport initiatives relevant to the City of Fremantle context include:

Bus priority measures on Canning Hwy and Stirling Hwy at 3.5 million people; and

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/projects/perth-transport-plan-for-3-5-million.asp


28 September 2016

Page 84

BRT or LRT Murdoch to Cockburn Coast via Fremantle beyond 3.5 million people.

Road Network This includes: freeways, road freight network, river crossings (tunnels, bridges), Perth CBD access, arterial roads, on road public transport priority corridors and network efficiency measures (for example: managed freeways, signal optimisation, etc.). The road network initiatives by 3.5 million people relevant to the City’s context include:

South Street: from Stock Rd to Davies St, South St will be 4 lanes with bus priority at intersections. The Plan indicates that the eventual strategy is for South St to be 6 lanes with median (including dedicated bus lanes) the length to Hampton Rd, however the feasibility of this is still being investigated (Road Network Plan, p.18).

Rockingham Fremantle Freeway: A freeway will be constructed from Leach Hwy to Kwinana Fwy (at Mundijong Rd) along the Stock Rd and Rockingham Rd alignment.

‘Stock Road Tunnel’: Stock Rd will be extended north as a freeway from Leach Hwy to Stephenson Ave at Jon Sanders Dr. This freeway, combining tunnels and surface roadway, is anticipated to carry 100,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and will reduce traffic volumes on existing river crossings (approx. 20,000vpd from Fremantle’s bridges).

Active Transport Network This section focuses mainly on cycling infrastructure. Highlights include expanding the off road commuter and recreational cycle ways from 172 km to 850 km by 3.5 million people, extensions to the Principal Shared Path (PSP) network, including the completion of the PSP from Fremantle Station to Grant St between now and 2031 (Cycling Network Plan, p.12) and a recommendation to construct PSP standard infrastructure on Leach Hwy between Fremantle and the airport between 2031 and 2050. The Plan includes a number of shared cycle/walking bridges across the river, including ‘Three Points Bridge’ which would connect Chidley Point, Point Walter and Point Resolution, planned for between 2031-2050, creating a ‘40 minute’ cycle link between Perth and Fremantle.

Freight Network This section of the Plan focuses on expanding the intermodal terminal system, moving more freight by train, enhancing the freight road network and enabling the ports to achieve their optimum capacity. The assumptions used in the modelling for the road network demand at 2050 included that a new port at the Outer Harbour will be operational around 2040 (Road Network Plan, p.48). Road network changes include a ‘Rowley Rd Transport Corridor’ to access the Outer Harbour. The Plan (detailed in the road and freight technical plans), offers some further planning details in regards to the Perth Freight Link (PFL), including grade separation on Stock Rd at Winterfold Rd and the ‘Fremantle Tunnel’ between Winterfold Rd and High St. The last portion of the PFL, from High St to the Port (‘Fremantle Port Connect’) includes the duplication of the Stirling Hwy bridge, grade separations at all intersections between the tunnel end and Tydeman Rd west of Queen Victoria St, a new road and connection from Stirling Hwy to Curtin Ave and a new road running from Curtin Ave to Tydeman Rd by 2.7 million people. After this time, Curtin Ave will be upgraded to four lanes and all intersections will have complete grade separation by 3.5 million people. The Plan includes measures to increase the


28 September 2016

Page 85

amount of freight to be transported by rail through increasing frequencies of freight trains, extending the North Quay Rail Terminal (400m to 690m) and other measures outside of the Fremantle area. The Plan includes a dedicated Freight Rail Bridge over Swan River in North Fremantle by 3.5 million people.

Perth Transport Plan: Optimising the System Optimising the system focuses on improving network efficiency and influencing travel behaviour through four travel demand management tools: travel plans for new major commercial developments, encouraging parking management, ‘Time of day’ pricing for public transport (to be revenue neutral) and behaviour change programs. Network efficiency includes managed freeways and public transport optimisation. Perth Transport Plan: The Way Forward Many of the projects outlined in the Plan are still very much in conceptual stage and need to be subject to further scoping, planning and budgeting. The Plan outlines broad time frame priorities only. In terms of economic assessments, the Plan identifies that ‘in addition to public funding, the State will continue to partner with private industry and explore innovative funding opportunities, such as value capture…’(p.46). In terms of review, ‘influential trends will be monitored and the plan will be reviewed every five years to ensure it continues to meet the needs of Perth’s growing population. The Transport Portfolio will also monitor delivery of the plan, ensuring it is implemented in a coordinated and integrated manner’ (p.47).

COMMENT

This section provides an overview of the key issues that will be addressed in the City’s submission, presented in line with the draft ‘Perth Transport Plan’ submission template:

1. Classification 2. Vision and Objectives 3. Integrated Transport Network - Planning Principles 4. Integrated Transport Network - Infrastructure Enhancements 5. Optimising the System 6. Overall impression of the Plan

1. Classification The City’s submission is grounded in a sound understanding of, and established position in, the integration of land use and transport planning. As a One Planet Council, the City is supportive of the integration of transport and urban planning, encouragement of low carbon modes of transport and policies that reduce the need and distances required to travel to access daily needs. Under ‘Directions 2031’ the City is nominated as a Strategic Regional Centre. The City has a strong interest in increasing sustainable transport to and from the city, not only to help reach our infill targets (as outlined in ‘Directions 2031’) but to also maintain and support our cultural, employment and economic centres. The City’s key strategic documents outline our future direction in regards to transport and the City has undertaken significant work to align its transport and land use planning (see our ‘Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025’ and ‘Integrated Transport Strategy’ on our website).


28 September 2016

Page 86

2. Feedback on Perth Transport Plan’s Vision and Objectives The City welcomes an integrated transport plan for the metropolitan region. The City is supportive of the vision for a ‘vibrant, connected and productive Perth’ and the corresponding objectives of optimizing the existing network, integrating land use with transport, integrating transport modes, ‘turn up and go’ public transport, and a safe and connected active transport network.

Clearer transport and land use integration is needed. The current Plan does not make the most effective use of transport, particularly public transport, as a catalyst to help meet the infill targets outlined in ‘Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million’ and ‘Directions 2031’. This can be done by better focussing transport infrastructure spends to support strategic and activity centres, encouraging integration between transport modes, enhancing ‘last mile connectivity’ and walkable places and increasing the accessibility between activity centres to reduce the distances required to travel to access daily needs. In order to achieve population and infill targets, public transport and cycling need to be prioritised more.

The current draft Plan would be strengthened by striving and planning for a much greater mode shift change towards transport modes that are favourable to achieving liveability, economic, redevelopment and infill objectives. The mode shift objective of 11% for public transport, 14% for walking and 4% for cycling is not adequate to achieve land use goals. Table 1 illustrates the all-day mode share split and change in transport mode share from 2011 to the 3.5 million people timeline. This shows an 8% shift from car use to other modes: it is hard to understand how this contributes to the greater density goals envisioned in ‘Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million’.

Table 1: All day mode share in 2011 and at 3.5 million people. Source: Compiled from Perth Transport Plan and corresponding technical plans. All-day mode share 2011 @ 3.5 million (approx.

2050) Change in all- day mode share

Car 79% 50% (+21%passenger) -8%

Public transport 6% 11% +5%

Walking 13% 14% +1%

Cycling 2% 4% +2%

3. Integrated Transport Network - Planning Principles The cycle planning principles outlined in the Plan are welcome and supported by the City. However, principles related to walking should also be included in the Plan in order to enable vibrant, connected and productive places.

The public transport planning principles need to focus on enabling activity centres to increase their liveability and economic vitality and to meet their infill targets. While the emphasis on public transport is supported, the principles as a whole fall short of enabling public transport to act as a tool to distribute some of the planned population and economic growth to activity centres, to create a true connected city and to promote activity centres in terms of liveability, economic vitality and in meeting population and density targets. The planning principles promote business as usual planning (see mode shift).


28 September 2016

Page 87

4. Integrated Transport Network - Infrastructure Enhancements The Plan does not adequately provide for the growth expected in the southern metropolitan area, particularly in terms of public transport. Much of the transport infrastructure is focused on travel to/from the Perth CBD, the inner urban ‘ring’ and the northern portions of the metropolitan region. Whilst these areas are, of course, important as is the goal of reducing congestion to the Perth centre, increasing the accessibility, particularly the public transport accessibility, of the southern growth areas, which are all expected to receive significant population and economic growth, is equally important. The Plan needs an increased focus in this region.

Transport infrastructure enhancements need to be used as a tool to support economic development, high quality regeneration and liveability. Transport infrastructure can be used to assist with the regeneration of activity centres. The City is proactively working to enhance the economic capacity and attractiveness of the Fremantle area. The City would welcome an increased focus within the Plan on strengthening the public transport accessibility to/from the City and surrounding economic hubs to support these efforts. The planned service enhancements on the current Fremantle to Perth train line do not support the activity that is being undertaken, and currently planned for, in the region. Efficiency measures around the location of transport infrastructure cannot be based purely on time and operational measures. Location choices need to also be reflective of development and redevelopment areas and employed to enable accessibility and liveability outcomes.

The focus on public transport within the Plan is supported by the City, however much of the identified public transport infrastructure will be needed much earlier and a greater focus on on-road public transport infrastructure (light rail, BRT, trams, etc.) and investment is needed. By delaying the investment in public transport, the Plan is missing the opportunity to induce and encourage public transport use. The Plan is focused on matching public transport supply to demand rather than on proactively encouraging public transport use.

The focus on cycling infrastructure enhancements is supported by the City. Identification of the Principal Shared Path network connection between Grant St and Fremantle Train Station needs to be a top priority. The City is committed to ensuring a safe link between the North Fremantle and Fremantle train stations. Further details and commitments are needed in regards to the funding of the identified PSP network projects.

The City does not support the Perth Freight Link as currently proposed due to insufficient planning and inadequate analysis of the implications associated with the current proposal. Whilst this draft Plan provides further planning details for the PFL, questions still remain around the connection to the Port and the impacts of the link to the surrounding communities, particularly North and East Fremantle. The further details provided on the last mile of the freight link raise additional questions about the connectivity between the existing train station at North Fremantle, the North Fremantle local centre and the coast. The City continues to support for the planning and development of an outer harbour serviced by rail.

5. Optimising the System The City supports the inclusion of the travel demand management measures, including in particular, behaviour change. Behaviour change programs should include all types of trip purposes, not just those focused on particular trip types, such as travel to work or school.


28 September 2016

Page 88

6. Overall impression of the Plan [The Way Forward] Better triggers are needed to define when infrastructure investments will occur. Clearer governance structures are needed. There have been a number of other State Government transport plans, namely ‘Public Transport for Perth in 2031’. Whilst the five year review process mentioned within the draft Plan is supported, the Plan would benefit from a clearer governance structure and clearer priorities and triggers in order to be implementable. Transport infrastructure investment triggers should be aligned to locations that are actively planning and undertaking redevelopment and that are activity working towards meeting their population and liveability targets, rather than the general metropolitan wide population triggers currently used with the draft.


Financial and Legal

Nil Operational and Organisational Nil


Once finalised, the City’s transport plans and position on some transport projects may need to be reviewed in line with the identified priorities within the Perth Transport Plan. The possible implications of some of the identified projects, namely, the Stock Road Tunnel and the potential for it to remove vehicles off of Fremantle’s bridges raises some questions as to the outcome for Fremantle. Will this allow better use of the Fremantle bridges or will this be in effect a by-pass of Fremantle? Further details are required before a position can be determined. Furthermore the additional planning details of the PFL and ‘Fremantle Port Connect’, raise questions about the connectivity between the existing train station at North Fremantle and the North Fremantle local centre. This will also require further analysis. Officers will continue to monitor this carefully.


Nil


28 September 2016

Page 89


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council:

1. Requests that the City make a submission on the draft Perth Transport Plan (‘Transport @ 3.5 Million: Perth Transport Plan for 3.5 million People and Beyond’) and related technical plans.

2. Requests that the submission be based on the points outlined in the

comments section of this report. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 90

At 7.28 pm Cr D Coggin declared a financial interest in item number SPD1609-02 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 7.28 pm Cr R Pemberton assumed the chair.

SPD1609-02 UPDATE ON FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - SEPTEMBER 2016

ECM Reference: 219/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SPD - 12 September, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To receive an update on the Fremantle Oval Redevelopment Project.

BACKGROUND

The business case for the redevelopment of Fremantle Oval was adopted by Council in April, 2016. The plan provided for a WAFL Centre of excellence that included the co-location of the South and East Fremantle Football Clubs. A project has been approved in the current budget to undertake master planning and cost planning.

COMMENT

Progress is continuing to commence the process of developing a work plan, with the emphasis being to commence master planning as soon as possible. Dialogue is ongoing in relation to the exit of the Fremantle Football Club from the facility. The Club’s exit is likely to occur in the first quarter of 2017. As per recent advice the City and Club have been unable to reach agreement on terms of exit at this time.


Emerging issues

Nil.

Financial

At this time no financial costs beyond the approved project in the 2016/17 budget.


28 September 2016

Page 91

Legal

The City is taking legal advice in relation to the lease agreement between the City and Fremantle Football Club. Operational

The City will commence master planning the site which will include consideration of the street frontage along South Terrace between Norfolk/Parry and Wray Avenue. Areas along the boundary of the Fremantle Hospital may also be included. Organisational

Nil at this time.


The redevelopment of Fremantle Oval is part of the Freo 2029 Transformational Moves Strategy.


Nil.

CONCLUSION

Nil.


Simple Majority


28 September 2016

Page 92


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and note the update report on the Fremantle Oval redevelopment project for September 2016. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


28 September 2016

Page 93

Cr D Coggin returned to the meeting at 7.29 pm.

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND lEGISLATION COMMITTEE 14 SEPTEMBER 2016

Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered FPOL1609-3, and FPOL1609-4. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


The following item number FPOL1609-3 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

FPOL1609-3 AMENDMENT TO PROCUREMENT POLICY INCLUDING THE PRINCIPLES OF NO BUSINESS IN ABUSE

ECM Reference: 135/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 September 2016 Previous Item: NoM1602-1 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Senior Contracts and Procurement Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: DRAFT Policy SG-38 Purchasing

Legal Advice - Confidential under separate cover

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 May 2016, the City recommended that Council:

1. Modify the Purchasing Policy to include the principles of ‘No Business In Abuse’,


28 September 2016

Page 94

2. Bring the draft amendment for ‘No Business In Abuse’ in the Procurement Policy back to Council for consideration, and

3. Allow current contract(s) with organisations considered to be in conflict

with the ‘No Business In Abuse’ principles to lapse at the end of their natural term

This report outlines the steps taken to achieve these recommendations.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 February 2016, Council considered how it may respond to community sentiment in relation to the “No Business In Abuse” (NBIA) campaign. The campaign, being promoted by Community Action Group ‘Get Up’ is promoting organisations to consider a policy of not entering into commercial agreements for procurement of goods or services with organisations that provide support to facilities where human rights abuse may occur, such as detention centres. In particular council considered implications with the company Broadspectrum and their associated entities which may have commercial agreements with the City. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 May 2016 a report was presented to Council outlining the City of Fremantle’s exposure to Broadspectrum and its associated entities. This report is to update Council on the amendments to the City’s Purchasing policy, to seek Council’s approval of the amended policy, to provide feedback on the current contractual status between the City and Wilson Security Pty Ltd and provide feedback on the legal advice it has received regarding the exclusion from tendering/quoting of specifically named businesses (Broadspectrum and Wilson Security Pty Ltd).

COMMENT

SG-38 Purchasing Policy The four principles of ‘No Business In Abuse’ have been incorporated in the policy under Section 8.0 Sustainable Procurement, clause (d). The text reads: “The City of Fremantle is a committed supporter of the 4 principles of No Business in Abuse (NBIA). A company that is not abusive is one which:

I. Has zero tolerance for child abuse; II. Does not treat people in a cruel, inhumane or degrading manner; III. Respects people's fundamental rights to freedom from arbitrary and indefinite

detention; and IV. Commits to transparency and independent monitoring to ensure these principles

are upheld As part of the Council’s commitment to the NBIA pledge, suppliers to the City are required to abide by these principles.


28 September 2016

Page 95

Suppliers found to be non-compliant with these principles may be considered in breach of Contract and may face termination of the Contract” This statement also appears in the City’s Tenders and Quotes documentation as a declaration for suppliers to the city to sign. Wilson Security The Contract for tender WFCC21/15 – Supply of Security Patrols, awarded to Wilson Security Pty Ltd in 2015, lapsed at the end of its natural term on 22nd August 2016. The City currently has no contracts with Wilson Security Pty Ltd or Broadspectrum.


Financial

There is a small financial risk by the City not achieving the ‘best value for money’ outcome, by excluding a lowest priced tendered or quoted offer, from a supplier that does not follow the 4 principles of NBIA. Legal

Legal advice regarding the exclusion of organisations from providing a quote/tender has been provided to Council as a Confidential attachment. Operational

The lapsing of tender WFCC21/15 – Supply of Security Patrols, awarded to Wilson Security Pty Ltd in 2015 on 22nd August 2016, has necessitated the setting up of a short-term contract to maintain operational requirements. The City is currently formulating a new tender request, containing the provisions of NBIA and taking in to consideration the legal advice provided to the City. The tender is anticipated for release to market in late-September 2016. Organisational

Nil


It would be prudent for any potential restrictions on purchasing and contracting engagement to be best served by implementing a specific Council Policy based on the principles of the ‘No Business in Abuse’ strategy. This would then determine the City’s relationships and dealings with current and potential suppliers, which would then be reflected in the detail of the City’s Purchasing Policy.


28 September 2016

Page 96

This ‘top down’ approach would provide a level of transparency, openness and consistency that may otherwise be absent when determining business dealings and procurement activity.


Nil

CONCLUSION

Council has the ability to include the principles of ‘No Business In Abuse’ within the Purchasing Policy. However, Council should take in to consideration the recommendations made in the attached legal advice before doing so and appreciate the risks attached to this decision.


Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council approve the amended SG-38 Purchasing Policy including the ‘No Business In Abuse’ principles. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 97

The following item number FPOL1609-4 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

FPOL1609-4 ADVERTISE PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD CLOSURE PORTION OF MEWS ROAD, FREMANTLE FOR AMALGAMATION WITH THE ADJOINING RESERVE NO. 27807 MANAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (DOT).

ECM Reference: 163/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 September 2016 Previous Item: FPOL1603-7 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Map of the proposed portion of Mews Road to be closed

and amalgamated.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the March 2016 round of council meetings an item was presented to consider the progression of steps needed to transfer the southern section of Mews Road to the Department of Transport (DOT) as an amalgamation of an existing adjoining reserve. Council officers accepted that DOT is better placed to provide funding and resources for improvements to the road reserve in this location to increase the level of service to its own lessees fronting Mews Road. Improvements envisioned by DOT include plans to formalise parking through delineation of car bays and dedicated short term bays for customers, together with possible widening of the roadway and resurfacing, as well as soft and hard landscaping. The item also considered that there was no significant detriment to the City in relinquishing the vesting of road reserve for this area; while also alleviating some of its responsibility for maintenance and potential upgrade requirements. Council resolved to defer the matter until it received a further report on the implications of ceding the southern portion of Mews Road to DOT which examined a number of issues. This report addresses those issues. It concludes that providing the City is given assurance that any extension to the South Street strategic corridor across the rail line to Mews Road to improve access to the waterfront (in accordance with the FREO 2029 Transformational Moves document) will continue to be supported by DOT, the City should proceed with the procedures to effect the closure and transfer of this section of Mews Road. Council endorsement is sought to continue with the steps required to undertake a transfer of responsibility for the land as recommended.


28 September 2016

Page 98

BACKGROUND

Following the March 2016 item, Council required officers to consider the following issues with regard to the proposed closure:

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

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

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

4. Implications on current and future maintenance budgets. Further information is provided on these issues in the Comment section of this item below.

COMMENT

Strategic Implications Future planned extensions FREO 2029 Transformational Moves recommends extending Norfolk Street and South Street across the rail reserve to Mews Road to improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the waterfront. Norfolk Street extension There are no implications to a future extension of Norfolk Street as Mews Road at that location (north of Arundel Street) is already in the Crown Reserve managed by DOT. South Street extension A future westwards extension of South Street would connect to the section of Mews Road road reserve proposed to be closed and therefore such a link would be simpler if the road reserve area affected were to remain under the City’s control. It is recognised however that any future extension of South Street would need to be considered and agreed with DOT prior to the progression of such plans no matter what the status was of Mews Road. If the southern section of the Mews Road road reserve was to be converted to a Crown Reserve managed by DOT it would then have the same status as the section of Mews Road that would connect to the Norfolk Street extension. A benefit of this scenario is that negotiations with DOT for both road extensions could therefore be undertaken on the same basis. While it could be assumed that improved connection of these strategic transport links to the Fishing Boat Harbour would be in DOT’s interest (and DOT has previously indicated


28 September 2016

Page 99

informal support) it is recommended that the City should seek some form of written confirmation from DOT that it will continue to support and work with the City in pursuing the achievement of a connection on the South Street alignment in the event of a change in management of the affected road reserve area. Future protection works The City is a partner in the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance (CSCA) which is currently nearing completion of the Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability and Flexible Adaptation Pathways Project. The current final stage of the project is the preparation of a Coastal Adaptation Plan for the sections of coastline in each of the partner local government areas. The draft South Fremantle Coast adaptation plan (which covers the area south of South Mole at the Inner Harbour entrance) includes an assessment of the risk profile of the Fishing Boat Harbour section of the coastline, and options for measures to address that risk. For the period up to 2030, the draft adaptation plan recommends continuing to monitor risk and to advise owners of land and other assets of the risks associated with sea level rise and coastal processes increasing over time. It does not recommend any specific protection or other measures during this time period. For the time period beyond 2030, the draft plan states that the Harbours will become increasingly vulnerable to inundation from coastal actions and consequently a decision regarding appropriate interim protection measures will likely be required in the planning horizon leading up to 2070. It further states: ‘Due to the modified nature of the shoreline in the Fremantle harbour areas, protection measures will typically require the addition of further hard-active engineering approaches applied along long stretches of existing infrastructure’. As the majority of the infrastructure within the Fishing Boat Harbour area, including some parts of Mews Road, is already under the control of DOT, officers consider there could be benefits in achieving a coordinated approach to long term future coastal adaptation planning from all of Mews Road being under the management of a single agency (i.e. DOT). Fishing Boat Harbour future planning opportunities The previous State Government plans for further development and expansion of the existing harbours under the so-called ‘Three Harbours’ plan originally proposed in 2007-08 appear to have been shelved indefinitely. The FREO 2029 Transformational Moves document includes very indicative illustrations of the potential for future harbour expansion. These illustrations do not suggest any major change to the current configuration of Mews Road as part the land-based access network to any future harbour expansion areas. The key consideration to safeguarding these opportunities is the role of improved connectivity between the city and the harbour areas using extensions to the current alignments of Norfolk Street and South Street, as already discussed above. Subject to safeguarding the potential to implement these connections in the event of any change in management responsibility for the relevant section of Mews Road, as referred to above in relation to the South Street extension, officers consider it is unlikely the proposed change in management responsibility would have any material impact on future planning opportunities for the harbours area as a whole.


28 September 2016

Page 100

Maintenance budget implications In common with most road pavements in Fremantle, this section of Mews Road has a number of cracking, rutting and other pavement deformations. Based on the current ratings for these and the roughness count for the pavement, this section of road has an overall rating of 3 (an average classification, for the scale between 1 (new) and 5 (end of life)). Ongoing routine maintenance costs in the form of potholing or other minor rectification works are incorporated within the overall roads maintenance budget. With this overall rating it is expected that resurfacing is likely to be carried out within a 5-10 year time frame, with expected costs of around $155,000 (at current values). This anticipated expenditure excludes any improvements which may be made for car parking, road widening or landscaping, which can add significantly to the overall cost. Ancillary issues – car parking arrangements Currently, the City has an arrangement with DOT for the operation of car park 31, which is situated in the area of land already controlled by DOT (refer attachment 1 map). The City leases the land from DOT, administers parking arrangements and has an agreement on revenue sharing. At the same time as pursuing the transfer of land requested by DOT, it is also considered worthwhile for the City to seek an extension of the current arrangements for car park 31 into the area which will come under DOT control if the legal formalities for transfer are completed. It is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to progress discussions in this regard.


Financial

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

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

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


28 September 2016

Page 101

To seek an amalgamation of the existing DOT reserve 27807 to include this proposed closed section of Mews Road. Reserve 27807 contains those sections of land to the west of the southern section of the Mews Road reserve, and is a reserve granted for Harbour Purposes. It is noted that the northern section of Mews Road is also contained within a DOT reserve (number 32382) which has the same legal status as this reserve 27807, namely a reserve for Harbour Purposes. In effect the proposal to amalgamate this section of Mews Road will bring it into line with the current status of the northern section, being a constructed road within a reserve managed for Harbour Purposes.

Land Administration legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


28 September 2016

Page 102

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

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

Operational

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

There should be no immediate impact to scheduling of projects.

CONCLUSION

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


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


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



OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to seek a written undertaking from the Department of Transport to continue to support and work with the City of Fremantle in pursuing the achievement of an extension to the South Street


28 September 2016

Page 103

strategic corridor across the rail line to Mews Road to improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the waterfront, in accordance with the FREO 2029 Transformational Moves document, in the event of a change in management of the affected road reserve area.

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

public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day public comment period in regard to the proposed closure of the dedicated portion of Mews Road Reserve (south of the Arundel Street railway crossing to Capo D’Orlando Drive, Fremantle) for the purpose of amalgamation with Reserve No. 27807 managed by the Department of Transport (as detailed in attachment 1) - pursuant to Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

3. Following the completion of the advertising period referred to in part 2, a report be

brought back to Council for consideration of the submissions received during the public consultation period and adopt a final decesion on the application to the Department of Lands to close and amalgamate Mews Road as described in part 2.

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

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

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to part 1 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the wording shown in italics: That Council:

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Bryn Jones

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Given the significance of Norfolk Street in the FREO 2029 transformational moves plan the committee felt it should be included in part 1.


28 September 2016

Page 104

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Cr D Hume MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee meeting to allow further consideration surrounding the strategic planning matters as discussed in the meeting. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 105

FPOL1609-5 LEIGHTON GREYWATER PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FEASIBILITY; EXPANSION OF FUTURE GREYWATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES GREEN PLAN 2020 WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES UPDATE

ECM Reference: 030/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 September 2016 Previous Item: SGS1501-5, SGS1505-12, SGS1509-8 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Projects Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Feasibility map

Opportunities and Constraints Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides a summary of:

The investigation into the feasibility of a greywater treatment and reuse system at Leighton Beach in partnership with the private sector.

The investigation to expand greywater reuse throughout the city.

Update on the Green Plan 2020 actions relating to water conservation, which add to these investigations.

Recommendations on embedding alterative water source considerations as ‘business as usual’ via the One Planet Strategy and Water Conservation Strategy in City projects.

Since March 2015, the City has investigated the feasibility of installing a grey water treatment system to serve the Leighton Beach Kiosk and change room facility and/or the general Leighton Beach public areas. This study was expanded to consider other grey water use opportunities throughout the entire city and to embed consideration of greywater reuse as ‘usual business’ for the City. As part of this, the City has also investigated the parameters around potential public – private partnership greywater reuse schemes e.g. utilising treated greywater from private developments for City requirements such as public open space irrigation, to reduce the amount of ground water and scheme water use in line with the One Planet and Water Conservation Strategy principles. In September 2015 a report was presented providing an update on the investigations. Council resolved (in summary) to:

Approve investigations into the feasibility of a greywater treatment and reuse system at Leighton Beach in partnership with the private sector as part of a long term outcome (approved up to $35,000 funding from the Sustainability Reserve, 2015/2016 budget)


28 September 2016

Page 106

Further investigations to expand greywater reuse solutions and embed these as “usual business” through the delivery of the (then draft) Green Plan and Water Conservation Strategy.

Lot 5 Leighton Beach Boulevard was previously identified as a greywater reuse private-public partnership opportunity with Landcorp. Landcorp have since sold the land and officers will approach the new landowner to gauge interest. An additional Leighton area site has also been identified. 15 sites in a mix of City and private/government ownership and in different locations/land uses are identified as having the greatest level of potential for greywater (and other) reuse, based on future development water yield, irrigation requirements and early stages of development.

BACKGROUND

At the 28 January 2015 Council meeting, in considering the tender for the Leighton Beach Kiosk and change rooms, it was resolved to “add a grey water system to the Leighton Beach Facilities upgrade up to the value of $100 000, subject to it having a payback period of less than ten years” and to further investigate “the technical and economic feasibility of installing a grey water recycling” system. Consultants were commissioned to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of installing a small greywater reuse system at the site. The assessment considered the installation of a Greywater Diversion Device (GDD), due to the $100,000 budget limit. GDD’s are cheaper than Greywater Treatment Systems (GTS) as they provide simple filtration prior to discharge, not full chemical, biological and other treatment. The report concluded that with the limited volumes of greywater available to be harvested from the change rooms and health restrictions on where the greywater could be used, a small GDD system would deliver limited sustainability value beyond being a demonstration project. Water cost savings were also minimal as the City is exempt from paying discharge to sewer fees in any event. These findings were reported at the 27 May 2015 Meeting where Council resolved:

1. That Council approve further investigations, to expand greywater reuse in Leighton Beach and other locations where significant development is in close proximity to reserves and recreational facilities that have high water use.

2. That Council considers the merits of a small localised greywater reuse system at the Leighton Beach Kiosk as a community demonstration project and approves $15,000 funding from the Sustainability Reserve in the draft 2015/2016 budget for grey water recycling at Leighton Beach in order to reduce our scheme water use in line with the One Planet Policy and Water Conservation Strategy.

Following this resolution, the plumbing design of the Leighton Beach change room facility was adapted to provide a dual pipe system (i.e. pipes from showers and hand basins generating greywater are separate from pipes from the toilets). This allows easy future installation of a greywater treatment system if required.


28 September 2016

Page 107

A report was presented on 23 September 2015 which provided information on investigation of expanded greywater reuse in the Leighton Beach area and other locations, and information on the merits of a small localised greywater reuse system at the Leighton change rooms as a community demonstration project. The report advised, in summary, that:

A more sophisticated GTS would treat the greywater to a standard suitable for publicly accessible areas and non-potable uses (e.g. toilet flushing and POS irrigation). This type of system, although more expensive than a GDD, is able to be applied to a greater number of reuse applications which would benefit the City in terms of reduction of scheme/groundwater use. GTS’s costs start at $250,000. Annual maintenance costs are around $13,000.

The consultant report stated a GTS developed in partnership with the private sector will offer better economies of scale to a smaller GDD system, as private development will benefit from saving on sewer discharge fees and reduction of scheme water use. A cost estimate for a feasibility study for a GTS and private – public partnership was between $25,000 and $30,000.

A neighbouring hotel developer indicated in-principle support to further discuss a partnership arrangement. However, on closer investigation, this offer extended to allowing the City to harvest the development’s untreated surplus greywater only. A City funded GTS would be required. Other potential public/private opportunities were investigated for the Leighton area for long term opportunities, with a Landcorp owned property (Lot 5 Leighton Beach Boulevard) identified for partnership discussions.

Council resolved; 1. That Council approve investigations into the feasibility of a greywater treatment and

reuse system at Leighton Beach in partnership with the private sector as part of a long term outcome and approves up to $35,000 funding (including meeting contingency) from the Sustainability Reserve in the 2015/16 budget to undertake this work.

2. Further investigations to expand greywater solutions and embed these as usual

business through the delivery of the draft Green Plan and adopted Water Conservation Strategy be undertaken.

COMMENT

From September 2015, City officers, in partnership with a UWA Masters student placement program, have worked to identify future public-private greywater reuse scheme opportunities at the Leighton location and throughout the city. Concurrently, the Green Plan 2020 was adopted in December 2015 and included the following actions under Focus Area 5 - Water Security;

Finalise water requirement demand modelling for existing and future open space and tree planting to inform feasibility studies for effective water reuse and alternative water supply options.


28 September 2016

Page 108

Develop an assessment matrix tool for alternative water supply options and/or supply combinations for the City to apply to green site planning and other City planting regimes.

Undertake assessment and feasibility of fit for purpose water supply options as identified in the Water Security Investigation and their application for existing and future green spaces and planting regimes in conjunction with the Water Conservation Strategy (e.g. grey water reuse, sewer mining and commercial waste water reuse).

This investigation, in conjunction with the Green Plan 2020, One Planet Strategy and Water Conservation Strategy, seeks to embed wastewater reuse consideration and total water cycle management as ‘business as usual’ for City projects and to advocate this approach to the private sector. Research and analysis undertaken included;

Types of grey water treatment systems, methods and technology available.

Identification of where grey water treatment systems can be most effective.

Identification of land uses and areas most likely to yield usable amounts of grey water for reuse opportunities.

Identification of priority POS based on high groundwater use and the use of scheme water for irrigation.

Identification of WA legislation requirements

Obtaining treatment system capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs.

Greywater yield, reuse and payback modelling (water balance) The research included interviews with key state government agencies relating to the design and regulation of waste water treatment such as Department of Health, Department of Water and the Water Corporation. Interviews were also undertaken with industry treatment system providers on the supply, installation and maintenance of various systems. Quotes were also obtained. Higher water consuming land uses/developments have been identified and mapped across the City based on water use data from the Water Conservation Strategy and also relating to their location to potential water reuse land uses e.g. public open space (POS) using scheme water. The top 4 water consuming land uses are low density residential, high density residential, retail/wholesale and hospitality. Whilst being the highest water user, it is difficult to implement a greywater treatment system for low density residential due to fragmented land ownership and the need for a centralised treatment and distribution system. High density residential/apartments, large


28 September 2016

Page 109

precinct-scale redevelopment, large scale retail and hospitality land uses offer greater opportunity for centralised treatment and distribution systems. To add value to this research, a development grey water yield, grey water reuse and discharge sewer discount cost estimate model has been developed. Development scenarios such as a high density residential apartment complex and a hotel development have been prepared to calculate the associated water demand, grey water yield and approximate savings in sewer discharge rates. This can be used in discussion with the private sector for greywater reuse as well as applied to City developments. The payback cost modelling indicates that even with substantial sewer discharge discounts, payback periods are still considerable at an estimated 20 years for a GTS. Interviews with industry providers also confirmed this. However this only considers the payback periods and does not take into account the environmental and social benefits of recycling water and reducing potable and ground water consumption. There are opportunities throughout the City of Fremantle which may merit further investigation, monitoring and implementation of greywater reuse partnerships. A detailed assessment has been undertaken, taking into account the site and location opportunities and constraints. 15 sites/areas have been identified as having the greatest level of potential for greywater reuse. These sites are located in a combination of redevelopment areas, high residential density/mixed use areas, retail and commercial areas. City owned assets have also been identified as these provide reuse opportunities wholly within the City’s control. Refer to Attachment 1 – Feasibility Map. The table below lists the areas identified as having the greatest feasibility for future greywater harvesting and reuse. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the opportunities and constraints including potential greywater reuse scenarios.

Site Development Areas

1 DA 1 – Knutsford Street East (depot and old museum sites)

2 DA 4 - Knutsford Street West (Swanbourne Street)

3 DA 6 – Wool Testing and Sealanes sites

4 DA 7 – Lefroy Road Quarry (Beaconsfield West Master Plan)

Residential Development

5 City centre site at R-AC3 (Beach Street, Adelaide Street, Parry Street, Queen Victoria Street)

6 Burt Street R60 Lots – Department of Housing

7 Brockman Street future redevelopment area, South Fremantle

8 Proposed high density residential site - Bracks Street, North Fremantle

Retail/Commercial/Hospitality

9 Woolstores shopping centre, Cantonment Street

10 Little Creatures brewery

Site City of Fremantle Development

1 Depot site – Jones Street O’Connor

2 Fremantle Park Redevelopment

3 Fremantle Oval Redevelopment (including Stan Reilly site)

4 New Administration Building


28 September 2016

Page 110

5 Fremantle Leisure Centre

Green Plan 2020 Action Update Action 5.2 of the Green Plan 2020 is to “develop an assessment matrix tool for alternative water supply options and/or supply combinations for the City to apply to green site planning and other City planting regimes”. This has been completed and complements the findings in this feasibility study. This matrix tool will be used to assess both the City projects and private developments for total water management and reuse/conservation applications. This feasibility study and matrix will also assist with action 5.3 of the Green Plan 2020 to undertake assessment of fit for purpose water supply options for existing and future green space development and planting regimes which is scheduled from this year to 2018. All of these works will complement and assist with the implementation of the One Planet Strategy, Water Conservation Strategy, Water Wise Aquatic Centre and Water Wise Council initiatives.


Financial

The treatment system and associated infrastructure capital works would be required to be funded for implementation of any grey water system. Cost estimates for GDD systems range from $10,000 to $60,000. GTS systems and associated infrastructure range from $250,000 to $500,000. There are a number of different funding and management scenarios relating to a private – public partnership that could be considered. These scenarios could involve a combination of City capital expenditure and system management, for example;

Whole or shared funding of treatment system and infrastructure

Whole or shared funding of management and maintenance

Management and maintenance of infrastructure on City land

Guarantee of water supply (from the private sector) and guarantee of water use by the City

City purchasing greywater for reuse Legal

Significant regulations exist around greywater reuse, particularly related to treatment systems. Grey water reuse public/private partnerships will require legal agreements for the capital cost of treatment system, management, maintenance and guarantee of supply.


28 September 2016

Page 111

Operational

The investigation and feasibility of grey water reuse systems for consideration in future City and private development has been embedded in the Water Conservation Strategy 2013 and One Planet Sustainable Water as well as the future initiatives arising from the Water Wise Aquatic Centre and Water Wise Council requirements. Organisational

Implementation of the strategies referred to above is mainly led by the City Design and Projects business unit, in close consultation and collaboration with all other Directorates.

CONCLUSION

GDD’s are considerably constrained due to the limited end use of the grey water e.g. can only be used for irrigated areas with restricted public access. This limits use in the public realm which would be the main benefit for the City. GTS’s are more expensive than GDD’s, mainly due to the additional level of water treatment. However, these systems provide a greater range and flexibility for grey water reuse such as irrigation to public spaces and toilet flushing. The greatest opportunity for feasible greywater reuse relates to land uses with a high water demand (hence high water output or yield) which are; high density residential, hospitality and wholesale/retail. This also applies where development will occur at a precinct scale e.g. the City’s redevelopment areas. Feasibility is improved when high greywater yielding land uses are located in proximity to high water users such as public open space. Areas irrigated with scheme drinking water are also identified as opportunities to save on water cost and use reduction. The grey water reuse research provides a greater level of detail to previous feasibility studies regarding the Leighton Beach Change rooms. This information can be used in discussion with the private sector for future partnership opportunities in the North Fremantle/Leighton area and across the city. The grey water yield and reuse modelling will also assist the City in discussions with the private sector in the future.


Strategic Community Plan 2015 – 2025 – Environmental Responsibility

One Planet Sustainable Water – Reducing water use in buildings and in the products we buy; preventing flooding and pollution

Water Conservation Strategy – Research alternative water supply options, investigate the viability of installing greywater reuse systems in City managed buildings and properties for irrigation and other uses

Green Plan 2020 – Water Security


28 September 2016

Page 112

LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements – requires certain buildings to achieve no less than 4 Star Green Star status (or equivalent), which includes water efficiency.


Nil




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council;

1. Note the grey water reuse feasibility research and investigation.

2. Note the City continues to progress the water conservation actions from the One Planet Strategy, Water Conservation Strategy and Green Plan 2020.

3. Authorises officers to consider scoping the specification of new/upgraded City buildings and/or projects, where feasible, to include greywater reuse systems as part of total water cycle assessment and management.

4. Authorises officers to monitor preliminary plans for the development of other sites referred to in Attachment 1 to this item and, where possible, initiate early discussion with landowners regarding possible private-public greywater reuse schemes and/or encourage developers to incorporate grey water reuse systems within private developments.

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald At Council Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include an additional part 5 as shown in (bold and italics): 5. A step be included at the beginning of the Alternative Water Supply

assessment matrix, so staff assess current and future water demand needs in proximity to development to see if viable water output from private and/or public development can be harvested through a collaborative approach to meet the aims of the Green Plan 2020 and Water Conservation Strategy 2013, to reduce the use of scheme and/or groundwater.


28 September 2016

Page 113

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council;

1. Note the grey water reuse feasibility research and investigation.

2. Note the City continues to progress the water conservation actions from the One Planet Strategy, Water Conservation Strategy and Green Plan 2020.

3. Authorises officers to consider scoping the specification of new/upgraded City buildings and/or projects, where feasible, to include greywater reuse systems as part of total water cycle assessment and management.

4. Authorises officers to monitor preliminary plans for the development of other sites referred to in Attachment 1 to this item and, where possible, initiate early discussion with landowners regarding possible private-public greywater reuse schemes and/or encourage developers to incorporate grey water reuse systems within private developments.

5. A step be included at the beginning of the Alternative Water Supply assessment matrix, so staff assess current and future water demand needs in proximity to development to see if viable water output from private and/or public development can be harvested through a collaborative approach to meet the aims of the Green Plan 2020 and Water Conservation Strategy 2013, to reduce the use of scheme and/or groundwater.


28 September 2016

Page 114

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 115

At 6.19 pm Cr I Waltham declared a impartiality interest in item number FPOL1609-6 and was present during discussion and voting of this item.

FPOL1609-6 APPROVAL OF LEASES: HILTON PARK BOWLING AND RECREATION CLUB INCORPORATED; AND FREMANTLE MEN'S COMMUNITY SHED INC.

ECM Reference: L059, 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 September 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Actioning Officer: Property Services Administrator and Manager

Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Hilton Park Leasing Plan

Draft Hilton Park Bowling and Recreation Club Lease Draft Fremantle Men’s Community Shed Lease

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this item is for Council to consider approval of two leases between the City of Fremantle and two parties at the Hilton Park Reserve Beaconsfield:

1. the Hilton Park Bowling and Recreation Club Inc.; and

2. the Fremantle Men’s Community Shed Inc.

BACKGROUND

The City entered into the original lease with Hilton Park Bowling Club Inc. in January 1974 with the Club being present in this location since that time. The most recent lease was effective from 1 June 2004 for a term of ten (10) years for a Portion of the Hilton Reserve as defined in Attachment 1. The lease expired 31 May 2014 and has remained on a monthly agreement in line with the lease conditions. As part of the City’s consideration for a location for the new Men’s Shed, a section of the bowling clubs leased area was recognised as a possible location for the build. It was a part of the leased space that was not activated and would fit in with the City’s goal to increase capacity of use in community spaces. The City undertook consultation with the Fremantle Men’s Shed and the Hilton Park Bowling Club regarding the relocation of the Shed to this site. To accommodate the negotiations of this project, and the need for the bowling club’s lease area to be redefined if it proceeded, the bowling club was maintained on a monthly lease until the plans for the new Men’s Shed could be approved and funds committed to the project.


28 September 2016

Page 116

The City was successful in obtaining $355,000 grant funding from Lotterywest for the construction of a new shed that would be located on the Hilton Park Reserve, alongside the Hilton Bowling Club Greenkeeper brick shed. Both Clubs share the carpark and enter and exit through the main entrance to the facility. The construction of the Men’s shed is now complete and it is anticipated that the official opening will occur in October 2016, allowing members to transfer from the Shed in Nannine Avenue, White Gum Valley across to the newly built shed at the Hilton Park Reserve. Land Description Hilton Bowling Club: portion of Cockburn South Location 551 being part of the land on Diagram 9446 and portion of Cockburn Sound Location 839 together being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 1387 Folio 97. Fremantle Men’s Shed: portion of Lot 839 on Deposited Plan 152954 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 1387 Folio 97. Property Description Portion of Hilton Park Reserve, Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield.

Registered Proprietor State of Western Australia Lease Extension Commencement Date


28 September 2016

Page 117

TBA (imminent) Lease Term Ten (10) years Further Term Fremantle Men’s Shed: Ten (10) years Annual Rental $0.00 Rent Reviews Nil Permitted Use Hilton Bowling Club: Bowling and Recreation Club and fields. Fremantle Men’s Shed: Social Enterprise, community space, café, community services, education and studio space. Outgoings and Statutory Charges Outgoings including but not limited to both clubs, are;

Water rates and usage

Electricity usage

Building Insurance

General Maintenance

Pest control

Gutter cleaning

Air conditioning maintenance/servicing Charges will be recovered on demand. Special Conditions

Audited statements will be submitted to the City annually at the end of every financial year.

Should the lessees enter into a commercial sub lease then the City may determine that a rent fee be payable to the city. The rent fee will be payable to the City regardless of the lessee interaction or lack of interaction with the sub lessee. This does not apply to storage arrangements only active commercial arrangements.


28 September 2016

Page 118

The City may reserve the right to not accept sub lessees. All sub lessees must adhere to the obligations outlined with lease and annexures.

The City acknowledges that the lessee is a stakeholder and entitled to use of the common area land (car park) but does not hold authority over common area land.

The leases include a confidentiality clause.

Any building improvements undertaken by the lessees will become part of the City’s asset at the determination of the lease.

The City reserves the right to readvertise the premises by EOI at the end of the lease to ensure a transparent leasing process of a community building. The lessees will be entitled to reapply for the property as long as all conditions of the lease have been adhered to.

As the City is a financial supporter of the Men’s Shed through a sponsorship agreement that includes the expected obligations of the Fremantle Men’s shed; that agreement is included as an annexure to the lease. If the group does not adhere to the obligations of this agreement it may constitute a breach of the lease agreement.

COMMENT

The Fremantle Men’s Shed is a community organisation that supports health and wellbeing of men in the community. Sheds provide a space to facilitate men of all ages participating in work projects that can benefit both themselves and the community. Historically, the car park area fell within the lease area for the Hilton Park Bowling Club. This has been removed from the proposed lease areas and will revert back to the City to manage in the future.


Financial

Fremantle Men’s Community Shed: the current sponsorship arrangement with the Fremantle Community Men’s Shed for the current financial year is $50,000. Hilton Park Bowling Club: the lease includes no rental income but all outgoings related to the premises are the responsibility of the Club maintaining a “no cost” lease to the City. Legal

Both leases are drafted in line with the Local Government Act 1995 and Commercial (Retail) Tenancy Act 1985. Operational

The two leases will be managed individually by Officers however it is important that both leases be considered by Council together to ensure that timelines and outcomes are aligned with both Clubs.


28 September 2016

Page 119

Organisational

The leases will be managed by the City Business Directorate with technical assistance from the Community Development Directorate relating to the performance of both groups.


Alignment with the Strategic Community Plan 2015 – 2025;

Develop environmentally sustainable solutions for the benefit of current and future generations.

Create great spaces for people through innovative urban and suburban design.


The bowling club was supportive of the proposed build as many of its current members also belonged to the Men’s Shed and it offered and opportunity to increase the bowling clubs social members once the shed was operational.

CONCLUSION

The Fremantle Men’s Shed is a community organisation that supports health and wellbeing of men in the community. Sheds provide a space to facilitate men of all ages participating in work projects that can benefit both themselves and the community. The newly built Men’s Shed at Hilton Park Reserve will provide an opportunity to broaden the concept by providing sporting options to existing club members and in return provide the bowling club members a variety of activities that can enhance the wellbeing of their members through the provision of a community hub model.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approve the attached two leases, for Hilton Park Reserve Beaconsfield, between the City of Fremantle and:

1. Hilton Bowling Club Incorporated

2. Fremantle Community Men’s Shed Incorporated CARRIED: 6/0


28 September 2016

Page 120

Cr A Sullivan requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Cr D Coggin. ADDITIONAL OFFICER’S COMMENT: Hilton Bowling and Recreational Club Incorporated is currently on a holding over (month by month) lease agreement with a leased area that includes the section of land on which the Men’s Shed has been built and that their lease is proposed for. The lease area for the Hilton Bowling Club must be amended in order for the City to finalise the lease for the Men’s Shed with the Department of Lands. REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: In order to fully consider the findings of the City’s Community Facility Review and to understand their implications. The alternate recommendation would allow the Hilton Bowling Club to remain operational while the Review explores ways to optimise use of the facilities by other community groups. At Council, Cr A Sullivan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That Council approve:

1. The lease for Hilton Bowling and Recreation Club Incorporated, as attached to this item, with the following amendment;

a. The lease term of ten (10) years (Schedule Item 2) be reduced to one (1)

year, effective 1 July 2016 and expiring 31 June 2017, to allow for:

i. The completion of the City’s Community Facilities Review.

ii. Investigation of potential co-occupation opportunities within the leased area to ensure optimal use by community groups.

2. That prior to the expiry of the term of one (1) year, an item will be taken to Council

to consider a lease extension for the revised Hilton Bowling and Recreation Club lease area, based on the findings of the City’s Community Facilities Review.

3. The attached lease for the Fremantle Community Men’s Shed Incorporated.

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to part 2 of the Alternative Recommendation to include the wording shown in italics:

2. That prior to the expiry of the term of one (1) year, an item will be taken to Council to consider a 9 year lease extension for the revised Hilton Bowling and Recreation Club lease area, based on the findings of the City’s Community Facilities Review.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham


28 September 2016

Page 121

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


Cr J McDonald MOVED: To defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow the completion of the City’s Community Facilities Review. SECONDED: Cr D Hume LOST: 0/10

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 122

Cr J McDonald MOVED: To defer part 1 and 2 only of the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council. SECONDED: Cr D Hume LOST: 4/6

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council approve:

1. The lease for Hilton Bowling and Recreation Club Incorporated, as attached to this item, with the following amendment;

a. The lease term of ten (10) years (Schedule Item 2) be reduced to one

(1) year, effective 1 July 2016 and expiring 31 June 2017, to allow for:

i. The completion of the City’s Community Facilities Review.

ii.Investigation of potential co-occupation opportunities within the leased area to ensure optimal use by community groups.

2. That prior to the expiry of the term of one (1) year, an item will be taken to Council to consider a 9 year lease extension for the revised Hilton Bowling and Recreation Club lease area, based on the findings of the City’s Community Facilities Review.

3. The attached lease for the Fremantle Community Men’s Shed Incorporated.


28 September 2016

Page 123

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 6/4

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald Cr David Hume

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Hilton Bowling and Recreational Club Incorporated is currently on a holding over (month by month) lease agreement with a leased area that includes the section of land on which the Men’s Shed has been built and that their lease is proposed for. The lease area for the Hilton Bowling Club must be amended in order for the City to finalise the lease for the Men’s Shed with the Department of Lands.


28 September 2016

Page 124

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1609-1 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO THE STRATEGY AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE

ECM Reference: 097/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 September 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Governance and Risk Teamleader Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The resignation of ex-councillor Joshua Wilson has created a vacancy on the Strategy and Project Development Committee. The Strategy and Project Development Committee is a committee of Council comprised of all elected members. Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge has recently been elected as a Beaconsfield ward councillor, and as such is entitled to be appointed to the Strategy and Project Development committee.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle currently has three standing committees to which elected members can be appointed. Each council member is entitled to be a member of at least one committee of council and the Strategy and Project Development Committee comprises all elected members. The council re-appoints members to the committee after each ordinary election, unless a position is otherwise vacated. Membership of the committee expires in October 2017, which is the when the next ordinary council election will be held.

COMMENT

The Strategy and Project Development Committee meets once a month, and the matters that are discussed are limited to the matters set out in the terms of reference below.


28 September 2016

Page 125

To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to the following:

1. Kings Square development; 2. Fremantle Oval redevelopment; 3. Freight link; 4. New operations centre; 5. Port future; 6. Boundary reviews; 7. Knutsford street redevelopment (current depot); and 8. Point street redevelopment.

The Strategy and Project Development Committee does not have delegation to make decisions, and is not open for the public to attend, however reports and recommendations from the committee are presented to the Council for a decision.


Financial

Nil Legal

Appointment to committees is made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. Section 5.10 of the Act requires:

(1) A committee is to have as its members —

(a) persons appointed* by the local government to be members of the committee (other than those referred to in paragraph (b)); and

(b) persons who are appointed to be members of the committee under subsection (4) or (5).

Clauses 97 to 99 of the standing orders provide for the appointment to standing committees by Council. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil


28 September 2016

Page 126

CONCLUSION

New Beaconsfield ward councillor Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge is entitled to be a member of at least one committee and as result of the resignation of ex-councillor Josh Wilson there is a vacancy on the Strategy and Project Development Committee. As all elected members are members of the Committee, it is recommended that Cr Fitzhardinge nominates to fill the vacant position.


Absolute majority required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council;

Appoint Cr Hannah Fitzharding to the Strategy and Project Development Committee until October 2017.

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 127

C1609-2 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

ECM Reference: 097/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 September 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Acting Director City Business Actioning Officer: Governance and Risk Coordinator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The resignation of ex-councillor Joshua Wilson has created a vacancy on the Planning Committee. To fill this vacancy, it is recommended that council appoint an elected member to the committee, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle currently has three standing committees to which elected members can be appointed. Each council member is entitled to be a member of at least one committee of council. Generally, each ward is entitled to have a representative on the Planning Committee and a representative on the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee. Currently there is no appointed representative from the Beaconsfield Ward on the Planning Committee, however Cr Dave Hume has been appointed as a deputy and is entitled to participate at Planning Committee meetings in the absence of an appointed member. The Planning Committee generally comprises six councillors, one from each ward, and the Mayor. The council re-appoints members to the committee after each ordinary election, unless a position is otherwise vacated. Membership of the committee expires in October 2017, which is the when the next ordinary council election will be held.

COMMENT

The Planning Committee meets once a month and has delegated authority to make decisions on matters relating to planning, including planning applications and responses to the State Administrative Tribunal and the Western Australian Planning Commission. The terms of reference for the planning committee are set out below. 1. To exercise delegated authority and make recommendations to council in relation to

the integrated assessment of: (a) Development proposals;

(b) Planning and building compliance matters;

(c) Subdivision approvals;

(d) Local Planning Scheme amendments;


28 September 2016

Page 128

(e) Structure and Local Development Plans; and

(f) Heritage matters.

2. To exercise delegated authority, develop policy and make recommendations to council

on strategic trends and needs analysis and integrated forward planning in relation to: (a) Land use strategy;

(b) Land use policy and guidelines;

(c) Structure and local development plans;

(d) Local Planning Scheme creation, amendment and revision;and

(e) Architecture and heritage policy.


Financial

Nil Legal

Appointment to committees is made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. Section 5.10 of the Act requires:

(1) A committee is to have as its members —

(a) persons appointed* by the local government to be members of the committee (other than those referred to in paragraph (b)); and

(b) persons who are appointed to be members of the committee under subsection (4) or (5).

Clauses 97 to 99 of the standing orders provide for the appointment to standing committees by Council. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil


28 September 2016

Page 129

CONCLUSION

As result of the resignation of ex-councillor Josh Wilson there is a vacancy on the Planning Committee. It is recommended that a councillor be appointed to the Planning Committee until the next ordinary election in October 2017.


Absolute Majority Required


MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council;

Appoint Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge to the Planning Committee until October 2017.

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 130

Cr D Coggin MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered C1609-3 and C1609-4. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


The following item number C1609-3 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1609-3 OVERDUE DEBTS REPORT - 31 AUGUST 2016

ECM Reference: 085/002; 085/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 September 2016 Previous Item: C1604 – 2 of 27 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Summary of Overdue Debts above Threshold

(Confidential Report)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council resolved that bi-annually (March and September) a report with a confidential attachment be provided to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee (Previous Strategic and General Services Committee) with details of overdue debts that exceed a threshold value of $10,000.

BACKGROUND

The report is part of a framework for the write off of bad debts that was endorsed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on 16 December 2014 and referred to Council who endorsed the framework on 28 January 2015.


28 September 2016

Page 131

COMMENT

Compared to the report presented in March 2016 the total value of outstanding debtors remains at the same level around $120K. The number of debtors being reported has increased from five to seven. All the debtors in this report with outstanding debts exceeding 90 days and $10,000 are/were commercial property tenants. The city has exhausted all methods of communication with these debtors. Most of these debtors are referred to CS Legal to chase up outstanding debts. The confidential attachment contains comment and background in relation to the debtors listed in the report. A further report will be provided to Committee in two months’ time for approval to write off those debts that are considered bad or doubtful.


Financial

The budget implications can be addressed in two parts:- 1. Cost of Credit Management. If an organisation does not have good credit

management then it will have negative budgetary impacts as cash will not be collected for the sales of goods and services made. It should be noted that even with good credit management, bad debts can still be incurred, but they normally arise within an environment where the risk and reward factors have been balanced to try and achieve the best outcome for the organisation. It is a requirement for completing annual financial statements that any potential bad debts are provisioned for and that is a cost to the budget in the year in which the provision is made.

2. Cost to Budget of Writing off Bad Debts. Generally this is budget neutral as the city

provisions for potential bad and unrecoverable debts and the city has been doing so for many years in accordance with accounting standards. As a consequence, approvals to write off bad debts will generally result in the cost being written back against the provision with no net impact to the current budget.

Legal

Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides authority for the Council to write off outstanding monies. Operational

The report is likely to highlight matters that have been or currently are the focus of operational activity. Organisational

It is possible that some of the matters highlighted are linked to current and evolving organisational plans.


28 September 2016

Page 132

CONCLUSION

That the information be received.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Cr D Coggin That the Overdue Debt report for outstanding debtors exceeding 90 days and $10,000 in value as at 31 August 2016 be received. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 133

The following item number C1609-4 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1609-4 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - AUGUST 2016-22 SEP 2016

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 September 2016 Previous Item: C1608- 3 of 24 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 31 August 2016

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 31 August 2016 Statement of Net Current Assets – 31 August 2016 Statement of Financial Position – 31 August 2016 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 31 August 2016 Cash and Investment Summary Report – 31 August 2016 Debtors Outstanding Report – 31 August 2016 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) (viewed electronically) - August 2016 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for August 2016 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of financial performance for August 2016 based on the following statements: • Statement of Comprehensive Income; • Statement of Financial Activity; and • Statement of Financial Position An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) shows an actual year to date Operating Surplus of $37,352,893 a favourable variance of $560,328 compared with the current budgeted surplus of $36,792,565.

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 31 August 2016. 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) Actual Financial Performance to 31 August 2016


28 September 2016

Page 134

- Actual operating income of $47.71 million is $194,570 greater than the year-to-

date budgeted income of $47.52 million (refer explanation within the report).

- Actual operating expenditure of $10.36 million is $365,758 under the year-to-date

budgeted expenditure of $10.73 million (refer explanation within the report).

- Actual operating surplus of $37.35 million is $560,328 more than the year-to-date

budgeted operating surplus of $36.79 million (a favourable variance). 2. Capital Works

- Actual capital works expenditure of $730,765 (excluding committed expenditure)

is $1,104,025 less than the budgeted capital works expenditure of $1,834,790 (an unfavourable variance).

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how actual income/expenditure compares to budget and actuals for the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding the actual end of year financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants,

subsides and contributions, reimbursement income, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $47.71 million is $194,570 greater than the

budgeted income of $47.52 million (a favourable variance).

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

Prior Year Actuals 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.78m 59.99m 62.71m 65.39m 68.03m 70.29m 73.10m

Currrent Budget 44.71m 47.52m 50.16m 53.12m 55.72m 58.78m 61.65m 64.47m 67.59m 70.15m 72.43m 75.10m

Current Year Forecast 44.93m 47.71m 50.63m 53.48m 56.06m 59.16m 62.04m 64.83m 67.98m 70.55m 72.82m 75.12m

0.00m

10.00m

20.00m

30.00m

40.00m

50.00m

60.00m

70.00m

80.00m

Operating Income ($m)


28 September 2016

Page 135

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure. Actual operating expenditure of $10.36 million is $365,758 less than the

budgeted expenditure of $10.73 million (a favourable variance). Capital Expenditure The following graph highlights that capital expenditure is marginally under budget.

Note: Actual capital expenditure of $730,765 is $1,104,025 less than the year-to

date budgeted expenditure of $1,834,790 (an unfavourable variance).





0.00m

10.00m

20.00m

30.00m

40.00m

50.00m

60.00m

70.00m

80.00m

90.00m

Operating Expenditure ($m)





0.00m

2.00m

4.00m

6.00m

8.00m

10.00m

12.00m

14.00m

16.00m

18.00m

20.00m

Capital Expenditure ($m)


28 September 2016

Page 136

MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 30 June 2016 (Item SC1606-1 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 10% and $25,000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Interest Earnings Interest Revenue of $278,313 is $85,026 is under year to date budget of $363,339 mainly due to the low investment rate. With a further 25-basis-point official rate cut to unprecedentedly low 1.50%, the City is under pressure to achieve investment return as budgeted.

Unfavourable

$85K Under budget

23.40%

Reimbursement Income Reimbursement Income of $320,529 is $74,171 over year to date budget of $246,358 mainly due to the release of the original bank guarantees of $41,370 in relation to the CPD works at Leighton beach and increased tenant recoverable income for property insurance.

Favourable

$74K Over budget

30.11%

Other Revenue Other Revenue of $42,274 is $38,809 over year to date budget of $3,465 mainly due to the receipt of insurance settlement of $33,371.

Favourable

$39K Over budget

1120%

Employee Cost - Agency Labour Employee cost – Agency Labour of $114,011 is $66,534 over year to date budget of $47,477 mainly due to agency labour cost for City Works $57K over the YTD budget of $23,807.

Unfavourable

$67K Over budget

140%

Materials and Contract Cost Materials and Contract costs of $2.741m are $447K less than the budget of $3.187m mainly due to the timing of the following services:

The payment for municipal solid waste gate fees of $100K has been deferred to September 2016;

Project 10447 for replacement of existing IT server and network storage of $105K was deferred to September 2016.

Tip fees of $30K to City of Cockburn were deferred to September 2016.

$48K for maintenance of internet cloud and other hosted technologies has been deferred to September 2016;

$30,925 for maintenance of fixed and wireless network infrastructure is $70K under the YTD budget of $101K.

Favourable $447K

Under budget 14.01%


28 September 2016

Page 137

Utility Charges Cost Utility charges costs of $349,651 are $41,200 less than the year to date budget of $390,851 mainly due to timing difference for the water bills, which will be cleared next month.

Favourable

$41K Under budget

11%

Insurance Expenses Insurance cost of $478,519 is $104,684 more than the year to date budget of $373,835 mainly due to Property Scheme cover which is $80,828 greater than the budget.

Unfavourable

$104,684 Over budget

28%

Capital Expenditure Capital expenditure of $730,765 is $1,104,025 under the year to date budget of $1,834,790 mainly due to the delay of the following projects:

Capital expenditure of $160,236 for Project 10508 Undertake external conservation works to Fremantle Town Hall Building is $674,764 under the YTD budget of $835,000;

Capital expenditure of $7,040 for Project 10259 Construct new Operation Centre is $142,960 under the YTD budget of $150,000;

Capital expenditure of $24,444 for Project 10056 Improve way finding and signage is $75,556 under the YTD budget of $100,000.

Capital expenditure of $344 for Project 10853 Upgrade intersection at Queen Victoria St and James St is $67,856 under the YTD budget of $68,200.

Capital expenditure of $28,652 for Project 10771 Construct reinforced concrete access ramp at Leighton Beach is $61,348 under the YTD budget of $90,000.

Unfavourable $1,104,025

Under budget 60%

Capital Grants and Contributions Capital grants is $207,797 more than the year to date budget of zero mainly due to the receipt of capital grants of $207,797 for Project 10672 Relocate Men’s Shed to Hilton, which was not budgeted in 2016/17. The total grants income for this project is forecast to be $296,000.

Favourable $207,797

Over budget N/A

Cash Investments The graph below summarise the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 31 August 2016.

at call 30 days 60 days 90 days 180 days 210 days 270 days 330 days

Sum of Amount $15.5M $5.0M $6.0M $4.5M $6.8M $3.0M $3.0M $2.5M

$.0M

$2.0M

$4.0M

$6.0M

$8.0M

$10.0M

$12.0M

$14.0M

$16.0M

$18.0M


28 September 2016

Page 138

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 31 August 2016. There are $28.2M investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 59% of the total investments.

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


Financial

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

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

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

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

AMP, $4.0M, 8%

ANZ, $7.6M, 16%

BOQ, $11.0M

, 23%

ME Bank, $2.0M, 4% NAB, $7.9M, 17%

Rural Bank, $4.0M, 8%

Beyond Bank, $1.5M, 3%

Suncorp,

$0.8M, 2%

Bendigo & Adelaide ,

$8.9M, 19%

Investments at carbon non-

support financial institutions,

$28.2M, 59%

Counterparty Exposure

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


28 September 2016

Page 139

Operational

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2016/17 adopted budget.

Organisational

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


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

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


Absolute Majority Required


28 September 2016

Page 140


MOVED: Cr D Coggin 1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of

Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 31 August is received.

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

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

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



28 September 2016

Page 141

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE DEPUTY MAYOR, CR DAVE COGGIN DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.03 PM.


28 September 2016

Page 142

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


28 September 2016

Page 143


limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


28 September 2016

Page 144


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


28 September 2016

Page 145

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS


Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 6.00 pm

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS


Wednesday 28 September 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT PAGE

FPOL1609-5 MINOR AMENDMENT – LEIGHTON GREYWATER PUBLIC-

PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FEASIBILITY; EXPANSION OF FUTURE GREYWATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES GREEN PLAN 2020 WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES UPDATE –SUBMITTED BY CR RACHEL PEMBERTON 4

PC1609-12 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION – CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE – SUBMITTED BY CR RACHEL PEMBERTON 5

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

28 September 2016

Page 4

FPOL1609-5 MINOR AMENDMENT – LEIGHTON GREYWATER PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FEASIBILITY; EXPANSION OF FUTURE GREYWATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES GREEN PLAN 2020 WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES UPDATE –SUBMITTED BY CR RACHEL PEMBERTON

Cr Pemberton proposes an amendment to add Part 5 as shown below (in bold and italics) to the Committee and Officer’s Recommendation of item FPOL1609-5 - Leighton Greywater Public-Private Partnership Feasibility; Expansion of Future Greywater Reuse Opportunities Green Plan 2020 Water Conservation Initiatives Update. AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE AND OFFICER's RECOMMENDATION 5. A step be included at the beginning of the Alternative Water Supply

assessment matrix, so staff assess current and future water demand needs in proximity to development to see if viable water output from private and/or public development can be harvested through a collaborative approach to meet the aims of the Green Plan 2020 and Water Conservation Strategy 2013, to reduce the use of scheme and/or groundwater.

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION To ensure that a pro-active approach is taken to pursue alternative water sources that help green our city without increasing water usage (where possible), including considering such sources for existing and planned public open space and green links.


28 September 2016

Page 5

PC1609-12 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION – CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE – SUBMITTED BY CR RACHEL PEMBERTON

Cr Pemberton proposes the following Alternative Recommendation to item PC1609-12 - Consideration of Principles for Planning Controls to Limit Overconcentration of Fast Food and Restaurant Uses in Fremantle City Centre ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION That the item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting to allow officers to undertake consultation with the Chamber of Commerce, BID and local businesses and to complete work on updating the 2010 Retail Model Plan. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION To allow for officers to consult with the Chamber of Commerce, BID and local businesses on the matter, and to allow officers to complete the review of the 2010 Retail Model Plan before consideration of a scheme amendment and policy.


28 September 2016

Page 6

Email from Ms Nadine Weller relating to FPOL1609-6 Approval of Leases – Hilton Park Bowling and Recreation Club Incorporated; and Fremantle Men’s Community Shed Inc. From: Nadine Weller Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2016 12:00 PM To: ELECTED MEMBERS; Tom Griffiths; Philip St John; Marisa Spaziani; Fiona Hodges Cc: Linda Keys; Alexandra Peach; Graham Tattersall; Erinn Litchfield; Paul Trotman Subject: FPOL1609 - 6 Approval of Leases: Hilton Park Bowling and Recreation Club Incorporated; and Fremantle Men's Community Shed Inc. Dear Councillors, Further to the above mentioned item. Concerns were raised by Elected Members at the FPOL meeting dated 14 September 2016 regarding the proposed Lease being 10 years and the capacity in which the Hilton Bowling Club facility is currently used. In an effort to confirm tenure for the Hilton Bowling Club whilst accommodating the Community Facilities Review forecast to be completed this financial year, Officers have put forward an Alternate Recommendation which you will have seen in your Agenda’s The Property Administrator, Recreation Project Officer, Acting Mayor Coggin and Cr Pemberton met with the President and Secretary of the Hilton Bowling Club on Wednesday 21 September to explain the reasoning behind the Officers Alternate Recommendation. It was advised that the City needed to conduct a thorough review of community facilities including sporting Clubs and that assessment will include aspects such as community needs in the area, current use of the facilities and infrastructure requirements. Officers and Elected Members made it clear to the Club representatives that the change in the recommendation for the Lease term was not due to lack of support for the Bowling Club but rather ensuring the long term prosperity and full utilisation of the Community Asset. The Bowling Club did indicate concern as the limited or uncertainty of a lease length made it difficult for them to plan ongoing programs, secure possible funding etc. However they did understand the reasoning behind the change in the Officers Recommendation and accepted the change verbally. They did advise they needed to provide feedback to their Members at their next club meeting, to which both Councillors advised that one of them would do their best to make themselves available to field any questions Members may have. To reflect the City’s support, the recommendation has included point 2 which, if adopted by Council, will be added to the Lease as a Further Term of nine (9) years subject to Council Approval. This will allow the Community Facilities Review to be finalised and presented to Council prior to the further term being approved to ensure the length of tenure is warranted; or allow an opportunity to review for possible co-occupation of the facility, if for example, that is the recommendation. The Community Facilities Review will be undertaken by the Community Development


28 September 2016

Page 7

Directorate. This will be an independent review with the contractor to be selected by EOI. The review will essentially look at the City’s current facilities and advise areas of required future growth. It will include the following in detail; * Community profile and demographic analysis * Population growth and projections * Community needs assessment * Supply and demand analysis * Recommended Community infrastructure plan * Future emerging usage trends identification Kind Regards Nadine Weller Property Services Administrator Economic Development and Marketing T 08 9432 9873 M 0405307127 E [email protected] 8 William Street Fremantle 6160 www.fremantle.wa.gov.au Subscribe ‘The Freo Alternative’ is bringing the community together to think BIG about small housing. Find out more at http://mysay.fremantle.wa.gov.au/Freo_Alternative

Date post:	12-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

MINUTES · 2018. 3. 8. · Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 September 2016 Page 2 SWEARING...

Documents