agenda - fremantle.wa.gov.au · 12/3/2014 · november 2014. the following resolution was made;...

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 December 2014, 6.00pm

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 5 November 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1412-181 LADNER STREET, NO. 17/45 (LOT 17) O'CONNOR - CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE TO PLACE OF WORSHIP - (AA DA0477/14) 1

PSC1412-182 DEFERRED ITEM - CHADWICK STREET, NO. 43A (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0475/14) 8

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 14

PSC1412-183 MCCOMBE AVENUE, NO. 40 (LOT 303), SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY SIX (36) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND RESTAURANT - (CJ DAP80004/14) 14

PSC1412-184 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 95 (LOT 14), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING 7X MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DA0465/14) 37

PSC1412-185 MCCABE STREET, NO. 19-21 (LOT 19), NORTH FREMANTLE - TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE TO MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - (CJ DA0525/14) 50

PSC1412-186 PARRY STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 440), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH BASEMENT (INCLUDING 8 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DAP80005/14) 55

PSC1412-187 RULE STREET, NO. 7 (LOT 20), NORTH FREMANTLE DETACHED HABITABLE ROOM AND SHADE STRUCTURE (PERGOLA) ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0411/14) 72

PSC1412-188 FORREST STREET, NO. 124 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AA DA0505/14) 77

PSC1412-189 JOHN STREET, NO. 1/6 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0450/14) 84

PSC1412-190 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62A (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE ALTERNATIVE FINISH TO APPROVED BOUNDARY WALLS TO A TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 93

PSC1412-191 EDMUND STREET, NO. 102 (LOT 32), WHITE GUM VALLEY - RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING TO ANCILLARY DWELLING AND PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0452/14) 97

PSC1412-192 INVERLEITH STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RECONSIDERATION - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0289/14) 102

PSC1412-193 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 111

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 112

PSC1412-194 VICTORIA QUAY COMMERCIAL PRECINCT, FREMANTLE STATION AND PIONEER PARK DRAFT PRECINCT PLANS - CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO THE WA PLANNING COMMISSION 112

PSC1412-195 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15 - FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY - FINAL ADOPTION 118

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 132

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1412-181 LADNER STREET, NO. 17/45 (LOT 17) O'CONNOR - CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE TO PLACE OF WORSHIP - (AA DA0477/14) 4

PSC1412-182 DEFERRED ITEM - CHADWICK STREET, NO. 43A (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0475/14) 12

PSC1412-183 MCCOMBE AVENUE, NO. 40 (LOT 303), SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY SIX (36) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND RESTAURANT - (CJ DAP80004/14) 26

PSC1412-184 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 95 (LOT 14), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING 7X MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DA0465/14) 69

PSC1412-185 MCCABE STREET, NO. 19-21 (LOT 19), NORTH FREMANTLE - TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE TO MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - (CJ DA0525/14) 79

PSC1412-186 PARRY STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 440), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH BASEMENT (INCLUDING 8 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DAP80005/14) 88

PSC1412-187 RULE STREET, NO. 7 (LOT 20), NORTH FREMANTLE DETACHED HABITABLE ROOM AND SHADE STRUCTURE (PERGOLA) ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0411/14) 103

PSC1412-188 FORREST STREET, NO. 124 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AA DA0505/14) 111

PSC1412-189 JOHN STREET, NO. 1/6 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0450/14) 121

PSC1412-190 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62A (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE ALTERNATIVE FINISH TO APPROVED BOUNDARY WALLS TO A TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 128

PSC1412-191 EDMUND STREET, NO. 102 (LOT 32), WHITE GUM VALLEY - RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING TO ANCILLARY DWELLING AND PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0452/14) 152

PSC1412-192 INVERLEITH STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RECONSIDERATION - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0289/14) 160

PSC1412-193 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 171

PSC1412-194 VICTORIA QUAY COMMERCIAL PRECINCT, FREMANTLE STATION AND PIONEER PARK DRAFT PRECINCT PLANS - CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO THE WA PLANNING COMMISSION 176

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 3 December 2014

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1412-181 LADNER STREET, NO. 17/45 (LOT 17) O'CONNOR - CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE TO PLACE OF WORSHIP - (AA DA0477/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans (22 September 2014)

2 – Site photos Date Received: 22 September 2014 Owner Name: A McRostie Submitted by: P Lewis Scheme: Industrial Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Warehouse Use Class: Place of Worship Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the change of use of an existing Warehouse to a Place of Worship. The application is presented before the Planning Service Committee (PSC) as relevant planning objections have been received during the community consultation period which cannot be addressed via the imposition of planning conditions. The application proposes that the main activities and services will operate from the site on Sundays between 10am and 11am and will be attended by between 40-60 people. Some administrative activities and smaller congregations (up to 15 people) will occur during other times. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and planning policies and the exercise of discretion is sought in relation to;

Land use; and,

Vehicle parking. The proposed land use is not considered to be offensive or restrictive to the use of adjoining sites for industrial purposes. Moreover the use is considered to be one suitably located in the Industrial zone. On the basis of the likely capacity of the premises as outlined by the applicant, the application has been assessed on the basis of a maximum capacity of 60 people. The application includes a shortfall of 12 vehicle bays. The shortfall is considered to meet the merit criteria of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) having regard to the availability of communal parking at the site, the operating times of the proposed use being largely non-peak times and the availability of street parking nearby to the subject site. The application was previously considered by the PSC at its meeting of 5 November 2014. The following resolution was made;

‘...to defer the item to the Planning Services Committee meeting on 3 December 2014 to allow submitters to be notified of the meeting.’

The application is recommended for conditional approval, including conditions which restrict the capacity and operating times of the premises.


Page 3

BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned Industrial and is located within the O’Connor Local Planning Area. The subject site is not heritage listed or located within a heritage area. The subject site measures approximately 434m2, exists at the street front of an industrial and commercial complex of buildings (approximately 6330m2 in area) in the portion of Ladner Street bound by Roper Street to the north and South Street to the south. On 17 November 1986 the City granted planning approval for a ‘Warehouse and office’ at the subject site (DA457/86). On 15 June 1987 the City granted approval for redevelopment of the subject site to ‘Seventeen Factory Units (General Industry)’ (DA154/78). On 21 March 1988 the City granted planning approval for the change of use of the subject site to ‘Sales and Service of Lawnmowers and Chainsaws’ (DA65/88). On 28 July 2010 the City granted approval for the ‘Change of Use to Caravan Sales’ at the subject site (DA0323/10). The City received the current application on 22 September 2014. The application was previously considered by the PSC at its meeting of 5 November 2014. The following resolution was made;

‘...to defer the item to the Planning Services Committee meeting on 3 December 2014 to allow submitters to be notified of the meeting.’

The application is now presented to the PSC for further consideration. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for the change of use of an existing Warehouse to a Place of Worship including;

Use of the premises for the assembly of approximately 40 adults for religious worship;

Regular services undertaken (generally) between 10am and 11am Sundays;

The premises to operate on an as-needs basis during other times. In submitting the application the applicant has identified that the current size of the congregation and existing (other) premises is approximately 40 adults. This does not include children than may also attend with parents or guardians. The applicant has indicated that, for the purpose of parking provision and limiting the impact on adjoining premises, a limitation on occupation of the premises to not more than 60 people would fulfil their immediate needs, but would not allow for growth to occur within the congregation. Nonetheless the planning assessment has been undertaken on the basis of a 60 person limitation being applied. The development plans also depict internal alterations and additions which do not form part of this approval. These additions are not subject to the need for planning approval pursuant to clause 8.2(a) of LPS4. The application does not include any works affecting the external areas of the subject site. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


Page 4

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and planning policies. Merit based assessments are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Land use; and,

Vehicle parking. These merit based assessment are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 21 October 2014, the City had received 8 submissions all of which object to the proposal. The following issues were raised;

The proposed use is not provided with adequate on-site parking;

There are existing on-street parking issues along Ladner Street

The lack of vehicle parking provided will result in a parking conflict with other landowners;

The site is not suitably positioned to take advantage to public transport;

A number of business operate from the subject site during the times specified for operations in the application. These uses rely on direct access to premises for large vehicles;

A number of business rely on use of the central common property parking area for access to large vehicles. This proposal will interrupt this access;

The site is more suitable for small scale service businesses and does not suit large numbers of customers or patrons coming to the premises;

Parking on verge areas could result in damage of sprinklers; Discussion of these issues is considered further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Environmental Health The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department for comment. It was advised that the use of the building would need to comply with the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992. A number of submissions received by the City raised concerns that the plans depicted modifications to existing toilets held in common property. It is understood these toilets are currently unisex, while the plans depict these for use by males only. An advice note advising the applicant of the need to obtain any relevant approvals to make these changes is recommended.


Page 5

PLANNING COMMENT Land use The application seeks approval for a change of use to a discretionary land use as identified under Table 1 of LPS4. Therefore the use proposed shall be consistent with the objectives of the Industrial zone pursuant to LPS4. Consideration of the two objectives of the zone is made in the table below;

Objective Officer comment

i. Provide for manufacturing, processing and fabrication industry, the storage and distribution of goods, and associated uses, service industry, utilities and communication, ancillary retail which by the nature of their operations should be separated from residential areas; and

The proposed use does not directly fall within the list of uses specified. However the proposed use is considered complimentary and generally comparable to similar service type activities. The Industrial zone is considered an appropriate zone for the location of such activities. The proposal is of a scale that would normally be considered inappropriate in the Residential Zone. The proposed use is not considered to impact on the ability for other ‘typical’ Industrial activities to occur nearby or the basis of its infrequent and limited operating times.

ii. Ensure that development contributes to a high standard of amenity and design as well as compatibility with adjacent residential area;

The proposed land is not considered to involve an immediate impact on amenity to adjoining land use. The nature of activities undertaken is passive in nature, is proposed infrequently and will involve limited interaction with adjoining sites. Interaction to adjoining sites will generally be limited to use of parking facilities, which is discussed further in this report.

On the basis of the above, the proposed land use is not considered, in itself, offensive or likely to cause impact to the amenity of the Industrial zone.


Page 6

Restrictions on operations The applicant has identified that the main activities of the premises will be undertaken on Sunday mornings (generally 10am-11am and by up to 60 people). This is considered to accord with the off-peak times of other adjoining and nearby properties. There will be more available vehicle parking available to the use during this time then during typical business hours. The applicant has also identified that administrative and meeting activities of up to 15 people could occur at the premises at other times. A condition of approval reflecting the above is recommended. Vehicle parking

Element Scheme requirement

Provided Merit based assessment

Vehicle parking 15 bays (at 60 person limit)

3 bays 12 bays

Bicycle parking Class 2: 1 bay Class 3: 2 bays

0 Class 2: 1 bay Class 3: 2 bays

The subject site includes a rear courtyard with crossover access to Ladner Street. This area is capable of providing vehicle parking for 3 vehicles. No. 45 Ladner Street, O’Connor (‘the parent site’) contains a central vehicle parking area containing a minimum of 37 bays (excluding loading areas or clearways). The certificate of title for the subject site indicates that there are no exclusive use rights or ownership of these bays; these areas are held in common property. As a result, these bays do not form part of the formal calculation of bays provided to the proposal. Notwithstanding the above, the lesser amount of vehicle parking provided at the subject site is supported, for the following reasons;

There are opportunities for street parking on Ladner Street, particularly during non-peak times, such as Sunday morning when the use is proposed to predominately operate.

The subject site is located adjacent to high frequency public transport and cycling infrastructure along South Street;

The parent site contains at least 37 communal parking bays. The proposed use will predominately operate on Sunday morning. This coincides with an off-peak demand time for vehicle parking meaning it is likely a number of these bays will be available for use by the proposed use. It is recognised that some other properties within No. 45 Ladner Street operate during this time;

It is recognised that there may be restrictions, in the form of a by-law or the like applicable to the vehicle parking located on the common property. Such restrictions are not capable of consideration for decisions under the Planning and Development Act 2005.


Page 7

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of use to Place of Worship at No. 17/45 (Lot 17) Ladner Street, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 22 September 2014, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 22 September 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this approval, the use and/or occupation of the premises shall be limited in the following ways; a) To not more than 15 persons between 5am and 7pm, Monday to Friday,

excluding public holidays; and, b) Not more than 60 persons at all other times.

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 occupation of the development approved as part of DA0477/14, on plans dated 22 September 2014, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Note(s)

i. The applicant is advised that the depicted ‘2 x Mens Toilets’ shown on the approved plans in the position of existing toilet areas held in common property, does not form part of this approval. Modifications to these areas may be subject to approval under other legislation.


Page 8

PSC1412-182 DEFERRED ITEM - CHADWICK STREET, NO. 43A (LOT 2), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0475/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 November 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 5 November 2014 (PSC1411-174) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 22 September 2014 Owner Name: Benedicta Obehi Itotoh and Christopher Onweazu Ogwu Submitted by: Simsai Construction Group Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of a single storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 43a Chadwick Street, Hilton. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination due to objections to the development and the requirement for merit based assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Boundary wall (north and east); and

Energy efficiency. The above design elements have been assessed against the Design Principles of the R-Codes, LPS4 and LPPs and are considered to be supportable. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee, however due to an administration error submitters were not notified of the meeting date and it was therefore deferred to the next available meeting. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee Meeting on 5 November 2014. As submitters were not notified of the meeting date, the application was deferred to the next available meeting to ensure notification was sent. No amendments have been made to the application. The application is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is location at the rear of No. 43 Chadwick Street on the southern side of Chadwick Street, in Hilton. The street block is bound by Chadwick Street to the North, Snook Crescent to the West, Collick Street to the East and Joslin Street to the South. The development site is has a total land area of 342m2 and is currently vacant. It is located within the Residential zone and is allocated a density coding of R20/25. The site is located in the Hilton Local Planning Area, and Hilton Heritage Area, however is not on the City’s Heritage List. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee Meeting on 5 November 2014. As submitters were not notified of the meeting date, the application was deferred to the next available meeting to ensure notification was sent. No amendments have been made to the application.


Page 10

DETAIL

On 22 September 2014, the City received an application for the addition of a single storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 43a Chadwick Street, Hilton to a currently vacant site. The application includes the following:

Double garage;

3x bedrooms;

2 x bathrooms;

Family/meals/kitchen;

Laundry; and

Alfresco.

Development plans are included as attachment 1. The applicant also provided evidence of the dwelling meeting an 8 star NatHERS energy efficiency rating. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to meet Design Principles. See ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report for a full assessment of the Design Principle assessments required. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 October 2014, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Removal of existing fence to make way for boundary wall not supported.

House has no damage currently, concerned about damage during construction.

Object to boundary wall due to building bulk and impact on amenity of outdoor living area.

Lounge/kitchen will be right next to neighbouring properties.


Page 11

PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary Wall (North and East)

Deemed to Comply Setback Proposed Design Principle Assessment

North (garage) - 1m 0m 1m

East (bedrooms 2 & 3)– 1m 0m 1m

The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed boundary walls (summarised):

Due to the shape of the block, no alternative but to design the home to maximise the wider part of the lot;

Northern boundary wall will not have any significant impact on the amenity of neighbours;

Privacy is enhanced for neighbour and resident;

Eastern boundary wall will protect neighbour from harsh summer afternoon sun. North The proposed garage boundary wall on the northern boundary measures 2.8m in height and 5.7m in length. The northern boundary wall is supported for the following reasons against LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development:

It is not considered that the proposed boundary walls will restrict access to sunlight and/or ventilation for major openings or outdoor living areas on neighbouring properties;

The application complies with overshadowing requirements as calculated by the R-Codes;

The building bulk created by the single storey boundary wall will be limited as it would only protrude a metre above an average sized boundary fence (1.8m); and

The proposed boundary wall will occupy approximately a third of the property boundary, with the rest of the property setback 1.6m.

East The proposed boundary wall on the eastern boundary is for bedroom 2 and 3, and measures 2.6m in height and in 7.9m length. The eastern boundary wall is supported for the following reasons against LPP 2.4 -

The proposed boundary walls will not restrict access to sunlight and/or ventilation for major openings or outdoor living areas on the neighbouring properties as measured by the R Codes;

The application complies with overshadowing requirements as calculated by the R-Codes;

A sense of confinement will not be created by way of building bulk;

The adjoining property is setback approximately 6m from the boundary, reducing the impact on any major openings;


Page 12

There is currently a significant amount of vegetation screening the outdoor living area on the neighbouring property; and

The height of the single storey boundary wall is not significant, restricting the impact of building bulk on the neighbouring property.

Energy Efficiency

Required Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Additional star rating (7 stars) 8 stars Not required

1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel

0.5 star in lieu

Required

3000L rain water tank 0.5 star in lieu

Required

In accordance with Clause 3 of LPP 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule, in cases where an applicant demonstrates that the requirements of clause 1(c) and/or 1(d) of Part B cannot reasonably be met, Council may accept the achievement of an additional half (0.5) star NatHERS star rating in lieu of each of the items as an alternative means of complying with this policy. The applicant has provided an additional half (0.5) star in lieu for both the rainwater tank and solar panels. No justification has been provided for the lack of rainwater tank and/or solar panels, and it is considered that there is sufficient roof space and open space to provide both on site, without creating a detrimental impact on the streetscape or adjoining properties. As such, there is no evidence of the applicant not being able to “reasonably” meet the requirements of 1(c) and 1(d), and a condition of approval is recommended to ensure compliance with the requirement. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the addition of a single storey Grouped Dwelling and at No. 43a (Lot 2) Chadwick Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 22 September 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

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

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,


Page 13

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

4. The dwelling achieve a minimum NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star

rating of seven (7) stars that is certified by a NatHERS energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0475/14, on plans dated 22 September 2014, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0475/14, on

plans dated 22 September 2014, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry, or an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge, shall be installed or and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Note:

i. In relation to Condition 4, the applicant is advised that A ‘NatHERS energy assessor’ is defined in accordance with the Building Commission’s Industry Bulletin IB 0244/2014.


Page 14

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

PSC1412-183 MCCOMBE AVENUE, NO. 40 (LOT 303), SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY SIX (36) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND RESTAURANT - (CJ DAP80004/14)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 40 (Lot 303) McCombe Avenue, Samson

Application Details: Demolition of existing Neighbourhood Centre and construction of thirty six (36) Multiple Dwellings and Restaurant

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: Momentum Wealth

Owner: MW Investments Number 4

LG Reference: DAP80004/14

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Statutory Planning

Department of Planning File No: DAP/14/00626

Report Date: 3 December 2014

Application Receipt Date: 22 September 2014

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Development plans (1.03, 2.03, 3.03, 4.03, 5.03, 6.03, 7.03, 8.03, 9.03, 10.03, 11.03, 12.03 & 13.03) 2: Schedule of submissions 3. DAC Comments 4. Site Photographs 5. Applicant response to submissions


Page 15

Officer Recommendation: That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/14/00626 and accompanying plans (1.05, 2.05, 3.05, 4.05, 5.05, 6.05, 7.05, 8.05, 9.05, 10.05, 11.05, 12.05, 13.05, 14.05 & 15.05) in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, and the Metropolitan Region Scheme subject to the following conditions: Conditions / Reasons

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 4 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially comment within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City to Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities;

b) Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve;

c) Protection of street trees;

d) Security fencing around construction sites;

e) Gantries;

f) Access to site by construction vehicles;

g) Contact Details;

h) Site offices;

i) Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries;

j) Sand drift and dust management;

k) Waste management;

l) Dewatering;

m) Traffic management; and


Page 16

n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

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

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), for the verge areas on McCombe Avenue and Petterson Avenue shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to commencement of development, a report shall be submitted by a

suitably qualified acoustic engineer certifying that the proposal incorporates sufficient sound attenuation measures to limit noise impact on adjoining properties to within the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed

and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

7. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading

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

8. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the verge parking indicated on the

McCombe Avenue verge shall be deleted from the plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation of the development, a minimum of three car parking

bays shall be provided on the Petterson Avenue verge to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to occupation, three on site car parking bays shall be marked as

visitor car parking and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


Page 17

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

a) a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or

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

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

following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee:

(i) Additional details relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

(ii) The introduction of natural light and outlook to the access corridor of the most northern building.

(iii) Details of screening to air-conditioning units located on balconies or, preferably, of their relocation to roof spaces not visible from the street.

(iv) More space being created in front of the lifts.

14. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, one (1) Class 1 or 2 bicycle parking

facility shall be provided for the Restaurant land use to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. The signage hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving

light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

Advice Notes

i. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.


Page 18

ii. The applicant should liaise with the City’s Parks and Landscape department prior to commencement of the development, to ensure the vegetation on the adjoining property, being the Samson Recreation Centre, is protected from damage and any damage rectified during the construction phase of the development.

iii. In relation to condition 12, the applicant is advised that the City does not

have the ability to collect rubbish directly from basements, and that the Waste Management plan should include provision for waste to be brought to an easily accessible location for collection. For further information, contact the City’s City Works department.

iv. 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 an application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

v. All noisy work on a construction site shall be limited to between 7am and

7pm on any day which is not a Sunday or Public Holiday. If work is to be done outside these hours a noise management plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle at least 30 days prior to the noisy work commencing for assessment and decision.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 40 McCombe Avenue, Samson

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban

TPS: Neighbourhood Centre (R60)

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwelling Restaurant

Insert Development Scheme: N/A

Insert Lot Size: 2500m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Neighbourhood Centre (Shop, Convenience Store, Restaurant)

Value of Development: $5.2million

The subject site is located on the South Eastern corner of the intersection of Petterson Avenue and McCombe Avenue, Samson and is within the Samson Local Planning Area. The street block is bound by Petterson Avenue to the North, McCombe Avenue to the West, Morrow Mews to the East and Lawrence Way to the South. The development site is 2500m2 and is currently occupied by the Samson Shopping Centre. It is located within the Neighbourhood Centre zone and is allocated a density coding of R60. The site is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List, nor is it located in a Heritage Area.

mailto:[email protected]


Page 19

A search of the property file has revealed the following planning history for the Samson Shopping Centre:

DA No. Date of Determination

Proposed Development Determination

DA0346/09

15 September 2009

Change of use to Convenience Store (Shop 6) and Additions and Alterations to existing shopping centre

Approved with conditions

DA516/86 18 December 1986 Community recreation hall and local shops

Approved with conditions

Details: outline of development application On 22 September 2014, the City received an application for the demolition of the existing building and addition of thirty six (36) Multiple Dwellings and a Restaurant at No. 40 McCombe Avenue, Samson. The application includes the following:

Demolition of the existing Samson Shopping Centre;

Partial Basement (40 car bays, 36 store rooms, bin storage, Restaurant);

Ground floor (16 x 2 bedroom Multiple Dwellings);

First floor (15 x 2 bedroom Multiple Dwellings); and

Second floor (5 x 1 bedroom Multiple Dwellings). Amended plans were received 9 October 2014, that provided an additional window on the Restaurant’s southern elevation. Final amended plans were received 4 November 2014, and included minor amendments to the plans in response to DAC comments. Development plans are included as attachment 1. Legislation & policy: The following legislation and state government policies are relevant to this application: Legislation

City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) –

o Clause 4.2.1(d) - Objectives for the Neighbourhood Centre zone;

o Table 1 - Zoning;

o Table 2 – Vehicle Parking requirements;

o Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking requirements;

o Clause 5.8.1 – Variation to height requirements;

o Clause 5.8.2 – Discretionary clause to vary other requirements;

o Clause 5.8.4 – Additional criteria that must be taken into consideration by

Council in excising its powers under clause 5.8.1.1;

o Clause 5.15 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures;

o Clause 10.2 - Matters to be considered by Council;

o Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee;

o Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions; and

o Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area 9 Samson.


Page 20

State Government Planning Policies

SPP3.1 Residential Design Codes (R Codes) Local Planning Policies

LPP1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals

LPP 1.6 – Heritage Assessment

LPP 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design

LPP 2.4 – Boundary walls in Residential Development

LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements

LPP 3.9 – Local Planning Area 9 Samson

DBH6 – Signs and Hoardings The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments as listed above and is considered to meet either Deemed-to-Comply or Design Principles of relevant design elements. See ‘Planning Assessment’ section of the report below for detailed assessment. Consultation: Public Consultation The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. In accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, the application was deemed to be significant and was advertised in the following manner:

Time period of notice – 28 days;

Local newspaper notice (7 October and 14 October 2014);

Sign on site (erected on Petterson and McCombe avenue frontages);

Notice to owners and occupiers within a 100m radius;

Notice on City of Fremantle website;

Notice to Precinct groups;

Notice to Elected Members; and

Community information session which was held on 16 October 2014 and attended by City Officers, the applicant, Elected Members and approximately twenty five (25) members of the public.

At the conclusion of the neighbour notification period, being 28 October 2014, the City had received twenty nine (29) submissions:

3 in support;

1 in support with conditions;

1 request for clarification;

1 comment;

19 objections; and

4 on balance objections.

A schedule of these submissions and City response has been provided as attachment 2. The applicant has provided a response to the submissions received (see attachment 5).


Page 21

City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee In accordance with Clause 11.8.6 of LPS4, the City has established a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) to provide advice on significant applications. In accordance with LPP 1.9 Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design, the application has been reviewed at various stages of the design development with DAC discussing the following:

7 July 2014

o The plans presented were ground and upper floor plans only, and the

proposed development was for a maximum of two stories.

o Strengths included the two commercial tenancies to the southern portion of

site and higher density development in a predominantly low density area.

o Improvements should be made to the proposed car parking, storage,

access corridor, interaction of commercial tenancies with streetscape, crossover location and maximising site potential by increasing height near the recreation centre.

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

a stage where they could be supported.

4 August 2014

o Plans presented included basic elevations demonstrating bulk of the

proposed development, relocation of vehicle access, addition of a commercial tenancy and third floor addition.

o Strengths include vehicle access, site planning, cross ventilation, open

space and landscaping and dual aspect of the apartments.

o Improvements should be made to bedroom windows adjacent to corridors;

commercial tenancies and interaction with apartments; basement level; open space; floor to ceiling height of commercial; staircase boundary wall; and setback area on eastern boundary.

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

stage where they could be supported.

13 October 2014

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

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

o Strengths include unit layout, separation between commercial and

residential, balconies, consulting with architect and proposed density.

o Improvements should be made to access corridors (paying particular

attention to fire escapes), wall height on McCombe Avenue, south facing units, communal shared space, landscaping, residential entrance, universal access (apartment 4), natural light to corridors, air conditioner locations, mechanical ventilation for car park, and corridor width.

o Design has not yet progressed to point where committee can recommend

support.


Page 22

10 November 2014

o The plans presented to DAC include the addition of stairs to the basement

from the northern building, addition of toilet facilities to basement, increase in size of apartment 13, addition of entrance door to eastern side of northern building, addition of entrance door to northern building on Petterson Avenue, BBQ common area, footpath along eastern boundary, air conditioners, increase in size of apartment 19 balcony, minor change to McCombe avenue roof form, reduction in McCombe Ave stair width, and removal of window from eastern elevation.

o Strengths include introduction of natural light to corridor, wall height

discretion reduced to stairs, addition of BBQ area and universal access to Apartment 4.

o Improvements should be made to natural light access for northern building,

screening of air conditioners and widening of single corridor widths outside lifts.

o The design is supported subject to the following conditions:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee:

(i) Additional details relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

(ii) The introduction of natural light and outlook to the access corridor of the most northern building.

(iii) Details of screening to air-conditioning units located on balconies or, preferably, of their relocation to roof spaces not visible from the street.

(iv) More space being created in front of the lifts.

A condition of approval has been recommended in accordance with DAC’s recommendation above. Refer to attachment 3 for full DAC meeting minutes. City of Fremantle Heritage Comment The proposed demolition was referred through to the City’s Heritage officers in accordance with Clause 5.15 of LPS4:

5.15.1 Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

a. has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and b. does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance of the locality in which it is located.

5.15.2 In considering an application under 5.15.1, Council shall have regard to any heritage assessment required under Clause 7.4.

The City’s Heritage officers has assessed the application for demolition of the existing Samson Shopping Centre in accordance with LPP 1.6 Heritage Assessments, and advises the following:

The shopping centre is of limited heritage significance and can be demolished.


Page 23

In accordance with Clause 5.15, the demolition of the existing Neighbourhood Centre is supported on heritage grounds. City of Fremantle Parks and Gardens Department The application has been referred through to the City’s Parks and Gardens Department who has advised the following:

Landscape plan required for verge area – what is proposed to be removed and replaced;

Remnant vegetation on boundary of Rec Centre to be out of bounds during construction/protected during building works.

The above advice has been noted, and where relevant, has been included as conditions of approval or advice notes to the applicant. City of Fremantle Technical Services Department The application has been referred through to the City’s Technical Services Department who have reviewed the applicant’s Transport Statement and plans and advised the following:

Request for standard stormwater condition to be applied;

On street parking should be avoided, particularly 90 degree bays which may result in complications associated with performing parking manoeuvres in busy traffic;

McCombe Ave can accommodate on street parking however due to high vehicle speeds, not likely to be safe; and

2-3 parallel bays would suit area and Petterson Avenue would offer a good alternative.

The above advice has been noted, and where relevant, has been included as conditions of approval or advice notes to the applicant. City of Fremantle Environmental Health Department The application has been referred through to the City’s Environmental Health Department who have advised the following:

Advice notes relating to applicants responsibilities under relevant legislation for to food premises, noise affecting residential amenity and construction sites.

Applicant should engage an acoustic consultant to ensure noise from cafe is controlled by design. Operators should have a noise management plan to ensure that noises associated with the cafe’s activities are addressed as well as management of complaints.

The above advice has been noted, and where relevant, has been included as conditions of approval or advice notes to the applicant.

City of Fremantle City Works Department


Page 24

The application has been referred through to the City’s City Works Department who have advised the following:

City does not currently have a low profile truck that has the ability to collect from underground basements, so the alternative is for waste bins to be moved to a collection point external to the building in an easily accessible location for a 10m long HR truck to access weekly.

A waste management plan is requested as a condition of approval.

The above advice has been noted, and where relevant, has been included as conditions of approval, or advice notes to the applicant.

Planning assessment: Relevant planning submissions The following relevant planning issues were raised during the consultation period of the application, and are addressed in the planning assessment section of the report below;

Planning issue Assessment

Visual privacy Not required – meets Deemed-to-Comply requirements of R-Codes

Parking Parking (Restaurant and Visitor) requires Design Principle Assessment

Plot ratio Plot ratio requires Design Principle assessment

Land use Multiple Dwelling and Restaurant are discretionary uses under LPS4

Overshadowing Not required – meets Deemed-to-Comply requirements of R-Codes

Lot boundary setbacks

Portion of eastern lot boundary setback requires Design Principle assessment

External wall height External wall height requires assessment under Cl.5.8.1 of LPS4

Dwelling size Dwelling size requires Design Principle assessment

Site coverage Site coverage requires assessment against discretionary criteria of LPP 3.9

In addition to the above, the following design elements also require assessment and are discussed further below:

Bicycle parking (Restaurant, Multiple Dwellings and Visitor);

Dwelling size;

Outdoor living areas; and

Street setbacks.


Page 25

Land use Restaurant and Multiple Dwelling are ‘A’ uses under Table 1 of LPS4. In accordance with Table 1, uses listed as A:

Means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4.

The application was advertised with twenty nine (29) submissions received. LPS4 Clause 4.2.1d) notes the objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre zone to be as follows:

i) Provide for the daily and convenience retailing, shops, cafe’, office, administration and residential uses (at upper levels or where proposed as part of a mixed use development) which serve the local community and are located within and compatible with residential areas,

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

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

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre zone on balance, for the following reasons:

It provides a Restaurant tenancy, which includes Cafe’s as noted in the objective above;

The Restaurant will provide a land use that is active for a significant portion of the day as well as into the evening, for the use of the local community, while being at a reasonable scale to minimise disruption to the nearby residential areas;

The Restaurant will be subject to all relevant noise and odour requirements, as monitored by the City’s Environmental Health department;

The proposed development reduces the amount of non-residential traffic in the area in comparison with the existing Samson Shopping Centre;

The Multiple Dwellings are an appropriate land use for the area, providing additional housing choice to an area that mostly consists of Single House and Grouped dwelling;

There are no places of heritage significance that will be impacted by this development;


Page 26

The proposed development is not a mixed use development as defined by the Scheme (each land use to consist of a minimum 25% of total floor area). The development does however; provide land uses that are suitable for the area providing the option of morning and night time activity and additional dwelling choice in Samson. Additionally, due to the location of Kardinya and Hilton shopping precincts, commercial activity in this area has not been successful with only two of the tenancies in the Samson shopping centre currently operating, with limited opening hours; and

The addition of Multiple Dwellings as opposed to additional commercial land uses would be consistent with the Grouped Dwellings and Single Houses in the immediate area.

Vehicle parking

Requirement Provided Variation

Multiple Dwelling Residents (37) 40 Complies

Multiple Dwelling Visitor (9) Nil 9 bays

Restaurant 1:5 seats or 1:5m2 dining area (15 bays)

Nil 15 bays

Delivery bay 1: service/storage area Nil 1 bay

* Calculation has used dining area floor space, as number of seats proposed not provided In accordance with LPS4 Clause 5.7.3, Council may relax parking requirements for the following reasons:

i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking; There is limited car parking in the locality; however the applicant has proposed additional car parking in the verge (8 bays). This proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Technical Services Department who support some parking in this location; however a reduced number (2-3 bays) in alternate location and formation on Petterson Avenue. Additionally this will need to go through the appropriate approvals process separate to this application and will require liaison with the Technical Services Department prior to any works occurring. An associated condition and advice note has been added to the recommendation to inform the applicant to contact the City’s Technical Services Department directly, as there may be options to provide street parking. ii) The availability of public transport in the locality; Public transport (bus) is available along McCombe Avenue. iii) Any other relevant considerations.


Page 27

The proposed use of Restaurant will not generate a significant amount of long stay traffic to the area, as a Restaurant land use would typically result in patrons likely attending for no more than a few hours. Additionally, it is expected that day time business in particular would be drawn from Samson residents. The lack of a delivery bay is also supported, as there is only one commercial tenancy, the number of deliveries would be limited, causing limited disruption if vehicles park on street.

In accordance with the Design Principles of the R-Codes, there are sufficient bays provided for the number of dwellings, and the site is on a public transport bus route. There are an additional three car bays provided in the basement than required for the Multiple Dwellings, and it is considered that these bays could be allocated as visitor bays to reduce street parking in the area. As such, the proposed visitor car parking is supported against the requirements of the R Codes with a condition of approval ensuring the three additional bays in the basement are marked as visitor bays.

Bicycle parking


Restaurant - Class 1 or 2: 1 per 100m2 public area - One (1) required

Nil 1

The City’s LPS4 Table 2 requires that a Class 1 or 2 bicycle parking is required for the Restaurant land use. Four (4) class 3 bicycle racks have been provided onsite, two (2) in addition to what are required, however it is considered that this will be shared by visitors to the Multiple Dwellings. A condition of approval has been recommended for the provision of a Class 1 or 2 bicycle park.

Deemed-to-Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Multiple Dwelling Residents (12)

Nil 12

Multiple Dwelling Visitors (4)

Nil 4

While there are no bicycle racks provided for the Multiple Dwellings, there are 4 racks provided in the front setback are adjacent to the Restaurant. It is considered that as the Multiple Dwellings are all provided with store rooms that could easily accommodate a bicycle, the four (4) bicycle racks on site could be shared between visitors to the Multiple Dwellings and Restaurant patrons.


Page 28

The bicycle parking for the residential component of the development is therefore supported against Design Principles of the R Codes.

Dwelling size


Min 25% of dwellings to have maximum floor area of 60m2 or less

14% 11%

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

0 Complies

The development does not meet the requirements of Clause 5.4.5 of LPS4 as detailed above. However, in accordance with Clause 5.8.2– The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

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

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

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

The application has been assessed against Council’s local planning policies below.

External wall height


West - 6m 6.1m – 9.7m 0.1m – 3.7m

North – 6m 6.3m – 8m 0.3m – 2m

South – 6m 5.4m – 8.7m 0m – 2.7m

East – 6m 5.6m – 8.5m 0m – 2.5m


Page 29

The applicant has provided the following justification in support of the proposed wall height (summarised):

Design includes varying wall treatments, design features, windows, colours, materials and articulation to reduce the bulk of the building on the streetscape.

Design incorporates building height transitions, which ensures an appropriate massing and scale next to the buildings existing on the adjoining properties;

Samson Recreation Centre has a ridge level of 44.32 and is approximately one metre higher than the highest point of the subject development;

The villas on the adjoining site at No. 3 Petterson Avenue have a ridge level of 40.02 and 39.25.

The development will contribute to a 5 step height transition from the Recreation Centre to the residential properties.

The matters to be considered in applying the maximum wall heights in Schedule 12 are as follows: In granting consent to the maximum heights prescribed Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following-

a) That the proposal is consistent with the predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally; The proposal is consistent with the height of the adjoining Samson Recreation Centre to the south. There is also a significant site level change between the proposed development and the unit complex on Petterson Avenue to the east, which reduces the appearance of height between the single storey units and proposed development (see site photographs – Attachment 4). To the West, across McCombe Avenue, is Sir Frederick Samson Park, which is public open space. To the North, across Petterson Avenue, are single storey Single House’s.

b) The proposal would not be detrimental the amenity of the area;

It is not considered that the additional height will be detrimental to the amenity of the area for the following reasons:

The City’s DAC reviewed the proposal pre and post lodgement and considers the development to be a positive addition to the locality;

It is comparable in height to the adjoining Recreation Centre; and

The development largely appears as a two storey development with a loft and provides articulation in the elevations to reduce the bulk of the buildings from the street.

c) The proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for the

site and locality generally, and The proposed development is not located in a Heritage Area, nor is it in the vicinity of buildings on the City’s heritage list.

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

Refer to policy assessment below.


Page 30

In order to exceed the maximum wall heights, of Schedule 12, Clause 5.8.1 allows variations to height requirements subject to the following: 5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following –

a) The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, When viewed from the street, the proposed development at No. 40 McCombe Avenue, appears predominantly as a two storey development. The proposed roof form reduces the external wall height while still providing sufficient space for loft apartments. The development is broken up into two buildings, which allows for open space around the buildings, and the proposed development is setback greater than the nil primary and secondary street setbacks allowed by LPP 3.9, to be more consistent with the adjoining properties. Site works are also proposed to create basement car parking, which is an improvement to the existing Samson Shopping Centre wherecar parking Is highly visible from the street. Overall, the proposed development is considered to be more beneficial to the amenity of adjoining properties and locality, than the existing, largely vacant shopping centre.

b) Degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; The roof pitch heights for adjoining properties are as follows:

Recreation Centre – RL 44.32

Retirement Village Grouped Dwellings – RL 39.25 - 40.02

The proposed development proposes a roof pitch RL of 42.49-44.32.

The roof form of the development allows for three stories of apartments, while still retaining a predominantly two storey impression from the street and adjoining properties. The site level difference assists in the provision of the extra height, without imposing on the amenity of the existing properties. Due to the location of the Recreation Centre and Sir Frederick Samson Park, the number of dwellings immediately adjacent to the development is limited.

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

The site does not include any buildings of heritage significance, nor are there any in the immediate vicinity.

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


Page 31

Local planning policies are discussed below. 5.8.4 The power conferred by clauses 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 may only be exercised if the Council is satisfied that –

a) approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having regard to the criteria set out in clause 10.2, The application has been considered against the criteria in clause 10.2 and is supported for the following reasons:

The development is appropriate for the Urban zone under the MRS and Neighbourhood Centre zone under LPS4;

Is supported against LPP 3.9 Samson LPA;

The Multiple Dwelling and Restaurant land uses are compatible with their setting;

The proposed Multiple Dwellings provide additional housing choice in a local planning area that is dominated by Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings;

There are no environmental or heritage concerns relating to the development;

There is sufficient parking provided for the residential properties on site and the Restaurant land use will not cause excessive parking in demand in the street;

The design of the development has been assessed by the City’s DAC, who support the proposal with minor conditions;

Signage is limited on site to identifying the apartment complex and Restaurant tenancy and is therefore not considered to impact on the amenity of the locality;

The height, bulk and scale has been assessed in relation to adjoining properties;

Traffic impact and proposed ingress/egress to the site has been assessed and is supported;

The area is serviced by Public Transport; and

The site is proposed to be landscaped for the amenity of residents and neighbouring properties.

b) the non-compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality. The non-compliance will not impact on the users or occupiers of the development, as the required features that are considered to impact on the amenity and enjoyment of a residence (for example outdoor living area and vehicle parking) are provided for on site, and not compromised to provide for the additional height.


Page 32

The residents of the locality will not be significantly adversely impacted by the development, as it has been designed to largely appear as a two storey development. The additional height allows additional density to create a greater number of residents for surveillance of the local area and further housing choice for those who currently occupy larger Single Houses. The increased population will also assist in the commercial viability of the proposed commercial tenancy, which has traditionally suffered in the low density area. The additional height will not restrict sunlight to adjoining properties as measured by the R Codes, as it is separated by McCombe and Petterson Avenues, Sir Frederick Samson Park and the Recreation centre. Additionally the site level difference will reduce the impact of the additional height, particularly as the adjoining Grouped Dwellings are at a FFL of approximately 34.75-35.52, compared to the proposed development Ground Floor with a FFL of 32.5. The additional height will not restrict future development of the locality. By providing additional height, additional density is achieved for the development which is encouraged by the R60 density coding of the land. The additional number of two bedroom units provided increases the amount of dwelling choice in the suburb.

Residential Design Codes



East (Southern building) – 1.3m 1.013m 0.287m

East (Northern building) 2.1m 1.438m 0.66m

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

The area that does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply requirements for the southern building is for the stairwell that is 7.5m long and the northern building does not have any major openings. Privacy will therefore not be impacted.

The proposed development complies with the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of the R-Codes for solar access for adjoining sites and is setback sufficiently to allow for ventilation for the building and open spaces.

The 7.5m long wall on the southern building and 14.5m long wall on the northern building will not create significant building bulk as it has a much lower ground level than the adjoining eastern site.

The lot boundary setback is a result of an additional stairwell at this end of the building, as a response to comments from the City’s DAC.


Page 33

Outdoor living area


Minimum dimensions 2.4m 0.6m – 9m 1.8m

The proposed dimensions of the balconies are supported for the following reasons:

o Each balcony is capable of use with a habitable room;

o Each balcony is 10m2 or greater; and

o Where possible, each balcony is open to winter sun.

Local Planning Policy 3.9 – Samson Local Planning Area

Parking

LPP 3.9 notes the following in relation to parking: Despite the provisions of clause 5.7.3 of LPS4, Council generally will not support relaxation of the standard parking requirements. While this clause in LPP 3.9 is noted, parking is supported for the following reasons:

While the parking on site does not meet Deemed-to-Comply requirements, additional car parking is proposed by the applicant in the road reserve on McCombe Avenue. The applicant’s parking arrangement in the MCombe Avenue road reserve has been reviewed by Technical Services is not supported in its current location for safety reasons. Alternate parking, of approximately 3 bays has been suggested as an alternative on Petterson Avenue. This has been recommended as a condition of approval.

Additionally, the Multiple Dwellings are provided with a car bay each, and it is anticipated that due to the tenancies suburban location, the proposed Restaurant will likely be a Cafe, attracting pedestrian, bicycle and short term traffic to the area (i.e. people walking in to buy coffee). Should the Restaurant operate in the evenings, by proposing only one tenancy, the amount of traffic would be limited and as it is proposed to be the only commercial component, would be less than the two food based tenancies (cafe/restaurant and fish and chip shop) currently in the Centre.

Setbacks

Minimum required setback Minimum setback Provided

Design Principle Assessment

Front (McCombe Avenue)- Nil

0.5 – 18.5m 0.5m – 18.5m

The front setback is McCombe Avenue, as both the vehicle and pedestrian access are proposed from this frontage. The setback on this elevation is not proposed to have a nil setback, however is supported for the following reasons:


Page 34

o The immediately adjoining property to the south (Recreation Centre) is setback over

25m from the street, and Single House’s in the streetscape vary from 3m to 9m from McCombe Avenue.

o It is not considered that a nil setback to McCombe would be beneficial to the low

density streetscape, and that the varying setback provided will assist in reducing the appearance of building height and plot ratio.

Plot ratio and site coverage

Maximum Provided Design Principle Assessment

Plot Ratio - 0.5 (1250 m2) 0.96 (2394 m2) 0.46 (1144 m2)

Site coverage - 50% 53.5% 3.5%

The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed plot ratio (summarised);

An interesting facade is provided to ameliorate the building bulk on the streetscape.

Is of a high architectural quality and proposes alternate materials and colours for the upper floor to further articulate the facades.

The second floor is contained within the roof space of the development to ensure that the development will appear as a two storey building from the street.

Generous open space and outdoor living areas, in addition to landscaped areas throughout the development have been incorporated.

The development incorporates 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units, which will contribute to providing housing diversity/options in the area.

The overshadowing cast from the development will fall entirely over the Recreation reserve, with no shadow falling over residential properties as of the 21 June.

The subject site is located in close proximity to South Street and Stock Road, both being distributor roads. Directions 2031 identifies that the intensification of development whilst providing a mixture of housing types, should be encouraged near high frequency traffic routes.

The plot ratio allocated in LPP 3.9 Samson Local Planning Area for the Neighbourhood Centre zone, is 0.5, which is consistent with the R-Code for R30. LPP 3.9 was adopted by Council 25 July 2007. The site was rezoned to R60 under LPS 4 (gazetted 3 March 2009), for which the R-Codes currently nominate a plot ratio of 0.7. Site coverage (or open space), for the R30-R60’s R-Codes, is 45% as opposed to the LPP 3.9 requirement of 50%. As the site’s rezoning has occurred more recently, it is considered that Council’s intent for the site is for it to be developed at a higher density than nominated in LPP 3.9, which has not yet been updated to be consistent with the current R-Code requirements and the sites R-Code.


Page 35

The Council report for the rezoning of the subject site notes:

Introduction of medium density residential accommodation as part of the overall redevelopment could assist in increasing activity and vitality in the area.

Ground floor residential use as part of an overall mixed use development is considered reasonable and justified, as it would provide some flexibility whilst still ensuring that an element of ground floor commercial use must be maintained in any new development in the Neighbourhood Centre zone.

The proposed plot ratio and site coverage is supported against LPP 3.9 and the R-Codes for the following reasons -

o There is sufficient space on site to provide car parking for residents in accordance

with the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of the R-Codes with the provision of a basement;

o The amount of visitor parking and Restaurant tenancy car parking is supported

against Design Principles;

o The proposed site coverage and plot ratio are not considered to result in significant

adverse impacts on adjoining properties;

o The open space meets the 45% requirement for the R60 RCode;

o Each unit is provided with a 10m2 outdoor living area for private use as well as

shared use of BBQ facilities on site; and

o The apartments on the top floor are within the roof space and do not add additional

height or bulk. Without the second floor apartments, the plot ratio would be reduced to 0.86, while still maintaining the same height and building bulk.

Local Planning Policy 2.13- Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements The City’s LPP 2.13 applies to the development, and requires that it should be constructed so as to achieve a 4 Star Green Star rating. As the applicant has not proposed an alternative and has acknowledged this requirement in their lodgement documentation, a condition of approval is recommended to ensure compliance with the policy. DBH6 – Signs and Hoardings The signs proposed are for the Restaurant and to name the apartment complex. The signs are supported against DBH6 for the following reasons:

The sign will identify the name of the apartment complex and Restaurant;

The signs will be of an appropriate scale for the properties Neighbourhood Centre zoning;

The signs will not add to driver distraction or visual clutter;

The signs will not impact on a property of heritage significance or obscure architectural features; and

The signs will not obscure other signs. A standard condition of approval has been recommended to ensure the impact of the signs on neighbouring properties is minimised.


Page 36

Conclusion: The application is considered to meet the requirements of all relevant planning policies and statutory requirements and is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval.


Page 37

PSC1412-184 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 95 (LOT 14), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING 7X MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DA0465/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos 3 – Street parking diagram 4 – Street perspectives

Date Received: 17 September 2014 Owner Name: MPL Property Pty Ltd Submitted by: John Lewis Architect Scheme: Local Centre (R30) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Restaurant Use Class: Multiple Dwelling

Office Use Permissibility: Multiple Dwelling – ‘A’

Office – ‘P’


Page 38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition of an existing building and construction of a three storey mixed use development including 224m2 of office area, partially integrated into the retained portions of building and 7 multiple dwellings. The proposal has been assessed against the City’s planning framework and seeks merit based assessment against a number of elements including;

Building height (external wall height);

On site car-parking;

Plot ratio;

Lot boundary setbacks;

Visual privacy (south and west);

Street setback;

Solar access; and,

Open space. The proposal is considered to clearly satisfy the merit based criteria of the planning framework in relation to most elements except for building height and vehicle parking. The proposal is considered, on-balance, to satisfy these elements having regard to the particular circumstances of the surrounding locality and in the case of vehicle parking, a condition of approval requiring the provision of addition parking off-site. The application is recommended, on-balance, for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Hampton Road and Norman Street, Fremantle and consists of a series of single storey structures including a corner restaurant tenancy. The subject site is zoned Local Centre and coded R30 pursuant to the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The subject site is located within the Fremantle South (Sub Area 4.3.3) Local Planning Area. The subject site is not included on the City’s Heritage List and is not located in a heritage area. The site is noted as being adjacent to a place recommended for inclusion on the state Heritage List. On 1 March 2002 the City granted planning approval for the change of use of the subject site to ‘Art Gallery/Shop to Take Away Food Premises plus Gallery’ (DA37/02).


Page 39

DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition of an existing building and construction of a three storey, mixed use development including the following;

A ground floor undercroft containing 11 vehicle parking bays, two motorcycle parking bays, bicycle parking for 6 bicycles, storeroom area, plant and equipment areas and lobby and entrance areas;

The ground floor also containing a 94m2 office tenancy at the corner of Hampton Road and Norman Street;

A first floor containing a further 120m2 of office area integrated into the existing, partially retained, building;

The first floor also containing 4, 2 bedroom Multiple Dwellings between 69.2m2 and 74.9m2;

A second (upper) floor containing a further 3, 2 bedroom Multiple Dwellings ranging in size between 79.2m2 and 82.4m2

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

Building height (external wall height);

On site car-parking;

Plot ratio;


Visual privacy (south and west);

Street setback;

Solar access; and,

Open space. These merit based assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 as a ‘significant application’ in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 24 October 2014, the City had received 7 submissions including 6 objections. The following issues were raised;


Page 40

Vehicle parking; The proposed dwellings will require more than one vehicle bay per household. This will result in pressure on street parking on Norman Street;

Traffic congestion; The proposal will result in increased traffic congestion on the surrounding street network and put particular pressure on the intersection of Norman Street and Hampton Road;

Density; The proposed density is too great. The density will result in an overcrowding of the area;

Height; The proposed height is significantly greater than the surrounding area;

Bulk and scale; The proposal is of considerable bulk and scale and is out of character with the surrounding streetscape;

Visual privacy; The proposed balconies will result in an intrusion into visual privacy;

Noise; The proposal will result in a significant amount of noise which will disturb amenity;

It is noted that a number of submissions raised concerns regarding the impact on construction activities. These considerations are not considered relevant to the planning assessment of the proposal. Further consideration of these issues is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Heritage The application was referred to the City’s heritage department as it involves the partial demolition of a building contained on the site. The Heritage department made the following comments;

The existing building at the site is not included on the City’s Heritage List;

The buildings on the site were constructed between 1953 and 1964 and are representative of commercial development during this period, but are not considered to be of cultural heritage significance;

The shopfronts of the buildings contribute to the aesthetic values of the streetscape; and,

The proposed demolition and development are supported. State Heritage Office The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the subject site is located adjacent to a place recommended for inclusion on the state Heritage List; being the ‘Beacon Theatre’ located at No. 91 Hampton Road, Fremantle. On 30 October 2014 the City received advice from the SHO raising no objection to the proposal.


Page 41

Technical Services The application was referred to the City’s Technical Service department as it involves works to the street verge area of the property, could result in an increase in local traffic and also includes the provision of 6 street vehicle parking bays. The Technical Services department raised no objection to the proposal and advised that the proposed street bays are supported. PLANNING COMMENT Density Bonus Clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 states that;

‘Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 5.2.3 residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.’

The application is consider to meet the requirements of LPS4 relating to ‘mixed use development’ and therefore the application is assessed at the higher, R60 density code. Land use Clause 4.2.1 (d) of LPS4 outlines the objectives of the Local Centre zone as follows;

Objective Officer comment

(i) provide for the daily and convenience retailing, shops, cafe, office, administration and residential uses (at upper levels or where proposed as part of a mixed use development) which serves the local community and are located within and compatible with residential areas;

The subject site includes provision for Office use. The proposal also includes 7 above ground Multiple Dwellings. This is considered wholly consistent with the zoning of the land.

(ii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining landowners or residential properties in the locality, and

The land uses proposed are considered compatible with residential land use. General amenity related issues are discussed further in the report relating to each specific merit based assessment.

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

The subject site is nearby to properties contained on the City’s Heritage List. The application has been reviewed by the City’s Heritage department and no comments have been raised.


Page 42

The proposed land uses are therefore considered consistent with the objectives of the zone and are supported. Building height

Scheme Requirement Provided Merit based assessment

7m external wall height (2 storeys)

Up to 8.4m (3 storeys) 1.4m (additional storey)

The application does not meet the height requirements specified in Schedule 12 (Sub Area 4.3.3 – Fremantle South) in terms of the overall external wall height in meters and in terms of the number of storeys proposed. Clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 states that;

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

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, (b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and, (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’

The existing building at No. 1-4/2 Norman Street (Three storey Multiple Dwelling development) has an external wall height of 7.9m and is three storeys. This triggers assessment under the above stated provision. The proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria contained at clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 in the following ways;

In relation to part (a) the proposal is not considered to impact on the amenity of adjoining properties by reason that the individual elements of the proposal as considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes.

In relation to part (b) the proposal is considered to graduate the scale between adjoining buildings in the following ways;

o The adjoining building on the northern side of Norman Street, being No.

1-4/2 Norman Street, is a three storey building with an external wall height of 7.9m;


Page 43

o Further removed from the site exists the Beacon Theatre building at

No. 91 Hampton Road. This building is two storeys and has an external wall height of 8.1m up to +11m to the top of gable ends;

o The proposal is considered to graduate the height of buildings between

the single storey buildings adjoining, the prevailing height limit on adjoining sites (being 7m to the external wall) and the higher buildings adjoining the northern elevation of the subject site; and,

o The proposal is considered to present as a two storey building (with

under croft), rather than a three storey proposal to street frontages, in particular to Hampton Road.

In relation to part (c), the heritage comments prepared by the City indicate that the proposal does not impact on any other place of cultural heritage significance; and,

There are not considered to be any relevant matters outlined specifically in other policies of the City.

On-site vehicle parking

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

Multiple Dwellings 8 bays 11 bays 5 bays

Office (1:30m2) 8 bays

Total 16 bays

The application includes the provision of 11 vehicle bays in the basement/undercroft level of the proposal. The applicant has also agreed to the provision of 6 off-site bays on Norman Street. These will be provided over an existing (wide) verge area directly adjoining the subject site and could accommodate parking for residential and non-residential visitors. The City’s Technical Services department has advised the location and layout of the bays, as proposed by the applicant is supported. Given these bays would be available for public use, they’re not considered as part of the formal parking calculation for the proposal. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 in the following ways;

The provision of 6 formal off-site bays is considered to sufficiently account for the shortfall of parking provided on-site;

The proposal includes provision for 2 motorcycle bays;

The shared parking area on the undercroft level will allow for the use of reciprocal parking by dwellings and non-residential land uses;


Page 44

The subject site is located nearby to local convenience retail, service and hospitality operations and recreational opportunities along South Terrace and at Hampton Road. This access to local activities will result in a reduced demand for parking on the subject site; and,

The subject site is located adjacent to high frequency public transport and cycling infrastructure along Hampton Road, South Street and Wray Avenue.

To ensure the provision of off-site vehicle bays and the reciprocal use of on-site bays, a condition of approval requiring arrangements being made for the delivery of the street bays proposed, prior to the issue of a building permit is recommended. Bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities The proposal is provided with sufficient bicycle parking but not the associated end-of-trip facilities. These are capable of being provided internal to the Office areas depicted on the plans. A condition of approval requiring these facilities is recommended. Building size (plot ratio)

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

0.7 (480.9m2) 0.789 (534.9m2) 0.089 (54m2)

The design principle contained as clause 6.1.1(P1) of the R-Codes states that;

‘Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built form of the locality.’

The proposal is considered to meet the design principle in the following ways;

The zoning of the subject site anticipates density development and the built form of the proposal is considered broadly sympathetic to that expected at the site, and otherwise of manageable impact on the adjoining streetscape;

The above stated plot ratio could be reduced by reduction in the size of internal areas of dwellings proposed. This would have a limited impact on the intensity of the proposal and reduce the amenity of the dwellings proposed.

It is also noted that plot ratio for the purpose of the R-Codes does not include the ground floor non-residential land uses. LPS4 would permit an increase in the non-residential floor area in the building to reduce the overall plot ratio of the multiple dwellings. This could allow the proposal to meet the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes without altering the external size of the building.


Page 45

Open space


40% (274.8m2) 33% (232m2) 7% (46.8m2)

The open space provided is considered to be consistent with the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The level of open space provided responds to the features of the subject site by reason of the development existing at a street corner and being zoned for non-residential development. The proposal takes advantage of this street corner by providing a continuous frontage of development; and,

The character of development immediately adjoining the subject site is one of buildings built close to street boundaries. This is particularly evident for frontages to Hampton Road. This results in a sense of lesser open space on these sites when viewed from the public street. The proposed development will be consistent with this pattern of development.

Despite the above, the Council may form the opinion that the proposal, by reason of its combination of lesser setbacks, building height proposed and lesser open space, is of scale inconsistent with the surrounding locality. An alternative recommendation is provided should Council form this view. Street setback

Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Merit based assessment

Secondary street (Norman Street)

2.0m Nil-2.4m Nil-2.0m

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

A sense of articulation of building elements is provided for by the change of materials, landscaping, wall and balcony articulation and layout across the development facade;

The lesser setback of the building is consistent with that contained on nearby streets, with particular reference to the existing building on the subject site at the street corner as well as buildings with nil setbacks located at No. 91 & 97 Hampton Road.



Ground Floor West – Unit 4, 6 &

7

1.9m 1.2m-1.5m 0.4m-0.7m


Page 46

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

The wall is articulated between vertical and along horizontal elements of the wall;

The lesser setback affects approximately half the boundary of the adjoining property at No. 1 Norman Street;

The lesser setback results in a loss of light to the southern adjoining site, but not to the extent this is considered objectionable in the context of the site (see ‘Solar access to adjoining sites’ below); and,

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

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)


South – Unit 1,2 3 & 4 & Office

Walls built up to boundaries up to a

maximum average height of 3.5m and average

height of 3.0m up to two-thirds the length of the

boundary.

58% (25.6m) of the southern

boundary, up to 7.6m high

(average 4.6m)

+4.1m to maximum height, +1.6m to average height

West - Basement 100% (15.0m) of the western

boundary up to 1.75m high

See comments

The proposal exceeds the maximum and average height of boundary walls to the southern boundary. The proposed boundary walls to the southern boundary are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The southern elevation of the proposed development is highly articulated, in both horizontal and vertical elements;

The southern adjoining site is not used for residential purposes and is of the same zoning as the subject site. In this regard, similar form and scale of development is expected on the site under the current planning controls; and,

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

The proposed boundary wall to the western boundary, resulting from the proposed basement/undercroft level is supported on the basis that it is consistent with the height of a boundary fence; which could be constructed on the boundary to a height of 1.8m without the need to obtain planning approval.


Page 47

Solar access for adjoining sites


35% (233.8m2) 60.7% (407m2) 25.7% (173.2m2)

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

The southern adjoining site is not considered to comprise residential land use. As a result, there is no impact on solar access to outdoor living areas, or major openings to habitable rooms;

The proposal does not impact on solar collectors on the southern adjoining site as none are shown to be present;

The southern adjoining site, while capable of residential development, is unlikely to be utilised as such as it is developed to accommodate non-residential land use. Future redevelopment of this site would likely have regard to the solar access restriction caused by the proposed development.

Visual privacy


West – Unit 6 & 7 (Balcony x 2)

7.5m 3.0m 4.5m

South – Unit 6 (Balcony)

7.5m 2.5m 5.0m

The western elevation of balconies to Unit 6 and 7 allows for views over the western and southern adjoining properties. Views to the western boundary will affect major openings to the dwelling at No. 1 Norman Street. These areas are provided with horizontal screening that restricts views down from the raised area to the ground, but not to outward views over existing development to the west. While this approach is supported, it does not meet the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. A condition of approval requiring screening of this elevation is therefore required. Screening will also result in a loss of views to the southern boundary; although no impact on privacy is considered to result to the southern adjoining property (No. 97 Hampton Road). CONCLUSION The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition of an existing building and construction of a three storey mixed use development including new office areas and seven Multiple Dwellings. The proposal is considered to clearly satisfy the merit based criteria of the planning framework in relation to most elements except for building height and vehicle parking. These elements are also, on-balance, supported however should the Council form an alternative view on these matters, the following alternative recommendation is provided;


Page 48

‘That the application be DEFERRED until the next available Planning Services Committee so that amended plans dealing with the following issues can be submitted;

i. Provision of a greater volume of vehicle parking on-site and or a reduction in the demand for parking resulting from the development;

ii. A reduction in the overall building height of the proposal to be more consistent with the height of surrounding buildings.’

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing building, construction of a three storey mixed use development (including 7x Multiple Dwellings) at No. 95 (Lot 14) Hampton Road, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 17 September 2014, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 17 September 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, suitable arrangements being made

with the City for the design and construction of off-site vehicle parking on the verge of Norman Street, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, the off-site parking specified in condition 3 shall be constructed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the plans hereby approved shall, if

required, be modified to include end-of-trip facilities consisting of; a) One male and one female shower; or, b) 2 unisex showers; as specified under clause 5.16.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 2.0

metres from verge trees.


Page 49

7. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure by:

a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees

a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and

a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and directional signs.


plans dated 17 September 2014 the western and southern elevations of the balcony of Unit 6 & 7 affecting the western and southern elevations shall be either:

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

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

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

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

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

in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the western and southern

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish

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


Page 50

PSC1412-185 MCCABE STREET, NO. 19-21 (LOT 19), NORTH FREMANTLE - TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE TO MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR - (CJ DA0525/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 10 October 2014 Owner Name: Monarch Nominees Submitted by: Euro Technik Scheme: Development Zone (DA18) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Motor Vehicle Repair Use Permissibility: A


Page 51

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City is in receipt of an application for the temporary Change of Use to Motor Vehicle Repair at No. 19-21 McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The site is located in Development Area 18, and is required to be assessed against the requirements of the Mixed Use zone as there is no Structure Plan adopted for the site. The application has been assessed against the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and has been assessed to be an appropriate temporary land use for the site. The proposed land use of Motor Vehicle Repair is therefore recommended for a four year temporary approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at No. 19-21 McCabe Street on the northern side of McCabe Street, in North Fremantle. The development site is has a total land area of 8058m2 and is currently occupied by two buildings, the subject building having a current land use of Office. It is located within the Development zone, Development Area 18. The site is located in the North Fremantle Local Planning Area, and North Fremantle Heritage Area, however is not on the City’s Heritage List or MHI. DETAIL

On 10 October 2014, the City received an application for the temporary (4 years) Change of Use of an existing Office to Motor Vehicle Repair at No. 19-21 McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The proposal includes internal alterations and the addition of signage to the existing building. Revised plans were received 12 November 2014, providing further information on signage. Development plans and information regarding the proposed business are included as attachment 1. Relevant business details include:

Hours of operation 7.30am – 5.30pm Monday to Friday with the potential to operate between 8am and 1pm on Saturdays if required in the future;

Specialising in European automotive repair;

2 – 6 employees;

Up to 5 deliveries a day from small courier vehicles; and

5 customers per day STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to meet requirements. See ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report for a full assessment of the variations sought.


Page 52

CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 November 2014, the City had received no submissions. An extension to the advertising period was granted until 17 November 2014, with five (5) submissions received. The following issues were raised:

Increased traffic on McCabe Street;

Onerous impact on the character of McCabe Street;

Objecting to panel beating business as will be detrimental to residents of taskers apartments;

Seems inconsistent with good planning;

Noise and chemical pollution; and

Not type of commercial use that will create amenity for residents.

PLANNING COMMENT

In accordance with Schedule 11 of LPS4, any development application received prior to the adoption of a Structure Plan in Development Area 18 is to be assessed using the Mixed Use provisions of LPS4. Land use A temporary approval can be granted by Council where it is not considered appropriate for a permanent land use in accordance with Clause 10.6 (Temporary Use) of LPS4. Given the site is within a Development Zone, without a valid Structure Plan to guide development; it is considered that a temporary approval for the proposed Motor Vehicle Repair is appropriate. While there is no structure plan, LPS4 Schedule 11, allows for development applications to be assessed against the provisions of the Mixed Use provisions of the Scheme in the interim.

Motor Vehicle Repair is not considered to be a suitable land use for permanent approval on the site, given the proposed Taskers residential development on the lot partially adjoining the subject site (the lot is separated from its southern portion by the Mediterranean Shipping site at No. 15 McCabe Street). It is acknowledged, that development on the Taskers site may take some time to be completed, and therefore a temporary approval for the land use is recommended. The applicant has requested a time frame of four years which is supported by City officers. At the completion of this time frame, the applicant can chose to re-apply for further approval to be considered by the City, which would be considered against any changes to statutory planning requirements, relevant structure plans that may have been adopted and the progression and type of development in the area.


Page 53

Motor Vehicle Repair is an ‘A’ use in the Mixed Use zone of LPS4, which lists the following objectives for land use and development:

i) Provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (i.e. showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation.

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

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

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

The proposed Motor Vehicle Repair is supported for a temporary period of four years, with conditions, for the following reasons:

The existing building is proposed to be fitted out for the Motor Vehicle Repair, requiring internal alterations only with the exception of signage, resulting in no change to the existing streetscape;

Two service bays are being proposed internally, which will limit the number of vehicles that can be serviced at any one time, reducing the potential for significant amenity impacts on neighbouring properties by reducing the number of vehicles visiting the site;

The proposed Motor Vehicle Repair is a specialty European automotive repair business that is expecting to have approximately five (5) customers per day;

Noise and odour are regulated by separate legislation and can be investigated by City’s Environmental Health Department if necessary;

The proposed Motor Vehicle Repair business intends on operating from 7.30am – 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am-1pm on Saturdays. A condition of approval has been recommended to restrict the business to operate during these hours, reducing the disruption to amenity for neighbouring residential properties;

The existing residential properties to the north are over 50m from the existing building;

The proposed Motor Vehicle Repair largely abuts the Mediterranean Shipping Company site (No. 15 McCabe Street) which is currently operating as an Office. The rear portion of the building that abuts the Taskers site is not being used as part of the Motor Vehicle Repair;


Page 54

There are no approved plans or current applications for the development of No. 15 McCabe Street. The Mediterranean Shipping Company still occupies the site, and are not expected to relocate to their new premises on Cliff Street, Fremantle until late 2015 and will therefore provide a buffer between the proposed Motor Vehicle Repair and dwellings under construction on the Taskers site;

Development on the Taskers site is currently being concentrated on the south western portion of the site;

The applicant is not the landowner, and it is considered that should the landowner wish to develop the site or seek a Structure Plan for the subject site they would do so, meaning the Motor Vehicle Repair business would potentially be removed from the site prior to the conclusion of the four year approval period; and

No buildings of heritage significance will be impacted by the proposed land use.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the temporary change of use to Motor Vehicle Repair at No. 19-21 (Lot 19) McCabe Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 12 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. This approval is valid until four years from the date of this decision letter. The use is to cease on or before this date to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. The signage hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

4. The approved signage indicated on the site plan (noted as signage (verge)) is to be located wholly within the subject site or otherwise seek further approval from the City of Fremantle.

5. The Motor Vehicle Repair hereby permitted shall have hours of operation that do not exceed the following-

a) 7.30 am to 5:30 pm on Monday to Friday; and

b) 8:00 am to 1:00 pm on Saturday.


Page 55

PSC1412-186 PARRY STREET, NO. 26 (LOT 440), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH BASEMENT (INCLUDING 8 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DAP80005/14)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 26 (Lot 440) Parry Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Four storey mixed use development with basement (including 8 multiple dwellings)

DAP Name: Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: Meyer Shircore & Associates

Owner: MFT Investments Pty Ltd ATF The MF Trust

LG Reference: DAP80005/14

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Statutory Planning

Department of Planning File No: DP/14/00636

Report Date: 3 December 2014

Application Receipt Date: 24 September 2014

Application Process Days: 90 days

Attachment 1: Development plans (20 November 2014)

Attachment 2: Site photos

Attachment 3: Advice of referral (Fremantle Port Authority)

Recommendation: That the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel: APPROVE DAP Application reference DP/14/00636 (City of Fremantle reference DAP80005/14), having been received by the City of Fremantle on the 20 November 2014, being SK009 0, 1 ,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, subject the following conditions:

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

plans, dated 20 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the plans hereby approved shall be modified, and details provided as required, in the following ways, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee; a) The arrangement, colours, textures and materials of the external facade; b) Details of landscaping and glazing/opening treatments to the facade of

the building fronting Queens Square; and,


Page 56

c) Provision/details of skylight and/or light well openings to bedrooms of Apartment 3 and opening to the study/guest room of Apartment 8;

d) Adjustment to the location of the lobby and lift core such that it enables

enlarging of the pharmacy on its south-western corner, enables further straightening of upper floor corridors and consequent reconfiguration of the layout of the apartments with the potential to allow bedrooms to units 3 and 8 to have direct access to natural light.

3. Prior to occupation, 10 class 1 or class 2 and 4 class 3 bicycle parking bays and associated end-of-trip facilities consisting of; a) Two male and two female showers; or, b) 4 unisex showers;

in accordance with clause 5.16.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, suitable arrangements being made with the City for the integration of the ground floor of the building into existing and future planned landscaping/works to Queens Square, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, on advice of the Strategic Urban Designer.


6. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DAP80005/14,

on plans dated 20 November 2014, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP80005/14, on

plans dated 20 November 2014, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of as part of

DAP80005/14, on plans dated 20 November 2014, 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.


Page 57

9. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of as part of DAP80005/14, on plans dated 20 November 2014 the development depicted as ‘1.6m high frosted glass balustrade’ shall be either:




c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal

floor level, or d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief

Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


10. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the

development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass

of minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

b) Air conditioners shall provide internal centrally located ‘shut down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use.

c) Roof insulation in accordance with the requirements of the Building Codes of Australia.

11. Prior to occupation the boundary wall located on the north-eastern and south

eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

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



Page 58

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

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

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

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

b) a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the

development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars. 13. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner shall contribute a monetary

amount equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $7,100,000.00 the contribution to be made is $71,000.

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

15. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

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

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


Page 59

Advice Note(s) i. In relation to condition 13 relating to the public art contribution, the applicant

is advised that Council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of LPP 2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in Condition 10 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

ii. In relation to condition 14, the applicant is advised that the City does not collect waste from basement areas of buildings.

iii. The applicant is generally advised of the presence of significant street infrastructure (namely transmission lines) that may require relocation should the development proceed. The applicant is advised to contact the City’s Technical Services department to discuss these requirements.

iv. While the cost of landscaping within the park cannot be included as public art

as required by condition 13, the City would be supportive of public art within the park

Background:

Property Address: No. 26 (Lot 440) Parry Street, Fremantle

MRS: Urban Zone

LPS: Mixed Use (R35)

Use Class: Office Shop Restaurant Multiple Dwelling

Development Scheme: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Lot Size: Lot 440 – 1106m2

Existing Land Use: Single storey commercial building

Value of Development: $7.1 million

The subject site exists on the eastern side of Parry Street, adjoining the south-east quadrant of Queens Square, Fremantle. The site currently contains a single storey building used for medical service purposes. The subject site is zoned Mixed Use and coded R35 pursuant to the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is subject to the provisions of Schedule 12 (Sub Area 2.3.2) of LPS4 and is located in the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List, but is located within the West End Conservation Area Heritage Area and is also noted as being adjacent to the following sites contained on the state Heritage List;


Page 60

Terrace cottages (18-30 Holdsworth Street, Fremantle); and,

Fremantle Prison (1 The Terrace, Fremantle). The following background applies to the subject site;

On 24 October 2011 Schedule 12 of LPS4 was amended (scheme amendment No. 30) to include height provisions for the subject site. The subject site was previously subject to the Mixed Use height requirements of Schedule 12 which specified a maximum external wall height of 7.5m. Amendment 30 applied to properties fronting Parry Street adjoining the two eastern quadrants of Queens Square;

On 25 February 2009, the City issued notice for the unauthorized use of the site as an ‘Educational Establishment’.

Details: Outline of development application The application seeks planning approval for demolition of the existing single storey building and structures at the subject site and construction of a four storey (with basement) mixed use development including;

A basement level containing;

o 24 vehicle bays, of which 4 are proposed in tandem;

o Bicycle parking for 13 bicycles including end-of-trip facilities;

o Plant, equipment and access areas; and,

o Storage facilities for 8 multiple dwellings.

A ground floor containing;

o 13 additional vehicle bays of which 3 are proposed in tandem; and,

o Office areas totalling 38.3m2;

o A Restaurant area measuring 55.7m2;

o A Shop (Pharmacy) area measuring 159.8m2

A first and second floor each containing 778m2 and 829m2 of office area respectively; and,

An upper (third) floor containing 8 multiple dwellings including 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 4 x 1 bedroom dwellings.

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. It is noted that the original development plans were lodged with the City dated 6 October 2014. On 20 November 2014 the City received amended plans which made minor alterations to the internal layout of the proposal.


Page 61

Legislation & policy: The legislative framework and policy base providing for the assessment and determination of the subject application is as follows:

City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), including the following provisions;

o Table 2 - Zoning;

o Table 3 – Vehicle Parking requirements;

o Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking requirements;

o Clause 5.15 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures;

o Clause 10.2 - Matters to be considered by Council;

o Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee;

o Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions; and,

o Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area Fremantle (Sub Area 2.3.2 – Queens

Square).

State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes);

Local Planning Policies including;

o Local Planning Policy 3.1.5 – Precinct 5;

o Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public notifications of planning proposals;

o Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles Of

Design;

o Local Planning Policy 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development

Guidelines;

o Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements;

and,

o Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contributions for Public Art.

Consultation: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in LPP1.3. The application was advertised for a period of 28 days concluding and included the following actions

A sign notice being placed on the development site;

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

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

the Precinct Groups were informed of the proposal;

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on 21 October 2014 and 30 October 2014;

A community information session held on 23 October 2014. This session was attended by 5 members of the public and 3 elected members of the City of Fremantle.


Page 62

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 14 November 2014, the City had received 2 submissions including 1 objection. This issues raised are summarised as follows;

Boundary walls; The proposed three storey boundary wall to the south-eastern boundary will affect the amenity of the adjoining medical centre. The construction of this wall may reduce the availability of parking on the adjoining site, during construction periods;

Noise; The construction will result in adverse noise impact to the adjoining medical centre;

Bulk; The building proposed is bulky and will impact on the streetscape of Parry Street.

Further consideration of these issues is made in the ‘Planning Assessment’ section of this report. Fremantle Port Authority The subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer Area (FPA). The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment. On 9 October 2014, the City received a response (see Attachment 3) which advised that the proposal should meet the built form requirements of the City’s LPP2.3. State Heritage Office The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the site adjoins places contained on the state Heritage List; most notably, the Fremantle Prison. The SHO has advised that no objection is raised in regards to the proposal Design Advisory Committee (internal) The application was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) for comment. At its meeting of 8 September, the following comments were made;

‘CHARACTER The architectural composition of the façade is a substantial improvement on previous submissions presented to DAC. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE The above issue did not arise during the presentation


Page 63

QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM The previous submissions showed a café tenancy to the southern edge of the park. The committee was concerned at the loss of this proposed public amenity. Subject to the applicant liaising with the City’s Parks Department about the proposed works in the park, there may be the opportunity to re-establish the ground floor tenancy facing the park as a café together with some design modifications to increase the length of the north-facing activated ground floor frontage. EASE OF MOVEMENT The above issue did not arise during the presentation LEGIBILITY The relocation of the ground floor foyer away from the corner and the resultant straightening of internal access corridors and shifting of occupiable tenancy to the north-west corner will significantly improve the legibility of use of the building. ADAPTABILITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation DIVERSITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY The bedrooms to units 3 and 8 are internalised and do not have access to direct natural light. This is a design approach of significant concern and is not supported. The design amendment suggested in e., above, would enable a unit on the north western corner in place of the relocated lobby. In turn, this could provide increased width to units 3 and 8 that would allow these units to be reconfigured with bedrooms able to access natural light. APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES The above issue did not arise during the presentation GENERAL COMMENTS Car parking discretion could be supported from a planning perspective provided that a high quality design is proposed. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS The architectural composition of the façade is an improvement on previous iterations


Page 64

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED Re-establish the ground floor tenancy facing the park as a café Relocate and/or reconfigure the toilet and tea preparation area located at the rear of the ground floor tenancy facing the park to incorporate more active frontage. Relocate the entry slightly to the south on Parry Street, away from the corner, allowing straightening and reduction in length of upper floor access corridors to improve legibility of use. As a result of iii, above, shifting tenancy 2 further west towards the front of the lot to extend the activated edge to the park and, potentially, enabling the provision of additional car bays in the north-east corner of the car park. Reconfiguring the western most portion of the upper floor to allow apartments 3 and 8 to provide bedrooms with direct access to natural light. The proposed openings on the eastern elevation to both the commercial and residential components of the building will need to be screened to protect the privacy of the eastern adjoining residential property. RECOMMENDATION The modifications recommended above will need to be submitted before the Committee can be in a position to support the proposed design.’

The application was again considered by the DAC at its meeting of10 November 2014, where the following recommendation was made;

‘CHARACTER The usual condition requiring details of façade finishes prior to the issue of a building permit should be imposed. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE The above issue did not arise during the presentation QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM While it is encouraging to see that a café has been reintroduced into the ground floor facing the park, the proposed pharmacy that takes up the majority of the ground floor edge facing the park is not a use that offers a high level of activation compared to the potential of an expanded café. In addition to the provision of a larger café and a more activated park edge, the ground floor relationship with the park could be improved through the imposition of planning approval conditions relating to landscaping and window/floor plan details. EASE OF MOVEMENT The above issue did not arise during the presentation.


Page 65

LEGIBILITY It is acknowledged that improvements to the Parry Street ground floor plan have been made by bringing the commercial tenancy further towards the street and some straightening of the internal access corridors. There is the potential to further straighten internal access corridors and relocate the lift shaft to enable improvement of the layout and access to natural light of the apartments on the top floor. There needs to be consideration given to this matter prior to the issue of a building permit. ADAPTABILITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation. DIVERSITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation. OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY See comments 2bii below regarding the Committee’s previous comments about the internalised bedrooms to units 3 and 8 that do not have access to direct natural light. APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES The above issue did not arise during the presentation. GENERAL COMMENTS The above issue did not arise during the presentation. WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS A number of improvements previously suggested by the Committee have been incorporated. They include:

Re-establishing a portion the ground floor tenancy facing the park as a café;

Relocating and/or reconfiguring the toilet and tea preparation area to the rear boundary of the ground floor tenancy facing the park to enable a more active park frontage;

Relocating the entry slightly to the south on Parry Street, away from the corner, allowing some straightening and reduction in length of upper floor access corridors to improve legibility of use.

As a result of iii, above, the shifting of tenancy 2 further west towards the front of the lot to extend the activated edge to the park.

The openings on the eastern elevation to both the commercial and residential components of the building being screened to protect the privacy of the eastern adjoining residential property.


Page 66

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Expansion of the café to enable a more activated edge to the park.

Resolution of the ground floor park edge so that it is made more visually and physically accessible.

Adjustment to the location of the lobby and lift core such that it enables enlarging of the pharmacy on its south-western corner. This, in turn, will enable expansion of the café without reduction of pharmacy area. Such relocation will also allow further straightening of upper floor corridors and minor reconfiguration of the layout of the apartments with the potential to allow bedrooms to units 3 and 8 to have direct access to natural light.

While it is acknowledged that a skylight has been added to apartment 3 and one bedroom to apartment 8 has direct access to sunlight, the previous suggestion of reconfiguring the western most portion of the upper floor to allow apartments 3 and 8 to provide bedrooms with direct access to natural light is reiterated. Details of the openings to the internal bedrooms of apartments 3 and 8 will be needed, together with details of the skylights, not noted on the current roof plan.

3. RECOMMENDATION The design is supported subject to the following conditions: Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee:

Additional details relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

Landscaping plan for the land immediately adjacent to the ground floor abutting Queens Park.

Details of the ground floor windows and immediately adjacent floor plan of the proposed café and pharmacy facing the park that show a high level of access and visual permeability.

Details of the skylight and bedroom window openings to apartment 3 and opening to the study/guest room of apartment 8.

Adjustment to the location of the lobby and lift core such that it enables enlarging of the pharmacy on its south-western corner, enables further straightening of upper floor corridors and consequent reconfiguration of the layout of the apartments with the potential to allow bedrooms to units 3 and 8 to have direct access to natural light.

A condition of approval reflecting the above recommendation is included in the officers recommendation. It is noted the applicant has submitted amended plans (20 November 2014) which include modifications which attempt to address concerns raised by the DAC in the condition stated above. Notwithstanding this, as the amended proposal has not been represented to the City’s DAC, the condition remains in the officer’s recommendation. The stated issues will need to be agreed/resolved, prior to the issue of a Building Permit.


Page 67

Technical Services (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Technical Services department for comment as it involves significant works to the verge and Queens Square area. The following comments were made;

The proposal should retain storm water on-site;

Some street infrastructure may require relocation. This should be discussed and agreed with the relevant agency;

Existing kerbing and footpath grading works may need to be undertaken as a result of the proposal;

The proposal does not appear to provide sufficient disabled vehicle parking. Suitable conditions of approval and advice notes are recommended reflecting the above. Parks and Landscapes (internal) & Urban design (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscapes and Urban Design department for comments as the plans submitted depict significant works to Queens Square. These works include alterations to ground levels and new landscaping. The departments advised that there were no specific objections to the proposal but that the works departed from the adopted Queens Square Masterplan. A condition of approval requiring the applicant to achieve agreement to the proposed works and that those agreed works be undertaken in conjunction with the City, prior to the issue of a Building Permit, is recommended. The applicant has acknowledged and agreed to this condition. City Works (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Works department for comment. The comments received are summarised as follows;

The application should submit a waste management plan for approval;

The applicant should be advised that the City does not collect waste bins from basements and that other arrangements for collection should be made with the City, prior to the occupation of the development, or as necessary.

Conditions of approval and advice notes are recommended reflecting the above.


Page 68

Planning Assessment: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Schedule 12)

Element Scheme requirement Proposed Discretion sought

Schedule 12 - 2.3.2.3 – Boundary

walls

Permitted only when Council is satisfied that;

(a) the elevation presents as in integral part of the overall aesthetic of the

building; and, (b) The walls are

sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

Up to 10.6m high x 6.0m long on the south-east boundary

See comments

Up to 10.5 high x 21.4m long on the

north-eastern boundary.

The proposal includes boundary walls to the south-eastern and north-eastern boundaries. These boundary walls abut the following development;

A lodging house development to the north (No. 16 Holdsworth Street, known as ‘Hannick House’). This property is currently operated by St. Patricks Community Support Centre as a form of crisis accommodation; and,

A non-residential development to the south (No. 12 Holdsworth Street) currently consisting of a dentist practice.

The walls have been received by the City’s DAC and no objection was raised in regards to the integration of the design of the walls into the rest of the structure. The proposed walls are considered to be sympathetic to the surrounding environment in the following ways;

The boundary walls will not result in a direct loss of light to any adjoining residential land use;

The walls are considered to be sufficiently articulated and cladded to alleviate the impact of building bulk on adjoining properties; and,

The boundary walls may result in a loss of views to properties further removed from the subject site, but not to the extent these views are considered significant.

Element Scheme requirement Proposed Discretion sought

Schedule 12 - 2.3.2.6 –

Other requirements

New buildings shall provide for activated

ground level frontages and passive surveillance from upper floors to High Street and/or Parry and/or Ellen

Street and to Queens Square.

Ground floor levels to Queens Square.

See comments


Page 69

As discussed earlier in this report, the application was referred to the City’s DAC, Parks and Landscapes and Urban Design departments for comment. The departments and the DAC raised comments regarding the integration of active frontages and works depicted to Queens Square. The proposal includes Shop (Pharmacy) and Restaurant land uses fronting Queens Square. The proposal is considered to provide sufficient activation to Queens Square but further agreements relating to the works shown on the square are required. A condition of approval requiring further agreement on the works shown to Queens Square, prior to the issue of a Building Permit, is recommended. Vehicle parking

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Discretion sought

Office 1:30m2 = 55 bays 37 bays 41 bays

Multiple Dwelling 7 bays

Visitor 1:4 dwellings = 2 bays

Restaurant 2 bays

Shop 1:20m2 = 8 bays

Delivery 1:500m2 = 4 bays.

TOTAL 78 bays

The discretionary decision relating to vehicle parking is supported for the following reasons;

The subject site is approximately 580m from the Fremantle Railway Station and Bus Station. These high frequency public transport facilities are considered to provide a significant offset to the demand for vehicle parking as a result of the proposal, consistent with clause 5.7.3.1(a)(ii) of LPS4;

The application provides opportunities for motorcycle/scooter parking bays which decreases the demand/need for vehicle parking;

There are a number of public parking facilities available nearby the subject land including;

o A study undertaken by Luxmoore Pty Ltd in 2012 found that there are

1950 bays available for public use within the immediate context of the subject site. This study indicated that occupation of the bays during regular business hours is approximately 50-60%, meaning approximately 800 bays will be available for the use on a regular basis;

o The subject site exists adjacent to a zone identified in the Luxmoore

Study and by the City as being appropriate for the locating of future public parking facilities (broadly the area adjoining Parry Street);

o The Fremantle Prison parking facility which contains 98 bays, which is

40m from the subject site; and,

o The Henderson Street (Queensgate) parking facility which contains 850

bays, which is 180m from the subject site.


Page 70

The nature of activities proposed in this location, being on the periphery of the Fremantle City Centre area, is likely to generate a lesser parking demand that if the activities were located in other areas, where the same vehicle parking requirement would apply.

End-of-trip facilities

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Merit based assessment

Office 2 male and 2 female, or 4 unisex

showers and associated change

facilities

1 male and 1 female shower and associated change facilities

1 male and 1 female shower

The proposal does not include the prescribed end-of-trip facilities required by clause 5.16.1 of LPS4. A condition of approval requiring these facilities is therefore recommended. Sustainable building design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia (‘GCBA’) rating tool pursuant to LPP2.13. A condition of approval requiring achievement of this requirement, or the same outcome under an alternative standard, is recommended. Public arts contribution The proposed development is subject to the requirement to make a public art and/or heritage works contribution equal or greater than one per cent (1%) of the total cost of the development in accordance with LPP2.19. In the submission included with the application, the Applicant notes a request to consider the proposed public realm works to Queens Square as the public art contribution. These works are not considered to be the type of works specified under LPP2.19 as alternatives to the public art contribution. A condition of approval requiring compliance with LPP2.19 is recommended. Fremantle port buffer area As discussed earlier in this report, a condition of approval requiring compliance with the Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2 requirements is recommended.


Page 71

Conclusion: The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of an existing single storey commercial building at the subject site and development of a four storey mixed use development including office areas and 8 multiple dwellings.

The proposal is considered satisfactory to the City’s Design Advisory Committee subject to conditions;

Proposed exercise of discretion to the planning framework relating to vehicle parking and boundary walls are considered acceptable;

Conditions of approval requiring the proposal to satisfy concerns raised regarding the interface with Queens Square, waste management and infrastructure are recommended; and,

As per the City’s policy, the proposal a condition of approval requiring the proposal to meet the sustainable building and public art requirements of LPP2.13 and LPP2.19 are recommended.

The proposal is therefore recommended for conditional approval.


Page 72

PSC1412-187 RULE STREET, NO. 7 (LOT 20), NORTH FREMANTLE DETACHED HABITABLE ROOM AND SHADE STRUCTURE (PERGOLA) ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0411/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans

Site photos Date Received: 20 August 2014;

30 October 2014 (additional plans) Owner Name: Richard Shillington Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 3;

North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development and an objection has been received that cannot be fully addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a detached habitable room and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Single House at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The applicant is also seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles in relation to overshadowing.

The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes, subject to a condition requiring the structure be setback a further 600mm and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 – (LPA3) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Rule Street to the east, Harvest Road to the south, Herbert Street to the west and Fay Street to the north. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 3. It is also located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 367m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation and is currently improved by a single storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures. In terms of its topography, the subject site slopes by approximately 3.0m from the street, down towards the rear of the property. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

On 21 June 2005, the City refused an application seeking a three storey additions at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle (refer DA210/05);

On 13 September 2005, the City granted Planning Approval for two storey additions at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle (refer DA460/05);

On 1 October 2010, the City granted planning approval for two storey additions and alterations at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle (refer DA0105/10);

On 21 May 2013, the City granted retrospective approval for unauthorised partial demolition, rear single storey additions and alterations, re-roofing of Single House at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle (refer DA0001/13);


Page 74

DETAIL

On 20 August 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a detached habitable room and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Single House at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle. On 30 September 2014, the City sent an email to the applicant requesting an overshadowing plan. On 30 October 2014, the City received the requested overshadowing plans. The applicant also advised that it would be used for habitable purposes, and as such cannot be treated as an outbuilding. The classification of the application was amended to reflect this change, so was altered from proposed outbuilding to proposed detached habitable addition. A copy of the proposed development plans is contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 2 October 2014, the City received one (1) submissions pertaining to the proposal, of which sought additional information. Subsequently the submitted advised the City verbally that they had concerens regarding overshadowing. City’s Heritage Department

The City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and advised that they have no objections with the proposal, providing the following comments:

“Assessment

The proposal is for the construction of a new workshop in the south west corner and rear of the property. There will be no negative impact due to the construction of a new workshop.

Conclusion

The proposal for a new workshop can be supported on heritage grounds.”

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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


Page 75

PLANNING COMMENT

Overshadowing

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Up to 25% of southern adjoining site (ie up to 93m2)

30.94% (115.1m2)

5.94% (22.1m2)

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

The proposed detached habitable addition will partially overshadow the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property and as such is not supported.

Notwithstanding, the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property is already partially overshadowed by the existing 1.80m high boundary fence, of which is permitted as of right. The extent of additional shadow cast by the proposed detached habitable addition above what is made by the fence is approximately 0.60m (600mm) extra.

As such, it is considered that whilst the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property is overshadowed already by the existing 1.80m high boundary fence, that the proposed location of the detached habitable addition creates an unreasonable amount of additional overshadowing. In this regard, it is recommended that a condition of planning approval be imposed requiring the detached habitable addition be setback a minimum of 1.60m from the southern lot boundary (in-lieu of the 1.00m proposed), so as to ensure that the shadow cast by that building is not greater than what would be reasonably expected from a 1.80m high boundary fence.

CONCLUSION

The proposed detached habitable room and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Single House at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; overshadowing, subject to an increased setback to the southern lot boundary. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the detached habitable room and shade structure (pergola) addition to existing Single House at No. 7 (Lot 20) Rule Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 20 August 2014 and 30 October 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 76

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit, modified plans are to be submitted indicating that the detached habitable room and shade structure (pergola) addition hereby approved as part of DA0411/14 is to be setback a minimum distance of 1.60 metres from the southern lot boundary, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 77

PSC1412-188 FORREST STREET, NO. 124 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (AA DA0505/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 2 October 2014 Owner Name: CM Clarke Submitted by: CM Clarke Scheme: Residential (R25/30) Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 3 Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ’D’


Page 78

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the development of two storey alterations and additions to an existing Grouped Dwelling, including partial demolition of structures at the rear of the subject site. The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee meeting on the basis of objections received during the public consultation period that cannot be address through the imposition of planning approval conditions . The application seeks merit based assessments in relation to the following elements of the City’s planning framework;

Lot boundary setbacks (side & rear, boundary walls); and,

Visual privacy. On-balance, the application is considered to meet all of the relevant merit based criteria. Most specifically, the proposed boundary wall to the eastern and northern boundary is not considered to significantly impact on adjoining properties in term of solar access, ventilation access or building bulk and scale. It is noted that the proposal is similar to a proposal previously approved by the City (DA0664/09), prior to the subdivision of the subject site (which has resulted in a new dwelling being constructed to the northern boundary). This previous approval expired on 23 April 2012. The application is recommended, on-balance, for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site exists on the northern side of Forrest Street, between Chudleigh and Wilkinson Street, Fremantle. The subject site measures approximately 449m2 and is not contained within a heritage area and is listed on the City’s Heritage List; and given a Level 3 classification under the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The subject site contains an existing single storey dwelling and associated structures. On 9 February 2009 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted conditional approval for the amalgamation of the subject site with the adjoining property at No. 126 Forrest Street and survey strata subdivision into four lots (WAPC2043-08). On 23 April 2010 the City granted planning approval, for a two year period, for ‘Alterations and additions to existing Single House’ (DA0664/09). This development is similar to the current application except for the following distinguishing circumstances;

The development pursuant to DA0664/09 included a pitched roof deigns and higher external wall height (6.9m); and,

At the time of approval, the subject site was much larger in size being 881m2 and the wall to the northern boundary met the deemed-to-comply setback requirements at the time.


Page 79

On 23 April 2012 DA0640/09 expired and was of no further effect. On 2 October 2014 the City received the current application. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for two storey alterations and additions to existing Grouped Dwelling. This includes;

The demolition of rear storeroom, laundry and sunroom areas;

Construction of a two storey addition including ground floor workshop, family, bedroom and storage areas as well as an external deck; and,

An upper floor bedroom area containing an ensuite, external balcony and small kitchenette area.

The proposal is similar to that approved as part of DA0664/09, but is different in the following ways;

The layout of the upper floor area being different in terms of stairwell and kitchenette location;

The layout, size and position of the upper floor balcony being modified;

The height of the external wall of the two storey element being reduced from 6.9m to 6.1m but the length of the wall to the northern boundary being increased from 2.9m to 4.72m; and,

There being minor modifications to openings as a result of the change in roof form and wall height.

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

Lot boundary setbacks (side & rear, boundary walls); and,

Visual privacy.

These merit based assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Heritage The application was referred to the City’s Heritage department as it involves partial demolition and significant additions to a place included on the City’s Heritage List. The City’s Heritage department provided comment on the proposal, which is summarised as follows;


Page 80

The dwelling is a typical rendered masonry and iron single storey house dating from 1938. It is representative of a typical workers house and is an example of the inter-war bungalow style of architecture;

The proposed demolition of the rear portions of the dwelling are supported. These portions of the dwelling are not considered to be of cultural heritage significance;

The proposed additions will be of limited visibility to the street and will not disrupt the form of the original (retained) portions of the dwelling.

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 19 November 2014, the City had received 1 submission. The following matters were raised;

Building bulk; The proposed double storey boundary wall will impact on adjoining properties in terms of its bulk and scale. The wall will be visible from living and bedroom areas of adjoining sites and is inconsistent with the expected character of development; and,

Garage wall; The proposal includes a garage door to the adjoining right-of-way which is not provided with sufficient sightlines and manoeuvring areas

It is noted that the roller door proposed adjoining the right-of-way is shown to a space detailed as a ‘Workshop’. This space is considered insufficient in size, sightlines and manoeuvring to be utilised for vehicle parking. Consideration of these matters raised is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section further in this report. PLANNING COMMENT 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)


Boundary wall - north

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

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

abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar

or greater dimensions.

4.7m wide x 6.1m high on the northern

boundary

See comments.


Page 81

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

The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location of the northern boundary and its setback to the existing dwelling contained on the adjoining site;

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it is adjacent to a vehicle access and manoeuvring area on the northern property. It is recognised that this wall will be visible from major openings on the northern adjoining site, but the separation from these openings to wall is approximately 9.1m; and,

The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

The exercise of discretion is not sought in regards to the eastern boundary wall as this wall adjoining a right-of-way and otherwise meets the deemed-to-comply requirements.


West 1.5m 1.0m 0.5m

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

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the western adjoining property being only single storey;

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


5.4.1 Visual privacy


North - Deck 7.5m 2.0m 5.5m

West - Deck 5.0m 2.5m

The cone-of-vision from the proposed rear ground floor deck affects both the northern and western boundaries. The northern adjoining site contains an existing Grouped Dwelling, which to the affected boundary, includes a boundary wall to a garage area and a wall to a bedroom setback 2.1m from the boundary. The proposal is considered to have the ability to impact on this major opening; which is the only opening to a bedroom area. Accordingly a condition of approval requiring screening of the northern elevation is recommended. The cone-of-vision to the west affects a vehicle access way. No screening is recommended to this elevation.


Page 82


North - Balcony 7.5m 0.6m 6.9m

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

The cone-of-vision to the bedroom on the northern adjoining site will be obscured by the existing garage structure;

The cone-of-vision does not impact on any primary outdoor living areas of the adjoining site; and,

The predominant outlook from the opening is towards the west, not towards the affected northern boundary.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey alterations and additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 124 (Lot 2) Forrest Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 22 October 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



plans dated 22 October 2014 the rear ground level deck on the northern elevation shall be either:








Page 83

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


face brick;





Page 84

PSC1412-189 JOHN STREET, NO. 1/6 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0450/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans

Site photos Date Received: 8 September 2014;

6 October 2014 (additional plans) Owner Name: Janet Watt Submitted by: Wrightfeldhusen Architects Scheme: Residential (R35) Heritage Listing: Yes, (house demolished);

North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 85

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development and due to objections received that cannot be fully addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/6 (Lot 1) John Street, North Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following:

Building height

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP2.4);

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP2.9);

DGN8 – Passmore Avenue (previously lots 47 & 48 John Street). The applicant is also seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles in relation to:


Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes and the discretionary criteria of LPP2.4, LPP2.9 and DGN8. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R35 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 – (LPA3) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Harvest Road to the north-west, Corkhill Street to the north-east, John Street to the south-east and Turton Street to the south-west. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), however it has since been demolished. It is also located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 317m2, has a north-west, south-east orientation and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site is relatively flat. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 8 September 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/6 (Lot 1) John Street, North Fremantle.


Page 86

On 6 October 2014, the City received an amended elevation plan, as the previous version was incorrectly scaled. A copy of the proposed development plans is contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 3 October 2014, the City received two (2) submissions pertaining to the proposal, of which raised the following concerns relevant to planning:

Building bulk;

Streetscape. City’s Heritage Department

The City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and advised that they have no objections with the proposal.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

PLANNING COMMENT

Height

Permitted Proposed Discretion

Maximum external wall height within North Fremantle LPA = 5.5m

6.35m 0.85m

As the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 12 of LPS4, the proposal is required to be assessed against the discretionary criteria contained within clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4, which states:

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

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

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

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

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


Page 87

The south-western adjoining property has a parapet external wall height of 7.1m (western boundary of that dwelling), which is greater than the 5.5m prescribed by schedule 12 of LPS4, and therefore Council may vary the maximum height requirements, should it be satisfied that the proposal meets (a) to (d) above. In relation to (a), it is not considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally. The portion of the dwelling that exceeds the maximum external wall height of 5.5m is predominantly located in the forward half of the lot, and in terms of bulk is assisted by provision of setbacks to adjoining properties as well as use of variable finish and materials. In relation to (b), the proposal is considered to effectively graduate the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, particularly from the south-western adjoining property (up to 7.1m external wall height) down to the north-eastern adjoining property (up to 5.45m). Therefore, the proposed maximum external wall height of 6.35m, which sits at a height in between those two adjoining dwellings, is considered to satisfy (b) above. In relation to (c), the City’s heritage department does not have any objections to the proposal on heritage grounds. In relation to (d), as will be discussed later in this report, the proposal is considered supportable against the discretionary of Council’s LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council’s DGN8 – Passmore Avenue (previously Lots 47 & 48 John Street). Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

Required Proposed Discretion

Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of greater than 4 metres = 7m

5m 2m

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

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

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

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

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


Page 88

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or

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

John Street Characteristics

North-east 1 of 3 No. 4B (Lot 501) Dwelling: Two storey

Ground floor setback: 3.0m

Upper floor setback: 5.0m

2 of 3 No. 4A (Lot 500) Dwelling: Two storey

Ground floor setback: ~5.0m

Upper floor setback: ~5.0m

3 of 3 No.1/4 (Lot 1) Dwelling: Single storey


Upper floor setback: N/A

South-west 1 of 3 No. 8 (Lot 1) Dwelling: Two storey



2 of 3 No. 10A (Lot 1) Dwelling: Two storey



3 of 3 No. 12 (Lot 112) Dwelling: Single storey

Ground floor setback: 11m

Upper floor setback: N/A

The proposal is considered to be supportable against discretionary criteria clause 1.2(i) as there are two, two storey dwellings of comparable height that are setback the same distance from the street as what is proposed. In addition to the above, the proposal is also considered to be supportable against discretionary criteria clause 1.2(ii) as the proposal does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land. DGN8 – Passmore Avenue (previously lots 47 & 48 John Street)

Clause 2 of DGN8 states:

“In assessing applications for new development on the vacant land at the front of the site, the Council shall take into consideration the impact of the development on the Local Area and the streetscape of John Street. Critical issues to consider in preparing designs for new residences in Passmore Avenue are the height, form, scale and mass of the new development, in order that the new development does not dominate the pattern of houses in the Local Area or the streetscape.”


Page 89

As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed height discretion has been supported, one of the reason being the way it graduates the height between the two adjoining properties. In this regard, it is considered that its form, scale and mass are both appropriate and acceptable and as such is not considered to dominate the pattern of houses in the local area or the streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy both clauses 2 and 3 of Council’s DGN8 policy. Lot boundary setbacks


North-eastern (upper floor) = 2.00m 1.10m 0.9m

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

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

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

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

Lot boundary walls


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

North-eastern boundary (garage) = 1.00m 0.00m 1.00m

South-western boundary (ground floor) = 1.00m

0.00m 1.00m

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

The subject site is relatively small and towards the rear is relatively irregularly shaped due to the layout of the common property vehicle manoeuvring area. The proposed south-western boundary wall abuts the joint vehicle accessway common property lot area, of which is shared between two development sites (six grouped dwellings in total). In this regard, given the location of the garage in this location and also the boundary wall against the common property lot driveway, it is considered to make more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupants;

It is not considered to compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1 of the R-Codes by way of building bulk, as the boundary walls themselves are relatively short in their length to both boundaries. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy, or has otherwise been conditioned so as to comply;


Page 90

It is considered that the proposed boundary walls ensure direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for south-western, north-eastern and north-western adjoining properties is not restricted;

It is considered that due to the location of the development at the rear of the property, and for the boundary wall that abuts the common property lot, that they will not detract from the prevailing development context and streetscape;

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

Visual privacy

Deemed to comply Provided

1 7.5m setback for upper floor, front balcony (north-eastern elevation) to north-eastern adjoining property

1.5m

2 4.5m setback for upper floor, study/bed 2 (north-western elevation) to north-eastern adjoining property (within 45 degree cone of vision)

3.0m

3 7.5m setback for upper floor, front balcony to south-western adjoining property

1.7m

4 4.5m setback for upper floor, study/bed 2 to south-western adjoining property

2.75m

In relation to 2 above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

In relation to 2, the upper floor study/bed 2 will partially overlook the rear outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the north-eastern adjoining property;

Accordingly, it will be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that 2 above be modified so as to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements in relation to visual privacy.

In relation to 1, 3 and 4 above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

In relation to 1, whilst the upper floor front balcony will directly overlook major openings to habitable rooms (bed 1) of the dwelling as contained within the north-eastern adjoining property, that particular major opening was supported on the basis that the subject site was a vacant lot at the time and it would have been unreasonable at the time to predict what development may have ultimately resulted on the site. In this regard, the proposal is considered supportable;

In relation to 3, the upper floor front balcony will not directly overlook any major openings, nor the outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the south-western adjoining property;

In relation to 4, the upper floor study/bed 2 will not directly overlook any major openings, nor the outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the south-western adjoining property.


Page 91

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/6 (Lot 1) John Street, North Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; lot boundary setbacks; lot boundary walls; and visual privacy. The proposal is also considered supportable in relation to building height in accordance with Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be supportable under the provisions of Council’s LPP2.4, LPP2.9 and DGN8. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/6 (Lot 1) John Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 8 September 2014 and 6 October 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the south-western, north-western and north-eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


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

3. Prior to occupation all fencing within the 5.00 metres Primary Street setback area of No. 1/6 (Lot 1) John Street, North Fremantle, shall be a maximum height of 1.80 metres and visually permeable above 1.00 metres above natural ground level as per clause 1.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation the front fence shall be truncated or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of vehicle access points and street corners in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 5.2.5 C5 of the Residential Design Codes.


Page 92

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0450/14, on plans dated 8 September 2014 and 6 October 2014 the upper level study/bed 2 on the north-western insert elevation shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

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

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






Page 93

PSC1412-190 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62A (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE ALTERNATIVE FINISH TO APPROVED BOUNDARY WALLS TO A TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: As above Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 5 and 26 February 2014 (PSC1402-19) Attachments: 1. 26 February 2014 Council Minutes for PSC 1402-19

2. Approved plans 3. Site Photos 4. Examples of the proposed boundary wall finish

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


Page 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

Portions of the boundary wall are approved with a sand render finish. An adjoining neighbour has advised that the applicant is not permitted onto their property. This makes finishing the boundary wall to a sufficiently high standard in sand render difficult. On this basis the applicant has proposed an alternative boundary wall finish that can be constructed without requiring access to any adjoining property. It is considered that the alternative boundary wall finish (Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork) is of a sufficiently high standard and can be supported. BACKGROUND

No. 62A Thompson Road, North Fremantle is 229m2 and zoned Mixed Use with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site is located on the western side of Thomson Road and is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area and is bound by the street block of Thompson Road, Alfred Road, Leslie Road and Stirling Highway. In November 2011 the Planning Services Committee (PSC) granted conditional approval for a two storey dwelling at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle (refer DA0208/11). In February 2014 Council considered an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft and resolved: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

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

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


Page 95

4. That the timber screen located along the southern property boundary in the primary street setback area not exceed a maximum height of 1.6m from finished floor level to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fremantle.

Construction of this development has recently commenced. DETAIL The applicant proposes an alterative boundary wall finish - Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork instead of the approved render and colorbond cladding finish. PLANNING COMMENT

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

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

The approved plans show the boundary walls to be of a rendered finish on the ground floor and colorbond cladding on the upper floors. An adjoining neighbour has advised that the applicant is not permitted onto their property. This makes finishing the boundary wall to a sufficiently high standard difficult. The owner has therefore suggested an alternative boundary wall finish - Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork, which is able to be installed without requiring access to a neighbouring property. Details and photos of this product are included in Attachment 4.


Page 96

Subsequent to the approval being granted for 62A Thompson Road, the wording of the standard boundary wall finish condition has been modified to allow a variety of high quality finishes in addition to sand render and face bring and reads as follows:

“Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern, eastern and western elevations shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;



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

In the instance where the new standard boundary wall finish condition was applied to the approval for 62A Thompson Road, this report would be unnecessary. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT There is no ability to legally modify the wording of a planning approval condition without a new development application being lodged. Council is however able to be flexible regarding the enforcement of this condition provided that the intent of the condition is the same i.e. ensuring that boundary walls are constructed to a high quality finish. CONSULTATION

There is no requirement to advertise the proposal however the previous submitter has been invited to attend the Planning Services Committee meeting.


That applicant/owner be advised that Council consider the proposed alterative boundary wall finishes of Formcraft Insulated Concrete Formwork are of an appropriate high quality comparable in standard to the sand render or face brick finish specified in Condition No. 3 of planning approval DA0534/13, and accordingly no further action will be taken by the City of Fremantle to enforce application of the finishes specified in Condition No.3.


Page 97

PSC1412-191 EDMUND STREET, NO. 102 (LOT 32), WHITE GUM VALLEY - RETROSPECTIVE CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING TO ANCILLARY DWELLING AND PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0452/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 10 September 2014 Owner Name: Ian Barns and Margaret Barns (dec.) Submitted by: Frances Barns Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 98

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a retrospective application for the addition of a patio, roofing of an existing outdoor bathroom and conversion of an existing outbuilding to Ancillary Dwelling at No. 102 Edmund Street, White Gum Valley. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination due to the requirement for merit based assessments against requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development. Additionally, an objection to the development has been received from a neighbouring landowner that cannot be addressed by the imposition of planning approval conditions. The above design elements have been assessed against the Design Principles of the R-Codes, LPS4 and LPPs and are considered to be supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is location on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Yilgarn and Edmund Street, Fremantle and is located within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The street block is bound by Yilgarn Street to the North, Edmund Street to the West, Wright Street to the East and Pilbara Street to the South. The development site is has a total land area of approximately 775m2 and is currently occupied by a Single House. It is located within the Residential zone and is allocated a density coding of R25. The site is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List, not is it located within a Heritage Area. The development included in this application has taken place on site and the applicant is therefore seeking retrospective approval. Planning history for the site is as follows:

18 December 2002 – application for the upgrading of an existing outbuilding received by the City (DA881/02);

25 February 2003 – DA881/01 approved by the City with conditions, including the following condition –

o The existing outbuilding shall not be used for habitable purposes without

the prior approval of the City of Fremantle.

10 March 2014 – a complaint is made by an adjoining landowner in regards to use of the outbuilding as a habitable space and other complaints relating to health and building matters;

15 April 2014 – site inspection by City Environmental Health Officers finds that outbuilding is now being used for habitable purposes, a patio has been added to the property and roofing over the outdoor bathroom has been built to boundary line.

10 June 2014 – A directions notice issued to the owners of the property for the following reasons:

o An outbuilding (external laundry/store) was being used for habitable

purposes, contrary to condition 1 of Planning Approval (DA881/02), issued on 25 February 2003;

o A patio had been constructed without planning approval against the eastern

boundary.


Page 99

10 September 2014 – application for retrospective planning approval received by the City.

DETAIL

On 10 September 2014, the City received an application for retrospective conversion of existing Outbuilding to Ancillary Dwelling and patio addition at No. 102 Edmund Street, White Gum Valley. Amended plans were received 23 September 2014 showing further details on the plans.

Development plans are included as attachment 1 and site photographs are included as attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to meet the relevant Design Principles of the R Codes. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for full assessment. CONSULTATION

Environmental Health

The City’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the application, and advised that there are no issues identified under the Health Act 1911, however there may be some non-compliances under the Building Codes. An advice note has been included in the recommendation, to remind the applicant of their obligations under other legislation.

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 October 2014, the City had received one (1) submission. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Insulation to outbuilding not sufficient to protect adjoining owners from noise;

Ancillary dwelling use has impact on privacy;

Bathroom attached to fence will compromise strength and privacy.

The applicant provided additional justification for the variations sought. The response is summarised as follows:

Buildings with similar setbacks are approved to become Ancillary Dwellings;

Acknowledge development is retrospective;

Have been ongoing issues with neighbours;

0.5m will not make big difference to noise;

Additional insulation will be added ; and


Page 100

Bathroom is already approved, is just the roofing that is not.

PLANNING COMMENT

Ancillary Dwelling The Ancillary Dwelling meets the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes, in respect to its use, and the structure has previously been approved. Boundary Wall

Deemed to comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

East - 1.5m 0-0.5m 1-1.5m

The boundary wall subject to this application is for a patio connecting the existing bathroom and Ancillary Dwelling, and the roofing over the approved bathroom. Both structures have already been constructed (see site photographs). The boundary wall is supported against LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development for the following reasons:

The addition of the patio provides enhanced privacy for the occupants of the Ancillary Dwelling, linking the bathroom with the living and bedroom areas and providing weather proofing for the previously approved outdoor bathroom;

Building bulk is not significantly increased as a result of the patio and roofing addition;

The adjoining properties will not be overshadowed as calculated by the R-Codes;

Ventilation will not be restricted as a result of the structures and the existing boundary fence appears to be higher than the patio/roofing of the outdoor bathroom;

The boundary fence and vegetation restricts any view of the patio and roof structure;

The patio will not create an additional habitable room and is not raised more than 500mm above natural ground level ensuring privacy of the neighbouring property is not impacted.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the retrospective conversion of outbuilding to Ancillary Dwelling and patio addition to existing Single House at No. 102 (Lot 32) Edmund Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 23 September 2014.



Page 101

Advice Note:

i. This planning decision is confined to the authority of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4. This decision does not remove the obligation of the applicant and/or property owner to ensure that all other required local government approvals are first obtained, all other applicable state and federal legislation is complied with, and any restrictions, easements, or encumbrances are adhered to. Specifically, the applicant is advised to contact the City’s Building Department to determine if further approval is required.


Page 102

PSC1412-192 INVERLEITH STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RECONSIDERATION - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0289/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 6 and 27 August 2014 (PSC1408-134) Attachments: 1 – Amended development plans (10 November 2014)

2 – Previous officers report (6 August 2014) Date Received: 16 June 2014 Owner Name: G & J Loxton Submitted by: G & J Loxton Scheme: Residential (R30) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 103

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report involves the reconsideration of a matter under review at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The application relates to a development application previously proposing demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey Single House. The matter was considered at the Planning Services Committee (PSC) of 6 August 2014 and further at the Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) of 27 August 2014, where the following resolution was made;

‘That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement two storey Single House at No. 8 (Lot 1) Inverleith Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 16 June 2014, for the following reasons:

1. The demolition of the existing dwelling is inconsistent with clause 5.15.1

of Local Planning Scheme No.4. The place is considered to be of some cultural heritage significance and should be retained.

2. The proposed upper floor setback is inconsistent with the merit based

criteria contained at clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy by reason that it is inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape.’

An application for review was lodged at the SAT on 19 September 2014. Following a directions hearing, the applicant submitted amended plans and the SAT made the subsequent order;

‘Pursuant to s31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to consider its decision at its meeting on 3 December 2014.’

The application is now to be reconsidered by the City. The amended proposal is considered to address areas of discretion previously identified as reasons for refusal. The proposal now meets the prescribed setback requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes policy and upon further consideration by the City’s Heritage department, is supported by a heritage assessment. It is noted that the application seeks further merit based assessments regarding solar access and boundary setbacks; but these elements are considered to meet the merit based criteria. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The application was lodged with the City on 16 June 2014. The proposal originally included the complete demolition of an existing dwelling at the subject site and development of a new two storey Single House. The matter was considered at the PSC meeting of 6 August 2014 and further at the OCM of 27 August 2014, where the following resolution was made;


Page 104

‘That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement two storey Single House at No. 8 (Lot 1) Inverleith Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 16 June 2014, for the following reasons:

3. The demolition of the existing dwelling is inconsistent with clause 5.15.1 of

Local Planning Scheme No.4. The place is considered to be of some cultural heritage significance and should be retained.

4. The proposed upper floor setback is inconsistent with the merit based criteria

contained at clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy by reason that it is inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape.’

On 19 September 2014 the applicant lodged an application for review at the SAT. Following a directions hearing on 9 October 2014, the SAT made orders for a final hearing scheduled for 5 December 2014. However shortly after the orders were made, the applicant and City officers discussed possible amendments to the proposal. On 23 October 2014, following a request from the applicant, the SAT issued new orders staying the orders relating to the final hearing. The new orders included the following order to the City;

‘Pursuant to s31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to consider its decision at its meeting on 3 December 2014.’

The application is now presented to the PSC for reconsideration. For further information relating to the background of the proposal, refer to the ‘Background’ section of Attachment 2. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition of an existing single storey Single House and construction of a new two storey Single House including;

The partial demolition of side and rear portions of the existing single storey Single House and internal alterations to the layout of some ground floor rooms;

Development of an upper floor addition, rear ground floor additions and side garage addition to the existing dwelling;

New retaining walls to the primary street and side setback areas;

Replacement primary street fencing to Inverleith Street. Amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


Page 105

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. The application also seeks merits based assessment under the City’s policies and the R-Codes in relation to;

Demolition of buildings;

Street setbacks;

Solar access; and,

Lot boundary setbacks. These merit based assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Heritage The original application was referred to the City’s Heritage department for comment. Pursuant to clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, the City’s Heritage department did not support the proposed demolition under the original proposal as the dwelling is considered to be of ‘some’ cultural heritage significance. A summary of the previous comment can be found in the ‘Consultation’ section of Attachment 2. The modified proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Heritage department and a heritage assessment prepared. The heritage assessment is summarised as follows;

The place is a good example of a residence constructed during the inter-war period and contributes to the streetscape and local area;

The place is not listed but is considered to be of ‘some’ cultural heritage significance;

The application includes partial demolition of the rear portions of the dwelling. These areas are not considered to be of significance and the demolition is supported;

The proposed restorative works to street front elements of the proposal will assist in the interpretation of the original place.

The upper floor addition, while covering portions of the rear two rooms of the dwelling, is supported and is not considered to overwhelm the presence of the original portions of the dwelling.

On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to satisfy LPS4 in respect to the protection of cultural heritage significance. The modifications made are considered to satisfy the substantive issue the subject of the application for review.


Page 106

Community The original application was previously advertised to affected landowners. A summary of comments received is included in the ‘Consultation’ section of Attachment 2. The City’s Local Planning Policy 1.4 – Applications for review of town planning decisions and written directions (LPP1.4) specifies that the City is not required to re-advertise amended proposals as a result of orders to reconsider an application. Parties who made submissions regarding the original proposal have been notified of the reconsideration. PLANNING COMMENT Demolition of buildings and structures The application includes the demolition of a primary structure on the subject site. Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 states that;

‘Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure; a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and, b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.’ Pursuant to the above requirements, the City may only permit demolition of place deemed to be of ‘limited or no’ cultural heritage significance. The heritage assessment prepared by the City’s Heritage department indicates that the existing dwelling contained on-site is of some heritage significance and recommends its retention. The proposal previously included complete demolition of the building but now provides for partial retention of the place. On the basis of the revised heritage comment prepared, the proposal is considered to involve the demolition of insignificant fabric only and alterations and additions to the remainder of the dwelling that are supported on heritage grounds. The modified proposal is therefore supported pursuant to clause 5.15.1 of LPS4. Street setback


Ground floor - Garage

7.0m 5.0m 2.0m


Page 107

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

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

The lesser setbacks to the garage is considered to meet the merit based criteria for the following reasons;

The setback of buildings is consistent with that contained within the prevailing streetscape in so far as;

o The dwelling directly adjoining to the north (No. 10 Inverleith Street) is

setback approximately 4.0m to the street;

o The dwelling direct adjoining to the south (No. 6 Inverleith Street) is

setback 2.0m to Inverleith Street;

o The dwelling at the corner of Inverleith Street and Jenkin Street (No. 30

Jenkin Street) is setback approximately 2.5m to Inverleith Street;

o Dwellings further removed in the streetscape have a character of

setbacks to approximately 4m.

The lesser setback will not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape by reason that it will be of a greater setback than adjoining buildings;

The garage being forward of the main building line is supported by the City’s Heritage department.

Solar access for adjoining sites


35% (83m2) 44.5% (109m2) 9.5% (26m2)

The extent of shadow cast by the proposal is equal to the same area as previously proposed. The lesser setback of buildings to the southern boundary is equally off-set by the lesser wall height proposed.


Page 108

During the original community consultation period for the application, concern was raised in relation to light access to north facing openings of an existing ‘Dining’ area at No. 10 Inverleith Street. Notwithstanding this submission the amended proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Code, for the same reasons as previously recommended;

The extent of solar restriction resulting from the proposal is predominately over the existing building area of the adjoining dwelling. The primary outdoor living area located at the rear of the adjoining site remains open to solar access;

The proposal impacts on openings to the dining area of the southern adjoining property, but the other main living areas of the dwelling as well as the rear outdoor living area remain open to direct light;

The most affected openings central to the adjoining dwelling are already restricted in terms of light access owing to the high dividing fence that exists on the boundary as well as the limited (1.5m) setback of these openings to boundary.



Alfresco - North 1.0m 0.7m 0.3m

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

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property given it proposes a wall height equivalent to a single storey wall only;

The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings owing to its northern orientation and limited wall height; and,


CONCLUSION The amended application is considered to address the reasons for refusal previously resolved by the City and also maintains compliance with the relevant merit based criteria of the planning framework. It is therefore recommended that the City advise the SAT that it sets aside its original decision and now resolves to approve the development as amended.


Page 109

Should the Council form an alternative view, the following alternative resolution may be applied;

‘That the State Administrative Tribunal be advised that the decision of the City to refuse to grant planning approval to DA0289/14 be reaffirmed, but varied on the basis of the amended plans dated 10 November 2014, in so far as;

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement two storey Single House at No. 8 (Lot 1) Inverleith Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 November 2014, for the following reason:

1. The demolition of the existing dwelling is inconsistent with clause 5.15.1 of

Local Planning Scheme No.4. The place is considered to be of some cultural heritage significance and should be retained.’

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION A. That the decision of the City to refuse to grant planning approval to

DA0289/14 be set aside and substituted with the following decision;

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey Single House at No. 8 (Lot 1) Inverleith Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions;

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

approved plans dated 10 November 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commenced within 4 years from the date of the decision letter.


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


face brick;




4. Prior to commencement of development, the existing building shall be

fully documented in the form of a professionally prepared study of the physical, documentary and other evidence associated with the site before any physical or material disturbance. This documentation shall consist of the following:


Page 110

a) A professionally prepared architectural report including the

address, names, use and description of the building and accurate measured drawings at a scale not less than 1:100. All documents shall be of A4 size or folded into A4 size.

b) A photographic report which includes the following: (i) A site plan showing the position, direction and number of each

photograph. (ii) The history of the original building and subsequent stages of

development. (iii) Old photographs relating to this site and building. (iv) Any other relevant historical information.

c) One set of such records including photographs shall be submitted to the City of Fremantle in electronic format prior to the commencement of development.

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0289/14

on plans dated 10 November 2014 the east facing opening of ‘Bed 3’ on the eastern elevation shall be either:

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

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

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




B. That the State Administrative Tribunal, the applicant and other interested

parties be advised of the above.


Page 111

PSC1412-193 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21)

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


That the information is noted.


Page 112

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1412-194 VICTORIA QUAY COMMERCIAL PRECINCT, FREMANTLE STATION AND PIONEER PARK DRAFT PRECINCT PLANS - CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO THE WA PLANNING COMMISSION

DataWorks Reference: 115/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 3 December 2014 Previous Item: PSC1411-176, SPC1410-1 Responsible Officer: Acting Director Planning & Development Services Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: SPC1410-1 8 October 2014 Minutes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a 21 day advertising period seeking community comment on the draft precinct plans and recommends a submission on the draft plans to the Western Australian Planning Commission. The submission recommends endorsement of the plans for the Victoria Quay commercial precinct and the Fremantle Station precinct conditional on a commitment by all project partners to the preparation of an implementation plan for all of the public infrastructure elements of the precinct plans. Several amendments to the plans are also recommended. At this stage the City is not seeking WAPC endorsement of the Pioneer Park Precinct Plan as it needs to be further addressed as part of the preparation of the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan, however the recommended submission does incorporate the council’s current views on the draft plan for Pioneer Park as context for consideration of the Victoria Quay and Station precinct plans.

BACKGROUND

Preparation of draft precinct plans for the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct, the Fremantle Station and Pioneer Park areas has been underway since 2012. The project has been coordinated by Fremantle Ports with input from the Public Transport Authority and the City of Fremantle and undertaken by a consultant team led by CODA. Final plans for the Victoria Quay and Station precincts have now been submitted by Fremantle Ports to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its consideration and endorsement. The Pioneer Park plan has been submitted for information as context for the other two precinct plans. The Pioneer Park Precinct is within the City of Fremantle’s area of planning responsibility and therefore will need to be addressed by the City and incorporated into the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan that is currently in preparation before being submitted for approval to the WAPC.


Page 113

At its meeting held on 8 October 2014, the Special Projects Committee was briefed on the draft final plans and gave initial consideration to the proposals. A summary of the draft precinct plans and officer comments on the key issues arising from the plans were included in the item to the Special Projects Committee (SPC1410-1). In a letter dated 27 October 2014, the WAPC invited comments from the City of Fremantle on the draft plans for the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct and the Fremantle Station Precinct. The WAPC has agreed to extend the submission period to enable Council to finalise its submission at its meeting on 17 December 2014. At its meeting held on 5 November 2014 the Planning Services Committee agreed to advertise the draft plans for a period of 21 days to provide an opportunity for final community comment before the Council considers its submission to the WAPC.

COMMENT

It is generally considered that the draft plans for the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct and the Fremantle Station Precinct satisfy the City’s key imperatives that had been identified at the commencement of the project and reinforce the council’s strategic direction being pursued through a number of recent and current initiatives, including LPS4 Amendment 49 and the Activity Centre Structure Plan. Consequently the recommended submission to the WAPC gives conditional support to the endorsement of the plans. The submission also includes reference to a number of specific aspects of the plans that were identified by the Special Projects Committee and require further consideration and possible amendment. The key issue of concern is the need for a whole of government agreement on, and commitment to, the coordinated implementation and funding of works contemplated by all three precinct plans, especially those involving the station precinct, which links Victoria Quay to the city centre and contains essential development elements with respect to transport infrastructure, public realm improvements and connectivity. It is considered that the implementation plan should be negotiated and agreed by the parties prior to commencement of any development. The final draft precinct plans do not include an implementation plan, but do outline the key actions, anticipated time frames and responsibilities that should be addressed in the preparation of an implementation plan across all 3 precincts. The plans reinforce the need for the project partners (City of Fremantle, Fremantle Ports and Public Transport Authority) to continue with their partnership to identify funding opportunities and an appropriate delivery model to expedite implementation of the plans.


Page 114

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Throughout the two year project there have been regular meetings and communication with the project partners (Fremantle Ports, City of Fremantle and Public Transport Authority), the consultant team and the Victoria Quay Waterfront Stakeholder Reference Group. The reference group comprised representatives from:

- Relevant state agencies (planning, heritage) - Business and interest groups (Chamber of Commerce, National Trust, Notre Dame

University) - Community groups (Fremantle Society, Fremantle History Society, FICRA) - Victoria Quay stakeholders (Victoria Quay Taskforce, business operators).

There were also a number of opportunities for community input including a 2 day urban design forum and community open days to view and comment on the final draft plans. A Community Engagement Report has been prepared by consultant team member Creating Communities Australia that documents in detail the engagement process and the input received at all stages of that process. Responses to a survey at the open days showed significant community support for the proposed plans. The report has been incorporated into a background and reference document to the draft precinct plans and a copy provided to the WAPC. The City’s further 21 day advertising period closed on 27 November 2014. The draft precinct plans were advertised for comment via the City’s website, local newspaper and by communication with local precincts and other stakeholders who had participated during preparation of the draft plans. No submissions had been received at the time of preparing this report, one day prior to the end of the consultation period. Any submissions received during the final day of the advertising period will be provided to elected members at the Planning Services Committee meeting.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the City can now advise the WA Planning Commission of its support for endorsement of the draft precinct plans for the Victoria Quay Commercial precinct and the Fremantle Station Precinct, subject to consideration of several minor amendments as identified in the submission and conditional upon a clear commitment by all project partners to preparation of a robust implementation process for the critical public infrastructure elements of the plans.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


Page 115


That Council:

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to submit the following comments to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the City of Fremantle’s submission on the draft precinct plans for the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct, the Fremantle Station Precinct and the Pioneer Park Precinct, dated August 2014.

The City of Fremantle supports endorsement of the draft precinct plans for the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct and the Fremantle Station Precinct, dated August 2014, subject to the following:

In particular, this support is conditional on a commitment by all project partners to the preparation of an implementation plan for all of the public infrastructure elements of the precinct plans. The implementation plan needs to address staging and the process and responsibilities for delivery of the various elements, including funding arrangements, with a clear commitment to including delivery of key public realm infrastructure in the first stage of development implementation.

Support for the precinct plans is also subject to the draft plans being amended to address the following: Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct Plan

The provision of significantly improved access for cruise ship passengers from the passenger terminal into the precinct and onwards to the city centre is considered critical and a major opportunity that must be incorporated into the precinct plan. A more attractive, comfortable and convenient access will significantly enhance the image of both the city and the state at this important gateway as well as reinforcing the city’s economy through increased visitor numbers. Improved access could be achieved either via a new grade separated route across the port operating area linking the current terminal to the commercial precinct and onwards to the city centre, or by relocating some or all of the cruise ship berth facilities to be immediately adjacent to the commercial precinct.

For consistency, permitted building heights should be identified in metres above ground level rather than a mix of building heights and number of storeys.

An overall maximum building height should be identified for development parcels 1 and 3. Section 8.7 indicates that the prescribed number of storeys for these 2 parcels may be exceeded subject to satisfaction of a range of nominated Additional Performance Criteria (section 8.10) and the Fremantle Ports Design Advisory Panel. While the City of Fremantle supports some flexibility in the overall building height on these key sites to accommodate opportunities for additional community benefits that are identified in the performance criteria, an indication of an overall maximum height is important to provide some certainty in built form outcomes for the community. It is recommended that the additional height be limited to 7.2m (2 storeys) on parcel 1 and 3.6m (one storey) on parcel 3.

Fremantle Station Precinct Plan


Page 116

The City of Fremantle strongly supports the Queen St bus entry option to the bus interchange and the relocation of the bus interchange to the east of Queen Street as shown in the precinct plan. The City is keen to progress investigations with the PTA into the details of accommodating the new bus entry into the city’s street network and will proactively consider how it can facilitate delivery of this option by traffic management changes in related streets, particularly Market St, Cantonment St and Queen St.

The City of Fremantle would not support any upgrading of the current bus entry at Market Street.

Development of Site T10 (above the bus interchange and east of the rail station) would need to be very carefully designed to ensure it is compatible with the existing railway station building as well as providing shelter for pedestrians accessing the bus and rail stations. Preferred uses should give priority to those that activate the city and waterfront, rather than to park-n-ride/commuter parking.

The raised pedestrian crossing (P1) to the east of the rail station should continue on to the city centre via Site T10 and redevelopment of the Woolstores Shopping Centre site, and on to the waterfront via Site T1, and potentially onwards to link via a raised walkway to the passenger terminal.

Any changes to the rail reserve and in particular the development of Site T7 must not limit the opportunity for a future passenger rail connection (light or heavy rail) to the south, including a possible light rail connection between the southern rail corridor and Market Street.

Pioneer Park Precinct Plan The Pioneer Park Precinct Plan will be addressed as part of the preparation of the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan and therefore the City of Fremantle is not seeking the WAPC’s endorsement of the draft Pioneer Park Precinct Plan at this stage, however the following comments are provided to the Department of Planning as context for consideration of the Victoria Quay and Station precinct plans. The City of Fremantle:

Supports the creation of Station Square and the provision of key pedestrian connections across the precinct to the Station and Victoria Quay precincts.

Strongly supports the Queen St bus entry option to the bus interchange and the relocation of the bus interchange to the east of Queen Street as shown.

Would not support any upgrading of the current bus entry at Market Street.

Supports shared streets as proposed. Even though Phillimore St is part of a city centre ring-road, it is considered that pedestrians should have a higher priority at this location.

Supports investigation of conversion of Pakenham Street to two-way traffic in order to reduce vehicle volumes through the proposed shared street section of Phillimore Street that could be generated by the new rail crossing.

Does not support the building proposal for site T6 for Pioneer Park at this stage. A plan for the upgrading and activation of Pioneer Park will be given further consideration which will include addressing the following: - Provision of shelter for pedestrians walking to the railway station and on

to the waterfront. - Incorporate facilities and uses that attract greater use of the park as

none of the buildings surrounding the park have ‘active frontages’.


Page 117

- Reduction of the negative impact of the blank walls of the Spare Parts building fronting the park, particularly by opportunities to generate activity in the park.

- Promotion of the site’s archaeology. - Any funds generated from development in any part of the park should be

applied to other public infrastructure works within the precinct. - Clear justification of why and how any new building proposed in this

location would be appropriate.

2. Direct Officers to give consideration to the proposals in the draft Pioneer Park Precinct Plan as part of the preparation of the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan, to be addressed in a future report to Council.

3. Advise Fremantle Ports and the Public Transport Authority of its strong

support for the continued collaboration of all three agencies to achieve the shared vision for the area and that it is keen to participate in the preparation of an implementation plan for all of the public infrastructure elements across all three precincts. The implementation plan needs to address staging and the process and responsibilities for delivery of the various elements, with a clear commitment to including delivery of key public realm infrastructure in the first stage of development implementation.

4. Give consideration to provision of funding as part of the 2015-16 budget

process for preparation of the implementation plan, including costs to undertake traffic management studies, prepare relevant designs and identification of costs.


Page 118

PSC1412-195 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15 - FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 117/059 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 3 December 2014; Council 17 December 2014 Responsible Officer: Acting Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1410-151 22 October 2014 Attachments: None


Page 119

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White Gum Valley (LPP3.15). This LPP applies to the lots within the White Gum Valley Local Structure Plan (LSP) area; the area bounded by Stevens Street, Yalgoo Avenue, Hope Street and Nannine Avenue. The intent of the LPP is to guide residential development outcomes as generally set out within the LSP. This policy was placed out for public comment in accordance the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals. No submissions were received; however Department of Planning (DoP) officers provided preliminary comments as parts of the policy require approval by the Western Australian Planning Commission. No modifications are recommended as a result of these comments or the public comment period. The purpose of the proposed LPP is to support residential development that is highly responsive to the site context and promotes energy efficient design that optimises use of the northern aspect. Accordingly, the policy proposes alternative ‘deemed to comply’ assessment criteria to those in the Residential Design Codes for various planning requirements. It is recommended that Council adopt the local planning policy in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and forward the policy to the WAPC for approval of specific design elements as required under clause 7.3.2 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 (R-codes). BACKGROUND The proposed Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White Gum Valley (LPP3.15) applies to the former Kim Beazley School Site at Lot 2089 Stevens Street and the adjoining drainage reserve at Lot 2065 Hope Street, White Gum Valley. The site is zoned Development Zone (Development Area 12) under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and on 12 August 2014 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved the White Gum Valley former Kim Beazley school site Local Structure Plan (LSP) over the site. A subsequent subdivision approval for 28 lots, including 4 larger freehold lots for the purpose of facilitating future grouped dwellings, was given by the WAPC on 1 September 2014. A Local Planning Policy is a requirement of the LSP and is to be adopted over the site prior to an application for development being approved. For more information please see Ordinary meeting of Council minutes 22 October 2014 PSC1410-151.


Page 120

CONSULTATION The LPP 3.15 was advertised in accordance with clauses 2.4 of LPS4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals for public comment from 28 October 2014 to 25 November 2014 (28 days), with advertisements being placed in the Fremantle Gazette for two consecutive weeks. The City’s precinct groups were also specifically notified and copies of the policy were made available for viewing at the customer service counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. During the consultation period no submissions were received though Department of Planning (DoP) officers provided the following preliminary comments as parts of the policy require approval by the Western Australian Planning Commission: The preliminary assessment identifies that the following variations are being sought to the R-Codes and have been forwarded to the WAPC for preliminary comment in accordance with clause 7.3.2 of the Codes. More specifically, we understand that it is proposed to vary the following elements of the Codes, which require the approval of the WAPC:

Variations to the standard privacy requirements to provide for a lesser privacy setback to respond to the sensitive lot design and narrow lot design, which will minimise visual impact with a number of buildings likely being built to the boundary.;

Variations to the Open Space requirements to require a minimum of 30% in lieu of 45% and to promote productive use of this open space;

Variations to outdoor living area to require a larger area and allowing for greater roof coverage as long as the solar access requirements are still met; and

Variations to the Solar Access/Overshadowing to allow a significant increase in the overshadowing of adjoining properties. This may be acceptable in parts of the Structure Plan but may not be appropriate for all lots, until individual designs are received and impacts can be measured. In principle however the WAPC does not have any objection to this possible modification.

I trust these preliminary comments assist. The WAPC may change its view on certain elements depending on the outcome of the community consultation phase but this would be unlikely. PLANNING COMMENT

The proposed LPP seeks to support residential development that is highly responsive to the site and promotes energy efficient dwelling design that optimises use of the northern aspect. The site developers’ (LandCorp) planning consultants Urbis have provided the following statement as to the purpose and design intentions of the policy: LandCorp’s approach to built form control within the LPP area has been primarily based on achieving high quality street frontages and built form outcomes that are responsive to sustainable design and climatic conditions, with a strong emphasis on achieving solar access to all dwellings within the area.


Page 121

The policy proposes alternative ‘deemed to comply’ assessment criteria to those in the R- codes for different planning requirements on lots grouped by density coding in the LSP area including:

Lots 4-10 and 12-28 (R35 & R40) Street Setbacks, lot boundary setback, setback of garages and carports, outdoor living areas, open space, visual privacy, solar access and solar access to adjoining sites.

Lots 1-3 and 11 (R60 and R80) Street Setbacks, communal open space, outdoor living areas and building priority zones.

LOT 7 (R40 “Gen – Y” House) Building height and parking.

The LPP uses the R-codes’ design elements to set out and format the policy provisions. Officers are comfortable with this layout and the requirements proposed as these provisions can easily be incorporated into the City’s current statutory processes. There are three requirements in the proposed policy, however, that are additional to the R-codes’ design elements. While a residential development is not usually assessed on these requirements (see below) officers consider the provisions to be key to achieving the anticipated outcomes for the site and therefore appropriate for the City to use in the assessment of development applications in the LPP area. These requirements are:

Solar access – This requirement would ensure direct sunlight to outdoor living areas and habitable rooms, improving energy efficiency and amenity offered to residents;

Communal open space - This requirement for multiple dwellings would ensure 20% of any site is set aside for communal open space for all residents of the multiple dwelling to enjoy; and

Building priority zones – This requirement would provide a higher level of built form articulation in areas that interface with external streets, front key internal streets or are in landmark locations on the site.

Additionally, there are a number of provisions within the proposed policy that can only be varied with the explicit approval of the WAPC (i.e. visual privacy, open space, outdoor living area and solar access for adjoining sites). The applicant and City have been in discussions with the DoP on this matter and officers from DoP have provided positive preliminary comment on the proposed variations to the R-codes (refer to ‘consultation’ section of this report). Following final adoption of the LPP the policy will need to be forwarded to WAPC for approval to vary these deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes. Concurrent to drafting the LPP, Landcorp have also prepared Design Guidelines in conjunction with architects CODA that Landcorp will administer, as landowner, over all lots within the LSP area but outside of the statutory planning process. The purpose of the design guidelines is to ensure the overall design intent for the estate is adhered to. The guidelines include a number of design elements that are not covered by the R-codes including materials, colours, landscaping, the requirement for two storey development etc. The guidelines will form the basis of an approval process that LandCorp will administer through a requirement in the contract of sale on each lot. This process is separate to the City’s approval processes.


Page 122

The result of this would be anyone developing in this area would first require approval from LandCorp under their design guidelines for their development prior to a development application being lodged with the City. CONCLUSION The proposed LPP seeks to support residential development that is highly responsive to the site and promotes energy efficient dwelling design that optimises use of the northern aspect in the approved LSP area. The draft local planning policy was placed out for public comment and no submissions were received. No modifications to the draft policy are recommended as a result of the public comment period. It is therefore recommended that Council adopts the local planning policy in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and forward the policy to the WAPC for approval of specific design elements as required under clause 7.3.2 of the R-codes. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Adopts Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White

Gum Valley, in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15

FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE - WHITE GUM VALLEY

ADOPTION DATE: ## AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.2.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) is to conform to the provisions of the R-codes. Part 7 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 states that a Local Planning Policy may contain provisions that amend or replace deemed-to-comply provisions. Those deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are as follows:


Page 123

- 5.1.2 C2.1 – Street setback - 5.1.3 C3.1 – Lot boundary setback - 5.1.4 C4 – Open space - 5.1.6 C6 – Building height - 5.2.1 C1.1-C1.5 – Setback of garages and carports - 5.2.2 C2 – Garage width - 5.3.1 C1.1 and C1.2 – Outdoor living areas - 5.3.5 C5.1 – C5.3 – Vehicular access - 5.4.1 C1.1 – Visual privacy - 5.4.2 C2.1 and C2.2 – Solar access for adjoining sites - 6.3.1 C1 – Outdoor living areas - 6.3.3 C3.1. - Parking

Variations to this policy may be approved where the City is satisfied that the development application meets the design intent of this policy and the Design Principles of the R-Codes. Clause 10.2 of the Scheme empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval. The White Gum Valley Former Kim Beazley School Site Local Structure Plan also requires a Local Planning Policy to be adopted for the area prior to an application for development being approved. APPLICATION This policy applies to the land bound by Stevens Street, Yalgoo Avenue, Hope Street and Nannine Avenue (the former Kim Beazley Primary School site). This policy is divided into three areas and specific provisions are provided for each. These policy areas are:

Lots 4-10 & 12-28 - R35 and R40 density coding

Lots 1,2 3 and 11 - R60 and R80 density coding

Lot 7 - R40 density coding


Page 124

Figure 1 – Location and Residential Density Plan The provisions of this policy apply to residential development assessed under Part 5 and Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes. In the event there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within another Local Planning Policy, the more specific policy provision shall prevail. DEFINITIONS Habitable Living Area: has the same definition as “Habitable Room” in the R-codes but does not include bedrooms. All other definitions are as defined in the R-codes and the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. POLICY Lots 4-10 and 12-28 (R35 & R40) 1. Street Setbacks 1.1 Dwellings shall be setback from the Primary Street and secondary street(s)

in accordance with Figures 2 and 3.


Page 125

1.2 A portion of the main building line (including balconies) shall project

towards the Primary Street a minimum of 0.5 metre from the main line of the garage setback.

2. Lot boundary Setback 2.1 Dwellings shall be setback from the lot boundaries in accordance with

Figures 2 and 3 including walls built up to the lot boundary.

2.2 Boundary walls are permitted in locations as identified on Figures 2 and 3 to

a maximum of 70 per cent of the length of the boundary.

2.3 Variations to the requirements of clause 2.1 or 2.2 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following:

i. Lot boundary setbacks may be varied if Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of this policy

are satisfied. 3. Setbacks of Garages and Carports 3.1 Garages shall be provided in locations where nominated designated or

preferred garage location on Figures 2 and 3. 3.2 All garages shall be no greater than 6.0m in width (pillar to pillar). 3.3 Variations to the preferred garage location requirements of clause 3.1 may be

considered at Council’s discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting the following:

i. The alternative garage location has the same street frontage as the

preferred garage location as nominated on Figures 2 and 3; and

ii. The proposed location ensures clear sight lines and does not detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings; and

iii. The garage location must be set back from the street or laneway in accordance with Figures 2 and 3.

4. Outdoor Living Areas 4.1 All developments shall provide an outdoor living area with a minimum area of

25m2 and minimum dimensions of 5m x 5m. 4.2 The outdoor living area may be provided with permanent roof cover up to

two-thirds of the area required under clause 4.1 provided the development achieves the solar access requirements of Clause 7 of this policy


Page 126

4.3 Variations to the requirements of clause 4.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting the following:

i. The minimum outdoor living area dimension may be reduced to 4m if the

outdoor living area meets a minimum area of 28m2. 5. Open Space 5.1 The minimum open space provided as part of any development may be

reduced to 30% of the total site area (no discretion to vary) if compliance with Clauses 6, 7 and 8 and Figures 2 and 3 of this policy is achieved.

5.2 Notwithstanding the Design Principles of the R-Codes, there is no ability to

vary the minimum open space requirement under 5.1 of this policy. 6. Visual Privacy 6.1 The minimum visual privacy setbacks that apply to any development are as follows:

Type of habitable rooms/active habitable spaces

Setback distance (metres)

Major openings to bedrooms and studies

3.0

Major openings to habitable rooms other than bedrooms and studies

4.5

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

6.0

7. Solar Access 7.1 Notwithstanding the boundary setbacks prescribed on Figures 2 and 3,

dwellings shall be designed to ensure effective solar access to key internal and external spaces. Accordingly, the following applies:

i. Development is to demonstrate that a minimum of 25% of the minimum

outdoor living area (refer Clause 4) has direct access to sunlight at midday, 21 June. In undertaking this calculation, it is to be assumed that the adjoining dwellings are built to the full extent of the nominated building envelope identified on Figures 2 and 3.

ii. A minimum of 1 habitable living area is to receive direct access to sunlight at midday, 21 June.

8. Solar Access for Adjoining Sites 8.1 Development shall be so designed that its shadow cast at midday 21 June

onto any other adjoining property does not exceed 50% of any adjoining property’s site area.


Page 127

Lots 1-3 and 11 (R60 and R80) 9 Street Setbacks 9.1 Dwellings shall be setback from the primary street and secondary street(s) in

accordance with Figures 2 and 3. 10 Communal Open Space 10.1 A minimum of 20% of any site shall be set aside for communal open space

purposes for the exclusive use of residents.

10.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 10.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting the following criterion:

i. The requirement for communal open space may be reduced by up to 5%

if recreational facilities (i.e. fixed BBQ, seating and shade structures, hard and soft landscaping) are provided within the designated communal open space.

11 Outdoor Living Areas

11.1 Each dwelling shall be provided with at least one balcony or terrace

accessed directly from a habitable room with a minimum area of 10m2 and a minimum dimension of 3.0m.

11.2 Notwithstanding clause 11.1 above, 1 bedroom apartments or studios may

provide a balcony or equivalent space with a minimum dimension of 2.4m.

12 Building Priority Zones

12.1 Developments shall provide a contiguous and activated built form frontage to the boundaries identified as “Building Priority Zones’ on Figures 2 and 3.

12.2 Design responses may include but are not limited to, the orientation of

dwellings to the street, habitable rooms adjacent and overlooking the public realm and location of primary vehicle and pedestrian entrances for the streets.

12.3 No open car parking (carports or open at-grade car parking) is permitted

within this zone. Lot 7 (Gen – Y House)

13 Building Height

13.1 The maximum external wall height shall be no greater than 7.2m. 14 Parking


Page 128

14.1 Onsite parking and visitor parking is generally to be provided for in

accordance with the R-codes, however variations may be considered where there is a suitable provision of scooter and bicycle bays and adequate nearby on-street parking.

28

2726

2423

22

16

1514

1312

RO

AD

4 (

LAN

E W

AY)

28

2726

2423

22

16

1514

1312

28

2726

2423

22

16

1514

1312

17

28

2726

25

2423

22

21

20

19

18

16

1514

1312

08

YALG

OO

AVE

NU

E

ROAD 4 (LANE WAY)

1.5M M

IN

3M MIN

2M MIN

6M M

IN

2M M

IN

1.5M M

IN

1.5M M

IN

3M MIN

2M MIN

2M M

IN

1M MIN

1.5M

MIN

2M M

IN

2M M

IN

1M MIN

1M M

IN

2M MIN

1M MIN

RE

TAIN

ING

WA

LL

2M M

IN

09

10

12M MIN

2M MIN

2M MIN

1M M

IN

2M M

IN

1M

1.5M M

IN

1.5M M

IN

T

HOPE STREET

12M MAX FLOOR DEPTH

6M M

IN

2M MIN 2.5M MIN

LOTS 15 & 16 GARAGESETBACK MIN 0.5MPRIMARY FACADE

2M MIN2.5M MIN

LOTS 22-24 GARAGESETBACK MIN 0.5MPRIMARY FACADE

2M MIN

11

2M M

IN

2M MIN

STEVENS STREET

HOPE STREET

YALG

OO

AVE

NU

E

NA

NN

INE

AVE

NU

E

PROJECT NO: PA0757

DATE: 21.08.14

DRAWING NO: LDP-02

REV: 4

Copyright by Urbis Pty ltd. This drawing or parts thereof may not be reproduced for anypurpose without the consent of Urbis Pty Ltd.

This plan is conceptual and is for discussion purposes only. Subject to further detail study,Council approval, engineering input, and survey. Cadastral boundaries, areas anddimensions are approximate only. Figured dimensions shall take preference to scaleddimensions. No relevance should be placed on this plan for any financial dealings of the land.

0 5 10 50m

Scale 1:500 @ A3

PerthLevel 1, 55 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000t 08 9346 0500Urbis Pty Ltd ABN 50 105 256 228

LOCATION PLAN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONSSTEVENS STREETThe provisions below (and accompanying plan) are to be read in accordance with

the relevant design guidelines and planning policies.

SETBACKS

All setbacks in the table below are minimum setbacks unless specified otherwise

Lot 08

LOTNUMBER

FLOORLEVEL

FRONT REAR SIDE 1(E / N)

SIDE 2(W / S)

NOTES

PRECINCT 2

FIGURE 3: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - WHITE GUM VALLEY - PRECINCT 2 (LOTS 08-28)KIM BEAZLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE, LOT 2089 STEVENS STREET, WHITE GUM VALLEY

G.Floor

1st Floor

1m 2m 1m

2m 1m 2m 1m

G.Floor2m 0 (nil)

Lots 09 and 101st Floor 2m 2m 0 (nil)

Lot 12G.Floor

1st Floor

1m (min) 0 (nil) 2m

2m 1m 0 (nil) 2m

Lot 13G.Floor

1st Floor

1m (min)1m G

1.5m 0 (nil)

2m 1m 1.5m 0 (nil)

Lot 14G.Floor

1st Floor

1m1m G

2m 1m

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

0 (nil)

0 (nil)

1.5m

1.5m

Lot 15G.Floor

1st Floor

0 (nil)

6m

1.5m 0 (nil)

0 (nil)

Lot 16

G.Floor

1st Floor

0 (nil)

6m

0 (nil)

0 (nil)

Lots 17-21U/croft

2m- 1m1m G

0 (nil)

G.Floor 2m 0 (nil) 2m 0 (nil)1st Floor 2m nil 3m 0 (nil)

Lot 22G.Floor

1st Floor

0 (nil)

6m

2m 0 (nil)

2m 0 (nil)

Lots 23 and 24G.Floor

1st Floor

0 (nil)

6m

0 (nil)

1.5m 0 (nil)

0 (nil)

Lots 25 and 27

G.Floor

1st Floor1m

0 (nil)

1.5m 0 (nil)

1.5m1m1m G

Lot 26G.Floor

1st Floor 1m

1m1m G

0 (nil)

0 (nil) 1.5m

1.5m

Lot 28G.Floor

1st Floor 1m

1m1m G

0 (nil)

2m

2m

1m

*Note: Residential Density Coding shown for each lot. To be read in conjunction withrelevant policies.

12m2m

2m

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

min 2.5m G

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

min 2.5m G

1.5m

2m

2m

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

R35R60

R35

R35

R35

ENDORSEMENT TABLE

BUILDING ENVELOPE - GROUND FLOOR

BUILDING ENVELOPE - SECOND STOREY

SITE BOUNDARY

This Local Development Plan has been adopted byCouncil and signed by the Principal Planner.

Principal Planner Date

DESIGNATED GARAGE LOCATION

PRIMARY FRONTAGE

BUILDING PRIORITY ZONE

PREFERRED GARAGE LOCATION*


T

TRANSFORMER SITE

LEGEND

2m

2m

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

* Alternative garage locations to those nominated

preferred locations may be permitted if the proposed

location ensures clear sight lines and does not

detract from the streetscape or appearance of

dwellings.

Note:1. G = Garage2. For Lots 15-16 and 22-24, all garages are to be setback a minimum 0.5m

from the primary building facade at the ground floor.

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

0 (nil)

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

min 2.5m G

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

min 2.5m G

2m - 3.5m(min-max)

STEVENS STREET

HOPE STREET

YALG

OO

AVE

NU

E

NA

NN

INE

AVE

NU

E

03

01

02

ROAD 1 (LANE WAY)

RO

AD

2

2M M

IN

2M M

IN

2M MIN

2M M

IN

2M MIN

2M M

IN

REQ.VEHICLE

ENTRANCE

050505

2M MIN

2M M

IN

2.5M MIN

2M MIN

2M MIN

2M MIN

10M MIN

NIL SETBACK ADJ. TOSUMP

07

'GEN Y' HOUSEEXISTING SUMP

2M MIN

04

1.5M

MIN

T

2.5M

MIN

STEVENS STREET

HOPE STREET

LOTS 5 & 6 GARAGESETBACK MIN 0.5MPRIMARY FACADE

06

05

1M M

IN

NIL SETBACK

NIL SETBACK

NIL

SE

TBA

CK

NIL

SE

TBA

CK

FIGURE 2: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - WHITE GUM VALLEY - PRECINCT 1 (LOTS 01-07)KIM BEAZLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE, LOT 2089 STEVENS STREET, WHITE GUM VALLEY

PROJECT NO: PA0757

DATE: 21.08.14

DRAWING NO: LDP-01

REV: 4

Copyright by Urbis Pty ltd. This drawing or parts thereof may not be reproduced for anypurpose without the consent of Urbis Pty Ltd.

This plan is conceptual and is for discussion purposes only. Subject to further detail study,Council approval, engineering input, and survey. Cadastral boundaries, areas anddimensions are approximate only. Figured dimensions shall take preference to scaleddimensions. No relevance should be placed on this plan for any financial dealings of the land.

0 5 10 50m

Scale 1:500 @ A3

PerthLevel 1, 55 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000t 08 9346 0500Urbis Pty Ltd ABN 50 105 256 228

LOCATION PLAN

ENDORSEMENT TABLE

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS

BUILDING ENVELOPE - GROUND FLOOR

BUILDING ENVELOPE - SECOND STOREY

SITE BOUNDARYE

X. B

UIL

DIN

GS

TO B

E R

ETA

INE

D

PRECINCT 1 The provisions below (and accompanying plan) are to be read in accordance with

the relevant design guidelines and planning policies.

SETBACKS

All setbacks in the table below are minimum setbacks unless specified otherwise.

Lot 04

LOTNUMBER

FLOORLEVEL

FRONT REAR SIDE 1(E / N)

SIDE 2(W / S)

NOTES

G.Floor

1st Floor

2m

2m

G.Floor1m 0 (nil)

1st Floor 10m 0 (nil)

Lot 06G.Floor

0 (nil) 2m2.5m G

2m

0 (nil)

0 (nil)

Lot 05

2m2.5m G

2m

0 (nil)2m

0 (nil)

2m2.5m G

1m Nil setback applicable

to lot area adj. to sump.

2m2m 10m

10m

0 (nil)

DESIGNATED GARAGE LOCATION

PRIMARY FRONTAGE

PREFERRED GARAGE LOCATION*

BUILDING PRIORITY ZONE

R60

R80

R60

R40


0 (nil)2m

0 (nil)

Lot 07 See Local Planning Policy Provisions.

T

TRANSFORMER SITE

LEGEND

1st Floor

* Alternative garage locations to those nominated

preferred locations may be permitted if the proposed

location ensures clear sight lines and does not

detract from the streetscape or appearance of

dwellings.

This Local Development Plan has been adopted byCouncil and signed by the Principal Planner.

Principal Planner Date


Page 131

2. Request the Western Australian Planning Commission grant approval under clause 7.3.2 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 to amend or replace the following Residential Design Codes 2013 deemed-to-comply provisions for the following design elements in Local Planning Policy 3.15 - Former Kim Beazley school site - White Gum Valley (LPP3.15):

5.1.4 C4 – Open space

5.3.1 C1.1 and C1.2 – Outdoor living areas

5.3.5 C5.1 – C5.3 – Vehicular access

5.4.1 C1.1 – Visual privacy

5.4.2 C2.1 and C2.2 – Solar access for adjoining sites

6.3.1 C1 – Outdoor living areas

6.3.3 C3.1 – Parking


Page 132

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 133

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 134


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 135


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 136

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.

agenda - fremantle.wa.gov.au · 12/3/2014 · november 2014. the following resolution was made;...

Documents