MINUTES - City of Fremantle · process, fees are not a selection c riteria in a design competition....

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 2

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 4

PSC1302-27 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - DESIGN COMPETITION 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 12

PSC1302-21 CHESTER STREET NO. 58 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - SCREENING & PATIO ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0498/12) 12

PSC1302-22 MEWS ROAD NO. 44 (LOT 1996), FREMANTLE CHANGE OF USE FROM RESTAURANT TO TAVERN RESTRICTED (AD DA0551/12) 18

PSC1302-23 ELLEN STREET NO. 90 (LOT 2053), FREMANTLE (JOHN CURTIN HIGH SCHOOL) NEW TWO STOREY YEAR 7 TEACHING FACILITY (AD) 24

PSC1302-24 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 31

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 32

PSC1302-25 ROAD NAMING AND AMENDED ROAD DESIGN - ROUS HEAD (INNER HARBOUR) DEVELOPMENT NORTH FREMANTLE - FREMANTLE PORTS (KW) 32

PSC1302-26 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 59 - DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT PROVISIONS - ADOPTION FOR ADVERTISING 39

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 44

CLOSURE OF MEETING 44

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation 45

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 20 February 2013

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 20 February 2013 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm. NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." IN ATTENDANCE Cr Andrew Sullivan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Robert Fittock Deputy Presiding Member / North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer (left 6.37pm) Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Mr Justin Lawrence Acting Manager Statutory Planning Mr Ian James Strategic Urban Designer Mrs Tanya Toon-Poynton Minute Secretary There were approximately 7 members of the public and 0 members of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Cr Josh Wilson Mayor, Brad Pettitt LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE At the Planning Services Committee Meeting held on 6 February 2013 the following question was taken on notice: Summary of Question by Lucy Eagleton In relation to item PSC1302-20, have planners or councillors completed an audit of the carparking near the site? If so, how often did they attend and what was the outcome? If not, why not? Summary of Response from Manager Statutory Planning, Ms Natalie Martin Goode A detailed audit was not conducted as there is no requirement to do so, however two planners conducted site inspections on 2 different occasions during working hours and observed traffic and parking in the area. This resulted in a recommendation that the minor car parking discretion be supported. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1302-21: Bernard Seeber The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1302-21: Lynn Powell The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1302-22: Andrew Websdane Henry Liascos DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Nil LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil


Page 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 6 February 2013 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 27 February 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume

TABLED DOCUMENTS Nil


Page 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1302-27 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - DESIGN COMPETITION DataWorks Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Planning Services Committee 20 February 2013 Previous Item: C1302-1 Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Development Services Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends that a two-stage architectural design competition be conducted to select a design concept approach and design team for development of the City’s Core Facilities and adjacent public realm in Kings Square, comprising library, civic chamber, administrative and surplus offices, council services, urban room, café and specialty retail as identified in the adopted Kings Square Project Business Plan.

• Stage one would be open to all architects across Australia, and may attract international attention.

• Up to four submissions from stage one would be shortlisted by a competition jury to proceed to stage two and, except for the eventual winner, would be paid an honorarium of $15,000 each.

• The winner of stage two would be commissioned to develop the design and complete the project.

• A competition jury would be appointed that comprises a majority of design professionals, as well as representatives of the client and the future users of the development.

• An appropriately qualified competition advisor would be appointed to manage the competition and to act as an impartial intermediary between all participants in the competition.

• Endorsement of the competition would be sought from the Australian Institute of Architects.

• The proposed competition process could be conducted over approximately 20 weeks.

• Public exhibition of all entries will be held at the conclusion of the competition.

This report also estimates that the costs to conduct the competition would be up to $125,000 that will need to be allocated in the council’s budget.


Page 5

BACKGROUND

At a special meeting on 11 February 2013 the Council adopted the Kings Square Redevelopment Business Plan. The business plan addresses the redevelopment of City owned properties in and around Kings Square as part of an integrated development with the former Myer site to achieve the primary objectives of:

1. A civic, retail, commercial and community hub reflecting its unique place as the centre of Fremantle and creating a vibrant, active and safe place for citizens and visitors and,

2. A leading edge development demonstrating confidence in Fremantle as a place to invest.

A key outcome of the business plan is to provide improved civic, community and administrative facilities on the City’s properties within Kings Square. An urban design strategy for Kings Square was adopted by Council in June 2012, specifically to guide any future development of the key City owned properties in the Kings Square area and as a basis for any future upgrading of the public domain of Kings Square and Queen Street. In particular when addressing potential redevelopment of the Town Hall Centre, the strategy recommended that “the building on the city triangle must be of the highest quality to reflect the civic importance of the square and the uses within and demonstrate a high standard of sustainable building design.” Amendment 49 to LPS4 was gazetted on 18 January 2013 and established the primary planning requirements for the key development sites in and around Kings Square, including the heights of buildings and their setbacks from their road boundary. A Local Planning Policy for Precinct 5 – the city centre area incorporating the Kings Square properties – was adopted by Council in November 2012 and formally came into effect following gazettal of Amendment 49. The policy incorporates design and land use provisions that complement the primary planning requirements of Amendment 49. At the Special Council meeting on 11 February 2013 it was also resolved that the Council: Requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the processes and costs involved in conducting an architectural competition for the design of the city’s proposed new library, civic and administration buildings, and Requests officers prepare a report for consideration by council on the processes for developing the detailed design for the public realm spaces in the precinct. This report proposes a design competition process that is considered suitable for the City’s new core facilities in Kings Square and identifies what areas of the adjacent public realm could be included in the scope of the competition. It is of interest to note that an architectural competition was held in 1881 for the design of the Fremantle town hall and municipal chambers.


Page 6

COMMENT

The Australian Institute of Architects’ Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitions identifies that a competition is appropriate when the project:

• Is of public significance • Will benefit from a wide degree of design investigation • Is to be on a significant or unusual site • Will benefit from the public interest that a competition can generate • Where design excellence is a high priority.

Development of new core facilities for the City in Kings Square would meet all of these criteria. Design competitions can take different forms, however for this project a ‘two-stage competition’ is considered to be the most appropriate. It would encourage architects to undertake a broad exploration of design concepts in the first stage and allow a selected shortlist of entrants to undertake a more detailed development of their designs in the second stage. A two stage competition:

• Attracts more entries by reducing the amount of work required in the first stage submission

• Is an excellent process for selecting a limited number of promising concepts that can be further developed in the second stage, and

• Provides the opportunity for comments by the client and the jury to be addressed in the second stage.

Design is the key selection criteria for an architectural competition, although experience and capacity of the consultant team is also given consideration to ensure that the proposed design can be successfully implemented. In contrast to a typical tender process, fees are not a selection criteria in a design competition. The competition brief can either fix consultancy fees or indicate a range that would be appropriate for the project. It is proposed that the scope of the competition include all of the proposed City Core Facilities in Kings Square as identified in the Kings Square Redevelopment Business Plan. Entrants would need to give consideration to the relationship with the adjacent town hall building, the proposed redevelopments of the former Myer and Queensgate buildings and the adjacent areas of public realm. The design of the new City core facilities buildings will need to allow for construction in two stages, as follows: Stage one - library, civic chamber and café Stage two – council offices and service tenancies, additional office and retail and urban room. Entry to the stage one would be open to all architects across Australia, and could even attract international attention. Stage one would be limited to 3 weeks with entrants required to submit a design concept approach to demonstrate an appreciation of the project and an understanding of the site and its context – particularly the character of Fremantle and its architectural qualities and how they could apply to the site.


Page 7

Submissions would also identify the consultant team and their design capacity, experience and resources. It is proposed that up to four submissions would be shortlisted by the jury to proceed to stage two to prepare a more detailed design concept within 4 weeks. Stage two teams would be paid an honorarium of $15,000 each, except for the winning team that would be invited to proceed with design development and documentation of their winning design concept and complete construction of the project. There would be no prize money. A selection panel / jury would be appointed to select the shortlisted submissions from stage one and to select a winner and second place in stage two. The selection of an appropriately qualified jury ensures expert judgement in the competition judging process. Architects are generally more willing to enter competitions where they are confident of the ability, expertise and independence of the jury. Input and endorsement of the competition by the Australian Institute of Architects would be sought in order to attract the widest possible interest from the architectural profession. The jury would comprise a majority of design professionals, together with representatives of the client and the future users of the development. It is recommended that the jury be composed of the following:

• A representative of the Australian Institute of Architects • Two members of the Fremantle Design Advisory Committee • Two representatives of the client – elected member and officer – to be nominated

by the Mayor and CEO • A representative of the eventual community users of the building – with library,

arts, cultural and/or sustainability interests – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO.

Preferably at least one of the client or community representatives should be a design professional to ensure the jury has a majority of design professionals in accordance with AIA guidelines. If there is an even number on the jury the chair would have a casting vote should the jury be tied. Jury members would be reimbursed for lost income and travel and accommodation costs where appropriate. An appropriately qualified competition advisor would be appointed to manage the competition and to act as an impartial intermediary between the client, the jury and the Institute of Architects. To ensure impartiality, the advisor should be an independent architect capable of managing the competition objectively, with the welfare of all participants in mind. The advisor must have no pecuniary interest or vested interest in the project. The advisor would be paid a fee and appropriate reimbursement of expenses. Probity, legal and cost estimating advice would also be required during the competition process. It is estimated that the cost to conduct the competition would be up to $125,000, as follows:

• Advertising, printing, etc $15,000 • Honorarium for shortlisted teams $45,000 • Costs for jury members, competition advisor and other advice $50,000 • Contingency $15,000


Page 8

There is no 2012/13 budget allocation to conduct the competition therefore the Council will need to consider funding the competition as part of its mid-year budget review. It is anticipated that the timing of this process will cross over into the next financial year, therefore approximately half of the funding should be required for this financial year and the other half in the 2013/14 budget. The following program and timeline is anticipated for the 2 stage competition: Task week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Council decision to proceed

Engage competition advisor

Appoint jury members

Prepare competition conditions and brief

Advertising and registrations of interest

Stage one

Jury to select shortlist to proceed to stage two

Stage two

Jury to assess stage 2 proposals

Announcement of winner and second place

Commence public exhibition of all proposals

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial An additional budget allocation will be required in the 2012/13 budget to conduct the competition. The competition will also commit the Council to engaging the winning team and to funding consultancy fees to implement the project, or to funding alternative compensation to the winning team should the project not proceed beyond the competition stage.


Page 9

Legal The competition conditions will be drafted with legal input, particularly regarding the terms and conditions of the commission to be offered to the winner. Operational Implementing a design competition is a major exercise that will require significant input from a number of officers in addition to external assistance and advice. Organisational An application for planning approval for the development will still be eventually required for consideration by Council and the DAP. CONCLUSION

Given the significance of this site and the civic importance of the building and its uses, and to achieve the required level of design excellence identified in the Kings Square urban design strategy, it is recommended that the Council conduct a two-stage architectural design competition to select the design concept approach and design team. The winning architect will be commissioned to develop the winning design concept and complete the project. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

An architectural design competition will provide an ideal process to achieve a high quality building as required by the Council’s Kings Square urban design strategy. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The competition program proposes public exhibition of all entries after completion of stage two. This could include a public selection process to determine a “peoples prize” which would help generate community interest in the project; however this would not have any bearing on the jury’s choice which must be independent and final. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute majority required.


Page 10

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That: 1. A two-stage architectural design competition be conducted for the selection of a

design concept approach and consultant team for development of the City’s Core Facilities in Kings Square, comprising library, civic chamber, administrative and surplus offices, council services, urban room, café and specialty retail in accordance with the adopted Kings Square Project Business Plan.

2. A competition jury be appointed that is composed of:

a) A representative of the Australian Institute of Architects b) Two members of the Fremantle Design Advisory Committee c) Two representatives of the client – elected member and/or officer - to be

nominated by the Mayor and CEO. d) A representative of the eventual community users of the building with library, arts,

cultural and/or sustainability interests – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO.

3. Funding be allocated in the 2012/13 budget of $60,000 for costs to conduct the competition with the remaining $65,000 being placed for consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget process.

4. The CEO be authorised to prepare the competition conditions and brief, to appoint

the jury members and to engage a competition advisor and other advisors as necessary, and to proceed with the competition in accordance with Australian Institute of Architects’ Competition Guidelines.


Page 11

Cr A Sullivan MOVED the revised Officer's Recommendation as follows: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That: 1. A two-stage architectural design competition be conducted for the selection

of a design concept approach and consultant team for development of the City’s Core Facilities in Kings Square, comprising library, civic chamber, administrative and surplus offices, council services, urban room, café and specialty retail in accordance with the adopted Kings Square Project Business Plan, together with all of the public realm area of High Street within Kings Square (Reserve 41176).

2. A competition jury be appointed that is composed of:

a) A representative of the Australian Institute of Architects b) Two members of the Fremantle Design Advisory Committee c) Two representatives of the client – elected member and/or officer - to

be nominated by the Mayor and CEO. d) A representative of the eventual community users of the building with

library, arts, cultural and/or sustainability interests – to be nominated by the Mayor and CEO.

3. Funding be allocated in the 2012/13 budget of $60,000 for costs to conduct

the competition with the remaining $65,000 being placed for consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget process.

4. The CEO be authorised to prepare the competition conditions and brief, to

appoint the jury members and to engage a competition advisor and other advisors as necessary, and to proceed with the competition in accordance with Australian Institute of Architects’ Competition Guidelines.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume


Page 12

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr R Fittock vacated the chamber at 6.37 pm. Cr R Fittock returned to the meeting at 6.38 pm. PSC1302-21 CHESTER STREET NO. 58 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE -

SCREENING & PATIO ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0498/12)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 February 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1007-129 Attachments: Development Plans

Photos from site inspection Date Received: 22 October 2012 Owner Name: Robert & Patricia Dare Submitted by: Bernard Seeber Architects Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Precinct;

(Recommended for inclusion on City’s MHI and Heritage List)

Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed discretion regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for screening and patio additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 58 (Lot 1) Chester Street, South Fremantle. The applicant is pursuing a discretionary decision in relation to: • Clause 5.1 of Council’s Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8)

which relates to screening materials.

The proposed discretionary decision in relation to Clause 5.1 of LPP2.8 is considered supportable under the relevant discretionary criteria. On balance, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a split density coding of R25 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound Chester Street to the west, Douro Road to the South, Lloyd Street to the north and Daly Street to the east. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), however it has been recommended by the City’s MHI Review for inclusion as the place has been identified as being of cultural significance. The site is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 659m2 and is located on the eastern side of the Chester Street, South Fremantle. The site has an east-west orientation, is relatively flat in terms of its topography and is currently improved by a single storey Grouped Dwelling and associated structures. A review of the property file revealed the following relevant information: • On 7 September 2004, Planning Approval was granted by Council for a Patio/Pergola

Addition on the subject site (refer DA489/04); • On 17 May 2007, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) endorsed a

two lot survey-strata subdivision which resulted in a battleaxe type lot layout with the subject site being the front lot, a rear lot, together with a common property access leg on the northern side (refer DA603/04); and

• At its meeting held 4 August 2010, the PSC granted conditional Planning Approval for demolition of outbuildings, single storey additions and alterations to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 58 (Lot 1) Chester Street, South Fremantle (refer DA0025/10).


Page 14

DETAIL

On 22 October 2012, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for screening and patio additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 58 (Lot 1) Chester Street, South Fremantle (refer DA0498/12). Details of the proposal are as follows:

• Location:southern boundary; Screening:

• Length: 8.60 metres; • Height (above NGL): 3.215m; • Materials: Steel framed with fixed colorbond steel louvers (white); • Other: Free standing (ie not affixed to top of fence)

• Location: forward of front building line of dwelling; Patio:

• Length: 5.26 metres (max) • Width: 1.745 metres; • Height: 3.10 metres; • Area: 9.18m2; • Materials: Steel framed with metal sheet canopy cladding. The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is proposing variations to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of advertising the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, raising the following relevant planning concerns: • Overshadowing/solar access; • Building bulk (as a result of proposed height and length of screening); and • Loss of views. Accordingly, those concerns that do not comply with the City’s requirements will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and the following relevant Council Local Planning Policies:

• Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8) For the purposes of providing clarity, LPS4 defines the term ‘screening material’ as:

“(a) a visually permeable structure including lattice, trellis, or metal framing which may or may not be used to train vegetation; or


Page 15

(b) an opaque and translucent material such as shade cloth, or clear or coloured plastic.”

In this regard, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the definition of ‘screening material’ as prescribed by LPS4. Variations to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Permitted LPP2.8 - Fences Policy

Proposed Discretion Screening material that projects more than 500mm above the top of an approved fence

Existing Fence* = 1.965m Proposed Screening = 1.25m (above height of fence) Overall height = 3.215m

0.75m (750mm)

*Note

: Proposed screening is not attached to existing 1.965m high fence on southern side of property

As the proposed screening does not satisfy the prescribed standards of Clause 5.1 of Council’s LPP2.8, the proposal is required to be assessed against the applicable discretionary criteria of Clauses 5.1(a) and (b) and 5.2 of LPP2.8, which states: “5.1 Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.80 metres

in height, or screening material that projects more than 500mm above the top of an approved fence unless the following criteria are satisfied: a) The proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact on

adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views; and

b) Affected neighbours are consulted in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. 5.2 Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring owners /

occupiers of adjoining properties, and will only consider the criteria in 5.1(a) to be met where it is satisfied that no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.”

In relation to 5.1(b), and as detailed in the ‘Community: Consultation’ section above in this report, the City consulted affected neighbours in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, the City received one (1) submission which raised a number of relevant planning concerns, detailed as follows:


Page 16

The submitter raised concerns around the potential for the proposed screening to overshadow as well as restrict solar access to their property. The southern-most wall of the existing dwelling contained within the subject site is approximately 4.00 metres in height, whilst the proposed screening addition – which is to be located on the southern side of this wall - will be a maximum height of 3.215 metres above natural ground level. The proposed screening sits below the height of the existing wall and its eave and therefore in terms of overshadowing, the screening will not increase the amount of overshadowing onto the southern adjoining property than presently exists today. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal should be supported by way not increasing the amount of existing overshadowing or impact by way of solar access to the southern adjoining property.

Overshadowing/solar access

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed screening material exceeds the typical 500mm of screening, given the proposed material and screening by its very nature, typically a visually permeable type structure, it is not considered that the proposed screening will significantly impact the southern adjoining property by way of building bulk having regard to the bulk of the existing dwelling in terms of height and setback.

Building bulk (as a result of proposed height and length of screening)

The existing views from the southern adjoining property to the subject site are of the existing dwelling and the boundary fence and as such are not considered to be a view of significance.

Loss of views

For the reasons outlined above, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed screening is significant in its size and proportion, it is not considered that it will have any significant impact on the southern adjoining property by way of overshadowing, solar access or loss of views as prescribed by Clause 5.1(a) of LPP2.8. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal should be supported. CONCLUSION

The screening and patio additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 58 (Lot 1) Chester Street, South Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s LPP2.8 – Fences Policy and is considered to meet the discretionary criteria relating to screening materials above 500mm. On balance, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 17

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the screening and patio additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 58 (Lot 1) Chester Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 22 October 2012. 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.

COMMITTEE DECISION

Cr D Hume MOVED the following deferral: 1. To defer the item to allow the applicant to modify the screen to the minimum

length required to satisfy the screening of the opening from all adjoining windows.

2 Note that the revised application may be determined by officers under

delegated authority. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume


Page 18

PSC1302-22 MEWS ROAD NO. 44 (LOT 1996), FREMANTLE CHANGE OF USE

FROM RESTAURANT TO TAVERN RESTRICTED (AD DA0551/12) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 February 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development plans

Supporting documentation from applicant Seating plan

Date Received: 16 November 2012 Owner Name: Minister for Transport Submitted by: Henry Liascos Metropolitan Region Scheme: Public Purposes Reserve (Special Use) Local Planning Scheme: Not zoned under City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Heritage Listing: Fishing Boat Harbour (Precinct Management) Existing Landuse: Restaurant (Cicerello’s) Use Class: Tavern Restricted Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed discretion regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a change of use from Restaurant to Tavern Restricted at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle (Cicerello’s). The application is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) as well as Council’s Local Planning Policies, specifically DGF10 – Fremantle Boat Harbours Development Policy. It is recommended that Council refer the application to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) with a recommendation for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is reserved for the purposes of Public Purposes (Special Use) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The site is not zoned or reserved under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), however it is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (LPA 1) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for precinct management however it is not located within a Heritage Area as prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 2,295m2 and is located on southern side of Mews Road and is contained within the Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour. The site has an east-west orientation, is relatively flat in terms of its topography and is currently improved by a two storey commercial building which is occupied by Cicerello’s restaurant. A review of the property file revealed the following relevant information: • On 22 July 2003, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted

unconditional Planning Approval for alterations to existing restaurant at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle (refer DA193/03, WAPC05-2727-17);

• On 13 September 2006, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for ground floor extensions to restaurant at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle (refer DA313/06);

• On 7 April 2011, the WAPC granted conditional Planning Approval for shade sails to eastern end of Cicerello’s restaurant at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle (refer DA0093/11, WAPC05-2727-30).

DETAIL

On 16 November 2012, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval a change of use from Restaurant to Tavern Restricted at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle. Details of the proposal are as follows:


Page 20

Change of Use

The applicant is seeking a change of use from Restaurant to Tavern Restricted. For the benefitting of providing clarity and distinguishing the difference between a ‘Tavern’ and a ‘Tavern Restricted’ liquor license, the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) provides the following definitions to be license types on their website:

“Tavern A tavern licence authorises: • the sale and supply of liquor for consumption on the premises; • the sale and supply of packaged liquor to patrons for consumption off the

licensed premises.

Tavern Restricted A tavern restricted licence authorises: • the sale and supply of liquor for consumption on the premises;”

The change of use to applies to the whole site which consists of

Ground Floor 790m2 Alfresco 355m2

Upstairs Alfresco 150m2 Total 1,295m2

As part of the change of use, should it be approved, the applicant will be permitted to conduct functions on the premises. The City is mindful of the amount of floor area that could potentially be used for the purposes of functions, and in this regard, further discussion around this matter is discussed throughout this report. Hours of Operation

The applicant has stated in their covering letter that accompanied the application that the hours of operation are to be as follows:

• Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 9:00pm, 364 days per year, Closed Christmas Day; and

• Tavern License Restricted allows trading until 1:00am when conducting a function. Other It is noted that the applicant has stated that the following works are not proposed as part of this application: • Internal fitout; or • Structural changes; or • New signage; or • Shop front treatments. On 8 February 2013, the applicant sent the City further information detailing the reasons as to why they are seeking a change of use.


Page 21

In an email to the City dated 12 February 2013, the applicant outlined that, in relation to the proposed functions that:

• “They will be generally held in the upstairs area (150 sq metres); • Where functions are held in the ground floor area, the part of the ground floor area in

which the function is held will not exceed 150 sq metres.” That is, a total of 300m2 of the total 1295m2 floor area is proposed for function purposes. The remainder of the floor is to remain as a restaurant. A copy of the development plans are contained as Attachment 1 of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3). A sign on site was erected and at the conclusion of the advertising period, being 14 December 2012, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal. City’s Environmental Health Department On 27 November 2012, the City’s Environmental Health Department provided the following comments in relation to the proposed change of use:

“The ground floor and outdoor eating area of the licensed premises will continue to provide tables and chairs in the existing service area layout and meals will be provided from the large commercial kitchen and self-service refrigerators during trading hours. The upper level function room will have the option to be stand up or sit down functions or a mixture of the two styles with bar service to patrons for food or liquor ordered directly from the bar or as a set catered service to a group of patrons. The existing ETP will continue to operate in the outdoor eating area and on the vessel ‘Miss Cicerello’. The Licensee will not sell take away packaged liquor from the licensed premises. The Licensee will ensure that food is available to patrons at all times that the licensed premises is trading.”

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policies.


Page 22

PLANNING COMMENT

DGF10 – Fremantle Boat Harbours Development Policy

The subject site is contained within ‘Area B – Visitor / Tourist Waterfont Activities’ (Area B) zone as prescribed by Council’s DGF10 – Fremantle Boat Harbours Development Policy (DGF10). DGF10 describes Area B as follows:

“This area should remain the focal point of the boat harbours for visitors. It should accommodate a range of recreation and leisure activities (mainly passive) that take benefit from the waterfront location; such as seafood restaurants and take-away outlets, fish and fishing tackle shops, maritime related arts and crafts. The area should attract both locals and tourists and be busy and lively and encourage use 7 days a week and at day and night. It should, however, promote an authentic working fishing boat harbour environment, rather than an overly commercialised ‘leisure centre’ type environment.”

It is considered that the proposed change of use from Restaurant to Tavern Restricted is generally consistent with the desired description of Area B, however services associated with the existing Cicerello’s Restaurant, being a seafood restaurant should be maintained and ensured as part of the new change of use. It is considered that the loss of the predominant seafood restaurant at Cicerello’s would be significant to the locality, and in this regard it is recommended that a condition be recommended to the WAPC that a portion of seating on the premises remain in-situ which will permit the restaurant functions to continue as part of any Tavern Restricted use. It is also recommended that a condition be imposed restricting the amount of the premises’ floor area that can be used for the purposes of a function to a maximum of no more than 300m2 at any one time. DGF10 prescribes the ‘preferred uses’ within Area B as follows:

• “restaurants and cafes (particularly seafood) • take-away food outlets (particularly seafood) • tavern / bistro • processing and / or retailing of seafoods • retailing of fishing and / or water recreation supplies/clothing • retailing of maritime related arts, crafts and souvenirs • retailing of convenience items, particularly for the boat harbours workforce • short term boat mooring • ticket offices & information centres for boat transport/tours, special events, etc • offices for administration of water related activities” In light of the above, the proposed Tavern Restricted use is consistent with what Council has outlined as their preferred uses within Area B and as such the change of use should be supported. CONCLUSION

The change of use from Restaurant to Tavern Restricted at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle (Cicerello’s) has been assessed against, and is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council’s DGF10 – Fremantle Boat Harbours Development Policy.


Page 23

It is recommended that Council refer the application to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) with a recommendation for approval with appropriate conditions to ensure that the whole 1295m2 floor area it is not used exclusively for the purposes of a tavern, rather that the main dining component associated with Cicerello’s is maintained. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the change of use from restaurant to tavern restricted at No. 44 (Lot 1996) Mews Road, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 16 November 2012 and 12 February 2013. 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. A maximum of 300m2 of floor area of the premises can be used for the

purposes of a function at any one time. 3. Tables and chairs as contained within the ground floor of the premises and

depicted on the approved plan dated 12 February 2013 are to remain in-situ as is reasonably practical to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, unless otherwise required for the purposes of hosting a function in accordance with condition 2 above.



Page 24

PSC1302-23 ELLEN STREET NO. 90 (LOT 2053), FREMANTLE (JOHN CURTIN

HIGH SCHOOL) NEW TWO STOREY YEAR 7 TEACHING FACILITY (AD)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 February 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans

State Heritage Office (SHO) referral comments Date Received: 5 December 2012 Owner Name: Department of Education Submitted by: JCY Architects and Urban Designers Metropolitan Region Scheme: Public Purposes Reserve (High School) Local Planning Scheme: N/A Heritage Listing: John Curtin College Heritage Area,

Yes, MHI Management Category Level 1A Existing Landuse: Educational Establishment Use Class: Educational Establishment Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Council’s support for a new year 7 teaching facility at No. 90 (Lot 2053) Ellen Street, Fremantle. The applicant is pursuing a discretionary decision in relation to Council’s DGF27 – John Curtin College of the Arts (DGF27) policy, however it is considered that this discretion is minor in nature and should be supported. Council is advised that the purpose of this report is to seek Council’s comments only as the City is not the determining body. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council advise the applicant that it supports the proposal in principle. BACKGROUND

The site is reserved for the purposes of Public Purposes (High School) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The site is not zoned or reserved under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) however it is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area 2 (LPA 2) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound Ellen Street to the south, Ord Street to the west, Vale and Finnerty Streets to the north and East Street to the east. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a Management Category Level 1A (ie on the State Register), and is located within the John Curtin College Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 116,450m2 and has a considerably sloping topography with the eastern side of site considerably higher than that of the western side. DETAIL

On 5 December 2012, the City received plans and accompanying information for a new two storey year 7 teaching facility at No. 90 (Lot 2053) Ellen Street, Fremantle (John Curtin High School). Details of the proposal are as follows: Ground Floor: • Two (2) x science labs; • Two (2) x dance studios; • Two (2) x storage/change rooms; • Choreography / planning room; • Staff area; • Associated amenity areas;


Page 26

Upper (First) Floor: • Five (5) general learning areas (GLA’s); • Staff area; • Activity area; • Storage areas; • Associated amenity areas; Landsaping works: • Proposed stepped landscaped amphitheatre on the eastern side of the proposed

building. The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Planning Bulletin 94 – Approval Requirements for Public Works and Development by Public Authorities (PB94) The WAPC’s PB94 details the circumstances where certain bodies and authorities are required to, or are exempted from, the need to obtain Planning Approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) or applicable Local Planning Scheme (LPS) for public works and development by public authorities. In relation to the current proposal, it is considered that the works proposed are consistent with those prescribed within Section 2 of the Public Works Act 1902. Furthermore, Part 5 of PB94 relates to the circumstances where public authorities are exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval under the MRS and states that the following works are exempt:

• “works on land reserved for public purposes – high school for the purpose of or incidental to a high school;”

Notwithstanding, such works still need to be referred to the Local Government for comment prior to determination. In light of the above, the City considers the proposed works to be consistent with the above criteria and therefore the City understands that the proposal is exempt from requiring Planning Approval from not only the City, but also the WAPC and that in this instance, there was no need for the applicant to provide the WAPC with evidence that they have consulted with the City as is typically required. Notwithstanding, the applicant has provided the Council the opportunity to comment on the proposal, however Council should be aware that their comments have no statutory weight in this instance.


Page 27

CONSULTATION

Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, however on 12 December 2012, the City sent letters to owners and occupiers of all properties within a 100m radius of the subject site. This was undertaken by the City due to the scale of the proposal and its prominence in an elevated position which the City considered may present some impacts upon adjoining properties. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 January 2013, the City received two (2) submissions pertaining to the proposal. One (1) of the submissions outlined support for the proposal, whilst the other submission raised the following relevant planning concern:

• Impact on views.

State Heritage Office (SHO) In accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, on 10 January 2013 the City referred the application to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the proposal may affect the State Registered Heritage Place that exists on the subject site. On 6 February 2013, the City received referral comments from the SHO which are detailed as follows:

“Findings • The proposed development will be located in an area that is currently utilised by

hard court playing surfaces and open bush land consisting of low lying shrubs and non-mature vegetation.

• The proposed new build’s design sympathetically utilises the natural gradient of the land. The design has also attempted to incorporate the existing school’s style of integrating internal spaces with external landscaped courtyards, which in this instance is featured as a stepped landscaped amphitheatre.

• The proposed new build does not impact upon any of the significant values of the place.

Advice The proposed development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is supported.”

A copy of the SHO’s referral comments are contained as Attachment 2 of this report. Heritage The City’s Heritage officers have reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

“John Curtin High School was built on part of Fremantle Park. Originally this Park ran from Parry Street to East Street and an aerial photograph taken in 1935 shows the John Curtin High School site as a limestone escarpment thinly covered by natural bush.


Page 28

As far as possible, it is important to interpret the historic origins of the John Curtin High School and the fact that it was built on part of Fremantle Park. It is suggested that this will be achieved in part by the school being designed as a landscaped campus where the buildings do not overwhelm the cultural significance of the site. It is therefore recommended that a landscaping masterplan be prepared for the entire site. The masterplan should also consider the impact that the proposed development will have on the area, including the nearby Fremantle Arts Centre (former Women’s Asylum Buildings). Drawing 1213-8.0 Aerial View illustrates the prominence of the site at the edge of the escarpment overlooking Fremantle. The drawing includes the note restricted ocean views cut off by trees; this seems to be making a case for the removal of existing trees. Views to the school from the west need to be considered as part of the landscaping masterplan which should guide any decisions on the planting and removal of trees.”

In accordance with the internal heritage comments, it is recommended that the applicant prepare and submit to the City a landscaping masterplan which covers the entire site, and that any such masterplan should also consider the impact that the proposed development will have on the area, including the nearby Fremantle Arts Centre (former Women’s Asylum Buildings). PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Parking

Based on the information and plans provided by the applicant, it is not considered that the proposal would be seeking a discretionary decision in relation to on-site car parking. Notwithstanding, Table 3 of LPS4 also provides on-site bicycle parking standards for high school land uses at a rate of one (1) bicycle rack for every five (5) students. In this regard, and based on the number of 103 year seven students forecast by 2015 in the new building, it is recommended to the applicant that a minimum of 21 bicycle racks be provided as part of this development. Council’s Local Planning Policies DGF27 – John Curtin College of the Arts Clause 3.2.2 of Council’s DGF27 – John Curtin College of the Arts policy (DGF27) states as follows: [inter alia]

“... Construction on open areas and undeveloped portions of the college site is not supported as indicated in figure 2. As such, no building should occur on the oval and former Skinner Street cemetery. Redevelopment of existing college facilities within the hatched area shown on figure 2 is preferred.”

The proposed two storey year 7 teaching facility is not located entirely within the ‘hatched area’ depicted in Figure 2 of Council’s DGF27, and it is difficult to interpret just how much of the building is located outside of this area due to the quality of Figure 2 itself. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposal effectively utilises the existing sloping topography of the subject site in limiting its overall visual impact by way of building bulk.


Page 29

Further, the proposed two storey building is located a significant distance from the subject sites’ lot boundaries (~100m minimum) which will ensure that any impact on adjoining properties by way of building bulk or scale are minimised significantly. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal should be supported. LPP2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements The City recommends that the proposal be designed and constructed so as to be in accordance with Council’s LPP2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements policy (LPP2.13). In this regard, it is recommended that the applicant be advised of this requirement, worded to the effect of the following:

“The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard (or equivalent) as per Local Planning Policy 2.13. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner is to submit to the Council a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.”

CONCLUSION

The new two storey year 7 teaching facility at No. 90 (Lot 2053) Ellen Street, Fremantle (John Curtin High School) has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies and is considered that the proposal can be supported. Further, it is considered that the proposal should be supported on heritage grounds, however Council should recommend that a landscaping masterplan be prepared for the whole site. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council advise the applicant that it supports the proposal in principle.


Page 30

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council advise the applicant that it SUPPORTS the proposal for the new two storey year 7 teaching facility at No. 90 (Lot 2053) Ellen Street, Fremantle (John Curtin High School), as detailed plans dated 5 December 2012, having regard to the following recommendations: 1. It is recommended that a minimum of 21 bicycle racks be provided as part of

this development. 2. It is recommended that the applicant prepare and submit to the Chief Executive

Officer, City of Fremantle a landscaping masterplan which covers the entire site, and that any such masterplan should also consider the impact that the proposed development will have on the area, including the nearby Fremantle Arts Centre (former Women’s Asylum Buildings).

3. It is recommended that the applicant consider design and construction of the

development should meet the 4 star green star standard (or equivalent) as per Local Planning Policy 2.13. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner should submit to the Council a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

4. The applicant is advised that the City would like to be forwarded a copy of their

future masterplan of the site for comment to ensure the appropriate location and context for future buildings is attainable.



Page 31

PSC1302-24 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume


Page 32

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1302-25 ROAD NAMING AND AMENDED ROAD DESIGN - ROUS HEAD

(INNER HARBOUR) DEVELOPMENT NORTH FREMANTLE - FREMANTLE PORTS (KW)

DataWorks Reference: 164/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 February 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Fremantle Ports Rous Head (Inner Harbour) road naming

and road design amended application.

Figure 1


Page 33

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a submission from the Fremantle Ports (FP) dealing with three proposed new private road names together with amendments to the road design/layout of the Rous Head (Inner Harbour) development in North Fremantle (see figure 1). The FP may submit road naming/design within the land under the Ports jurisdiction, directly to the Geographic Names Committee (GNC) however the Fremantle Ports' "Structures Road and Place Naming Policy" notes that road naming proposals are to be lodged with the City of Fremantle who then process and refer proposals to the GNC. Therefore the City is processing the Rous Head (Inner Harbour) proposed road naming and amended road design on behalf of the FP. The three proposed private road names are selected from the FP Naming Committee's list in compliance with the Fremantle Ports Structures Road and Place Naming Policy are listed below:

• Manoora - A ship built in Scotland in 1935 providing the Cairns to Fremantle coastal passenger run for the Adelaide Steamship Company.

• Noble - Captain B.L. Noble was the Fremantle Ports Harbour Master from 1972 to 1984.

• Kooringa - The world's first fully containerised vessel arriving at Fremantle in 1964.

The FP has made changes to the design/layout of the roads in order to incorporate the additional 27 hectares of land at Rous Head (Inner Harbour) created as a result of the 2011 Fremantle Ports reclamation project. All proposed road layout changes including the new roads are summarised below and listed from road "A" to road "E" as shown in figure 1. The new road names are identified as Roads "B1, B2" and "C".

1. Road "A" Proposed extension of Port Beach Road commonly known as the primary entry into the Port.

2. Road "B1" Proposed new road - "Manoora Close". The road ends in a cul-de-sac.

3. Road "B2 Proposed new road - "Noble Close". The road ends in a cul-de-sac.

4. Road "C" Proposed new road - "Kooringa Place" provides a link to proposed road "A" (being the new section of Port Beach Road). Proposed road "C" ends in a cul-de-sac with a gated tenant area to the west. "Kooringa Place would replace a section of North Mole Drive.

5. Road "D" Proposed extension of North Mole Drive to link with the Port Beach Road primary entry into the FP from the north. The existing portion of North Mole Drive which curves to the north east would be removed.


Page 34

6. Road "E" Birksgate Road will be extended to replace the remnant portion of Port Beach Road.

The GNC has provided feedback and assistance in relation to the proposed names together with the suffixes available with confirmation that the selected names are in general compliance with the GNC Road Naming Guidelines. The GNC has, however requested a change to the original design replacing the single cul-de-sac (formerly shown as Road "B") with two cul-de-sacs (Roads B1 and B2). The FP has made the required amendments to incorporate the GNC advice. Therefore it would be appropriate for Council to; ADVISE the GNC that it supports the proposed three private road names of "Manoora Close", "Noble Close" and "Kooringa Place" to be applied to the Fremantle Ports Rous Head, North Fremantle (Inner Harbour) Development together with all other road amendments as shown in the Fremantle Ports Proposed Rous Head Road Names application including the City of Fremantle map titled "Rous Head - Proposed new Road Names" (figure 1 above). BACKGROUND

On 05 September 2012 the City received a brief report from FP outlining the proposed private road changes including the creation of two new roads as a result of the Rous Head (Inner Harbour) Development. The City's officers met with the Fremantle Ports Planning Manager ("Manager") on 10 September 2012 to discuss the proposed extensions and new road names described as Road "B" with the proposed name of "Encounter Bay Place" and Road "C" with the proposed name of "Kooringa Place". On 11 September 2012 the details of the proposed new road names together with the other road changes were forwarded to the Geographic Names Committee for a preliminary assessment prior to submitting the names to the Council. On 11September 2012 the GNC responded to the City's enquiry and advised that "double barrelled" names are not suitable for road naming and even though these roads are "private", Local Government is asked to apply road naming guidelines to minimise any confusion in locating people, particularly in an emergency. Therefore the GNC provided conditional approval to the proposed name of "Kooringa Place" and rejected the double barrelled name of "Encounter Bay Road". Further, the GNC requested that the cul-de-sac (Road "B) should be separated into two new roads, one to the north west and the other to the south east of the proposed Port Beach Road extension. The PF were advised of the outcome and requested to select at least two new proposed private road names. On 31 October 2012 the FP's submitted the following proposed private road names:

• "Noble" - former Harbour master at the Port of Fremantle during the time that containerisation was introduced during the 1960's.

• "Dulverton" - a Western Australian State Ship from 1948 - 1952 • "Koolama" - a Western Australian State Ship- from 1938 - 1942.


Page 35

An initial assessment of the names noted that the name Koolama was very similar to the name of Kooringa already proposed for Road "C". A check in the StreetSmart directory showed that various suffixes were already in use and could not be duplicated again. This left the name choices of "Noble Close", Dulverton Place and Koolama Court forwarded to the GNC for a preliminary assessment. On 07 November 2012 the GNC advised that the proposed name Dulverton Court would not be suitable as Dulverton Place already exists. They also commented that "Kooringa and "Koolama appear to be different enough not to cause confusion providing a different road type for Koolama such as "Court" is recommended. Finally the proposed name of "Noble Close" was suitable and best placed on the shortest leg of the cul-de-sac. The details were forwarded to the PF Manager for consideration by the Fremantle Ports Board ("Board") for their consideration. On 22 November 2012 the Planning Manager from the FP advised that their "Board are happy with Kooringa, and are generally happy with Dulverton and Noble, however they would like a larger list of names to select from". The additional names are listed below:

• "Una" - a Western Australian State Ship from 1912 to 1917. • "Boogalla" - a Western Australian State Ship from 1972 to 1981. • "Dorrigo" - a Western Australian State Ship from 1946 to 1969. • "Ormuz" - the first British mail steamer to berth in the Inner Harbour. • "Manoora" - a ship built in Scotland in 1935 for the Cairns to Fremantle

coastal passenger run for the Adelaide Steamship Company. On 26 November 2012 the GNC checked the list for compliancy and found that only Ormuz and Manoora were suitable names. In relation to the name Manoora, the GNC noted that the prefixes of "Court" and "Place" were already used and were therefore not available. The prefix of "Close" was an acceptable option. The use of short names for a short length road was also suggested by the GNC. The GNC comments were forwarded to the FP. On 18 January 2013 the FP Executive and Board confirmed their selection of the proposed names of "Noble" and "Manoora" to be applied to Roads B1 and B2. On 06 February 2013 the City received an amended application with the finalised proposed road names and design changes for the FP Rous Head (Inner Harbour) development (see attachment 1) COMMENTS Fremantle Ports Naming Policy The Fremantle Port's has adopted a "Structures, Road and Place Naming Policy" which provides the Board of FP with a naming guide for all roads, buildings and spaces at both the Inner Harbour at Fremantle and the Outer Harbour at Kwinana. The selection process outlined in the Naming Policy is detailed below.


Page 36

Fremantle Ports name selection process As outlined in the Fremantle Ports application; "In accordance with the policy Fremantle Ports' Naming Committee initially developed a list of names that complied with the policy. After consideration the Committee then agreed on preferred names. The policy requires that any name meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Indigenous names - Local Indigenous names where it is confirmed that the name has a connection to the history of the area.

2. Port history: Names that relate to historical events, ships, or historical landmarks or to people who have made a significant contribution to the Port of Fremantle.

3. Maritime or port industries: Names that have a maritime or port theme associated with maritime or port industries that are well connected to the Port of Fremantle.

4. Operational activities: Names that are descriptive of the use of the structure, road or place.

5. Locality or landmark: A name that reflects a local place or landmark. 6. Individuals - People who have a distinguished record of achievement directly

associated with the Port of Fremantle. External Approvals Fremantle Ports is not the approval authority for road names. Road naming proposals are lodged with the City of Fremantle who then process and refer proposals to the Geographic Names Committee for final determination". Landgate Landgate is responsible for road naming and is guided by the Geographic Names Committee (GNC). The GNC provide the Guidelines in relation to the naming of roads, features, townsites and places in Western Australia. The following publications are referred to by the GNC when assessing road naming compliance;

• The Geographic Names Committee (Western Australia) - Principles, Guidelines and Procedures ("GNC Guidelines").

• Australian/New Zealand Standard Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZS 4819:2011).

The GNC has confirmed that the proposed road names of "Manoora Close, Noble Close and Kooringa Place are currently compliant with general GNC Road Naming Guidelines. Historical Information - Rous Head Proposed private road names. Manoora - A ship built in Scotland in 1935 providing the Cairns to Fremantle coastal passenger run for the Adelaide Steamship Company. During WWII the ship was used by the Navy for moving troops and undertaking patrols in the waters of Malaysia, New Guinea and India. After WWII the ship resumed its run as a Western Australian coastal passenger ship. At the end of its service it was sold to an Indonesian Company who sent the ship to Kaohsiung to be broken up for scrap - on the final journey to Kaohsiung it took on water and sank with the remains left on the sea bed.


Page 37

Noble - Captain Beresford Lewis Noble (1914-1998). He spent 20 years at sea and then worked as a Harbour Master at Darwin Port before being appointed the Fremantle Harbour Master from 1972 to 1984. He was a member of the Institute of Navigation, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Transport, and an Associate of the Institute of Management. When containerisation was introduced in the late 1960's at Fremantle it required a change in the way ship berths were designed including reconfiguration of the land on the berths in order to accommodate the new method of cargo movement. Captain (Harbour Master) Noble oversaw the redesign of the ports infrastructure to ensure Fremantle was able to meet the demands of the new ships. Kooringa - The world's first fully containerised vessel arriving at Fremantle in 1964. The ship serviced the Australian interstate sea container trade travelling between capital city ports including Fremantle. EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Neighbour Notification: Nil. There is no requirement to advertising private road naming. CONCLUSION

The Fremantle Ports' Naming Committee has requested that the City of Fremantle submit the proposed road names to the Geographic Names Committee on their behalf in accordance with the FP "Structures Road and Place Naming Policy". The City has therefore liaised with the GNC and the PF with regard to the compliance of the proposed road names, road suffixes and amended road design. The GNC has confirmed that the proposed road names including other amendments are currently compliant with the general GNC Road Naming Guidelines. It is therefore recommended that Council supports the Fremantle Ports Rous Head (Inner Harbour) road naming and design application as detailed in attachment 1and figure 1 above.


Page 38

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council 1. ADVISE the GNC that it supports the proposed three private road names of

"Manoora Close", "Noble Close" and "Kooringa Place" to be applied to the Fremantle Ports Rous Head, North Fremantle (Inner Harbour) Development together with all other road amendments as shown in the Fremantle Ports Proposed Rous Head Road Names application including the City of Fremantle map titled "Rous Head - Proposed new Road Names" (figure 1 above)



Page 39

PSC1302-26 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 59 - DEMOLITION BY

NEGLECT PROVISIONS - ADOPTION FOR ADVERTISING DataWorks Reference: 218/065 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 February 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this scheme amendment is to introduce new ‘demolition by neglect’ clauses into Part 7, heritage and conservation protection, of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The new clauses will give the City the power to issue a written notice on the owner, occupier or other person in control of a derelict place, requiring the repair of all matters contributing to the demolition by neglect. If the required repairs are not carried out the City may enter the place and undertake the repairs. In this instance the scheme amendment includes a provision to recover any costs though legal means. The proposed scheme amendment clauses will apply regardless of whether the demolition by neglect occurred prior to or following the inclusion of the new clauses into the Scheme. The proposed scheme amendment provisions are a replication of the City of Stirling’s demolition by neglect provisions in their current scheme amendment No. 27. This scheme amendment is presently out for public comment until the 4 March 2013. It is recommended Council resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 59 to LPS4 for public advertising and authorise officers to prepare a submission on behalf of the City of Fremantle in support of the City of Stirling’s demolition by neglect scheme amendment. BACKGROUND

The process of allowing a heritage place to fall into a state of disrepair though lack of maintenance and neglect, ultimately facilitating the eventual demolition of the place, is known as ‘demolition by neglect’. Several places of heritage significance within the City of Fremantle currently could be considered to be in such a state. There are, however, no statutory powers specific to or appropriate for dealing with the issue in the Planning and Development Act 2005, the City’s LPS4 or other legislation. For example, an ‘Order to Repair’ can be issued under the provisions of the Health Act 1911, however if the order is taken to appeal it can potentially result in an order to demolish the place as there is no requirement to consider the place’s heritage value.


Page 40

The City of Stirling has experienced the same issue of demolition by neglect on heritage places in their locality. As a means of ameliorating this issue, the City of Stirling has recently initiated a ‘demolition by neglect’ scheme amendment to its Local Planning Scheme. This proposed scheme amendment will provide the City of Stirling with powers to issue a notice under the Local Planning Scheme on the owner, occupier or other person in control of a heritage place to repair the place when maintenance and repair has previously been neglected. The amendment is part of a suite of heritage list and heritage area initiatives in the City of Stirling over recent years and is currently being advertised for public comment until 4 March 2013. The City of Stirling’s proposed scheme amendment No. 27 provisions would also be suitable in the City of Fremantle’s LPS4 as a means of dealing with the same demolition by neglect issue. Accordingly, the City’s officers discussed the proposed amendment with the City of Stirling and have been permitted to replicate the City of Stirling’s demolition by neglect provisions in the City of Fremantle LPS4. PLANNING COMMENT

The new clauses of the proposed Scheme amendment will go into Part 7, heritage and conservation protection, of the City’s LPS4. The first clause will outline that an owner, occupier or other person in control of a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area shall preserve a place against demolition by neglect. The definition of demolition by neglect (to be inserted into the general definitions schedule of LPS4 as part of the Scheme amendment) will read as meaning the following:

(a) neglect in maintaining, repairing or securing a Place that results in deterioration of an interior or exterior element of the Place or the loss off structural integrity of the Place; or

(b) the removal (whether approved or not) of any element of the Place which: 1. is integral to the character of the Place; or 2. exposes any part of the remaining Place thereby threatening or leading to

deterioration of the Place. The second proposed clause will allow the City to serve a written notice on the owner, occupier or other person in control of the place if it appears to Council that a place is threatened by demolition by neglect. The notice would require the repair of all matters contributing to the demolition by neglect in a timeframe of not less than 60 days. If the person to whom the written notice is given fails to carry out the required repairs within the time specified in the written notice, a clause in the proposed scheme amendment would allow for the City to enter the place and undertake the repairs. Any expenses incurred from such an action may be recovered from the person to whom the written notice was given as a debt due in a court of competent jurisdiction. The scheme amendment further outlines in that the person given a written notice has appeal rights to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the written notice. Once the scheme amendment is gazetted the new clauses in part 7 of LPS4 will apply regardless of whether the demolition by neglect occurred prior to or following the inclusion of the new clauses in the Scheme.


Page 41

As the City is replicating the City of Stirling’s demolition by neglect scheme amendment (No. 27) provisions for the City’s own purposes, officers consider it appropriate for Council to put in a submission of support on the City of Stirling’s amendment. The City of Stirling’s public comment period for the amendment closes 4 March 2013. Accordingly it is recommended that Council authorises officers to prepare and lodge a submission in support of the City of Stirling’s scheme amendment during the public comment period. CONCLUSION The proposed scheme amendment would introduce new clauses into the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 that give the City the power to issue written notices to the owner, occupier or other person in control of a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area to carry out repairs to preserve the place against to demolition by neglect. The issue of demolition by neglect has been a matter of concern to the wider community for some time, and it is considered that the proposed scheme provisions would provide the City with appropriate statutory powers to respond to the issue in relevant cases. It is recommended that Council resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 59 to LPS4, and authorise officers to make a submission of support on the City of Stirling’s scheme amendment No. 27.


Page 42

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That: 1. Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act

2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows: A. Insert the following clauses into Part 7 after clause 7.7.4 which relates to

Archaeological Investigation:

7.8 Demolition by neglect 7.8.1 The owner, occupier or other person in control of a Place:

a) on the heritage list or b) in an area designated as a heritage area under Clause 7.2, shall

preserve the Place against demolition by neglect. 7.8.2 If it appears to the Council that a Place referred to in Clause 7.8.1 is

threatened by demolition by neglect, the local government may give a written notice to the owner, occupier or other person in control of the Place requiring the repair of all matters contributing to the demolition by neglect. The written notice: a) is to identify the matters contributing to the demolition by

neglect which require repair; and b) is to specify a time being not less than 60 days after the written

notice is given, within which the written notice is to be complied with.

7.8.3 A written notice under Clause 7.8.2 may be given to a person in any of

the ways provided for by Sections 75 and 76 of the Interpretation Act 1984. If it is not reasonably practicable to give the written notice in one of these ways, it may be given in any way provided for by Section 9.52(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995.

7.8.4 If the person to whom the written notice is given under Clause 7.8.2

fails to carry out the required repairs within the time specified in the written notice, the local government may itself enter the place and undertake the repairs.

7.8.5 Any expenses incurred by the local government in carrying out

repairs under Clause 7.8.4 may be recovered from the person to whom the written notice was given as a debt due in a court of competent jurisdiction.

7.8.6 The local government may:

a) extend the time specified in the written notice given under Clause 7.8.2 for undertaking repairs; or

b) revoke a written notice given under Clause 7.8.2.


Page 43

7.8.7 A failure to comply with a written notice given under Clause 7.8.2 is a contravention of the Scheme.

7.8.8 A person given a written notice under Clause 7.8.2 may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of the written notice in accordance with Part 14 of the Act.

7.8.9 Clause 7.8.1 to 7.8.8 apply regardless of whether the demolition by

neglect occurs prior to or following the inclusion of those Clauses in the Scheme.

B. Insert the following definition into 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined

Words and Expressions after “Cultural heritage significance”:

Demolition by neglect: means (a) neglect in maintaining, repairing or securing a Place that results

in deterioration of an interior or exterior element of the Place or the loss of structural integrity of the Place; or

(b) the removal (whether approved or not) of any element of the Place which: • is integral to the character of the Place; or • exposes any part of the remaining Place thereby threatening

or leading to deterioration of the Place.

2. The Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare and lodge a submission on behalf of the City of Fremantle in support of the City of Stirling’s Scheme Amendment No. 27 - Demolition by neglect provisions by 4 March 2013.

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

scheme amendment documentation. 4. The Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Environmental

Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

5. The Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western

Australian Planning Commission for information. 6. Upon receipt of the environmental assessment from the

Environmental Protection Authority, the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days.



Page 44

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.37 PM.


Page 45

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


Page 46


clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


Page 47


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 48

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


Page 49

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 20 February 2013,6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 20 February 2013

Page 2

Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

MINUTES - City of Fremantle · process, fees are not a selection c riteria in a design competition....

Documents