council minutes - 27 july 2011 - city of fremantle...2011/07/27 · minutes - ordinary meeting of...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 6.00 pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 4

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 4

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 5

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 5

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 5

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 5

TABLED DOCUMENTS 6

LATE ITEMS NOTED 6

COMMITTEE REPORTS 6

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 JULY 2011 6

PSC1107-119 NO. 62 STOCKDALE ROAD (LOT 9), O CONNOR DEFERRED ITEM FOUR, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ADITIONS (JL DA 0630/10) 7

PSC1107-122 COOKE STREET NO. 2 (LOT 98), HILTON, RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR FRONT FENCE TO SINGLE HOUSE (SM DA0216/11) 20

PSC1107-123 SOUTH STREET NO. 1 (LOT 304), SOUTH FREMANTLE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING THREE STOREY SHORT STAY DWELLING' (LP DA0130/11) 26

PSC1107-126 FINAL ADOPTION OF PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.8 NIEGHBOUR MEDIATION 33

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 20 JULY 2011 40

PSC1107-128 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (JWJ DA0258/11) 41

PSC1107-129 THE TERRACE NO.1 (LOT 2095) (FREMANTLE PRISON), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION, INCLUDING PARTIAL DEMOLITION ALTERAITONS AND ADDITIONS (JL/MS DA0557/10) 48

PSC1107-134 CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 58

PSC1107-135 FACILITATION OF AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE HOUSING THROUGH THE PLANNING SYSTEM 86

PSC1107-136 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 46 - SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS 96

PSC1107-137 FINAL ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.13 AND SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 45 - SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 111

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 15 JUNE 2011 122

SGS1106-2 SOUTH TERRACE IMPROVEMENTS WORKING GROUP FINAL REPORT 122

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 13 JULY 2011 127

SGS1107-2 COMMERCIAL RECYCLING SERVICE 128

SGS1107-3 CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF OLD HILTON POLICE STATION 133

SGS1107-4 APPOINTMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER TO THE LIIVNG SMART BOARD 138

SGS1107-5 ADOPTION OF LOW CARBON CITY PLAN FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 141

SGS1107-6 VARIANCE TO BE USED IN MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2011/2012 145

SGS1107-7 AGE FRIENDLY CITY PLAN 149

SGS1107-8 NOTICE OF MOTION - VERGE MOWING ALTERNATIVES POLICY 154

SGS1107-9 NOTICE OF MOTION - STATE BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENTS 157

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 161

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 161

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 161

C1107-2 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT TO 30 JUNE 2011 161

COUNCIL ITEMS 165

C1107-3 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT JUNE 2011 166

C1107-4 ADOPTION OF MEETING DATES 170

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 172

CLOSURE OF MEETING 172

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

ATTACHMENT 1 2

ATTACHMENT 2 8

ATTACHMENT 3 14

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 July 2011

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 27 July 2011 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Mr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Robert Fittock North Ward Cr Donna Haney City Ward Cr Tim Grey-Smith City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr John Dowson East Ward (departed 9.10pm) Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Georgie Adeane South Ward (departed 9.10pm) Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Mr Phillip Gale Acting Director Technical Services Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Services Mr Paul Garbett Manager Projects and Policy Mr Andrew Eastick Manager Economic Development Ms Agnieshka Kiera City Heritage Architect Mr Ian James Urban Design Planner Mr Joseph Zappavigna Acting Coordinator Environmental Health Mr Alex Hyndman Sustainability Officer Miss Jodie Carruthers Minute Secretary


Page 2

There were approximately 19 members of the public and 2 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Cr John Alberti Beaconsfield Ward

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Doug Thompson Deputy Mayor / North Ward

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Summary of Comments by Rod Murray

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-128 requesting the exhaust fan be increased in height. Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-134 in favour of the item being deferred back to the Working Group. Spoke in relation to item SGS1107-2 expressing the many great recommendations that came out of the Working Group Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be dealt with in the debate of each item.

Summary of Question by June Hutchinson

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-134. Why have Council not set a height limit in this area (particularly King Square)? Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be dealt with in debate of the item.


Page 3

Summary of Question by Natalie Arnold

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-128 requesting that Council make it compulsory that the exhaust fan is moved by the restaurant. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be dealt with during debate of the item. Summary of Question by Sue Templeton

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-128 stating that moving the exhaust fan by six metres will not solve the problems neighbouring properties are having with the fan. Summary of Response from Joseph Zappavigna

The current location of the fan is compliant with health regulations and the new location will also be compliant. Summary of Question by Nicolas Gurr

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-134. What benefits will be provided to the City by foregoing height restrictions? Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Your question will be dealt with during debate of the item. Summary of Comment by Ralph Hoare

Spoke in relation to PSC1107-134 against the discretionary height limits. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comment will be addressed during debate of the item. Summary of Comment by Ray Killeen

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-119 against the proposal Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be addressed during debate of the item. Summary of \Comment by Henry Miller

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-119 against the proposal. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be addressed during debate of the item. Summary of Comment by Bernard Seeber

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-119 in favour of the proposal. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be addressed during debate of the item.


Page 4

Summary of Comment by Marisa Winfield


Comments will be addressed during debate of the item. Summary of Comment by Jessie Pallett


Comments will be addressed during debate of the item. Summary of Comment by David Endersby (Housing Industry Association).

Spoke in relation to PSC1107-136 in favour of the proposal. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Thanked Mr Endersby for his comments on the matter.

Summary of Comments by Cathy Hall

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-134 in support of June Hutchinson's comments. Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-129 in support of a deferral of the item. Spoke in relation to item SGS1107-2 in support of the proposal. Spoke in relation to item SGS1107-5 in support of the proposal. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt Comments will be addressed during debate of each item. Summary of Comment by Suzanne John

Spoke in relation to item PSC1107-134 against height restrictions not being defined. Summary of Response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Comments will be addressed during debate of the item.

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr S Wainwright declared a proximity interest in item number PSC1107-119.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.


Page 5

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr Bill Massie - Represented the Mayor at the Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme. - Represented the Mayor at the Red Cross Blood Donation Presentation. Cr Sam Wainwright

- Represented the Mayor at the NAIDOC Week Opening Ceremony.

- Thankyou to the CEO for agreeing to the suggestion that an event be held to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Warrawee Women's Refuge.

- Made mention of the pro-democracy protest in Malaysia.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 22 June 2011 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Mayor, Brad Pettitt wished to acknowledge the passing away of Ruth Durack earlier in the month.

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Cr John Dowson - Personal attack against him by Peter Nolin Was the recipient of a personal attack by Peter Nolin against Cr Dowson which he found to be very hurtful.


Page 6

TABLED DOCUMENTS

- Additional Documents (Attachment 1) - Dissenting Report on Permitted Heights in Eastern CBD Area (Attachment 2) - Memorandum - Amended Recommendation on Item SGS1106-2 South Terrace Working Group (Attachment 3)

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 JULY 2011

Cr J Dowson vacated the chamber at 6.52 pm during the following item and returned at 6.55 pm after determination. Cr A Sullivan moved en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1107-123 and PSC1107-126. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 7

At 6.58 pm Cr S Wainwright declared a proximity interest in item number PSC1107-119 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

PSC1107-119 NO. 62 STOCKDALE ROAD (LOT 9), O CONNOR DEFERRED ITEM FOUR, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ADITIONS (JL DA 0630/10)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1104-77 (20 April 2011) Attachment 1: Amended Development Plans Attachment 2: Original PSC Report Date Received: 6 December 2010 Owner Name: Jason Townes Submitted by: Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Site Use Class: Residential Building Use Permissibility: A


Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting held 20 April 2011, the Planning Service Committee (the Committee) resolved to defer the matter to the next appropriate Committee meeting, ‘to allow the applicant to address the items listed in the officer's report’. The original application was not supported as the proposed development and ‘Residential Building’ use was not considered to adhere to the objectives (Residential Zone) of Clause 4.2 and several provisions of Clause 10.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. On 13 June 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans, which ultimately reconfigured the original two, two storey residential development into four smaller two storey building elements. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed a reduction from 24 bedrooms to 21 bedrooms, although the total maximum number of occupants for the development has not altered and remains at 24. Additionally, on 20 and 22 June 2011 the applicant submitted additional information by way of signed letters and signed copies of amended development plans indicated 12 supporting submissions to the proposed development. Additionally, since the Committee deferred this item, one of the original three submitters raising concerns to the proposed development has formally withdrawn their submission. The application is again referred to the Committee as the amended development requires discretionary decisions of Council in relation to the proposed ‘Residential Building’ use and subsequent proposed relaxation for on-site car parking bays, and the City still has submissions which have raised several concerns which cannot be addressed via relevant planning conditions. On balance the amended application is recommended for refusal as it’s considered contrary to the Residential zone objectives of Clause 4.2.1 (a) as the level of density proposed for the ‘Residential Building’ use is considered too intense in comparison to the existing residential character of O‘Connor. BACKGROUND

For a copy of the detailed background information regarding this application and subject site see the ‘Attachment 2’ of for the copy of the previous report. DETAILS On 13 June 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans, which propose the following key amendments:

Reconfigured building layout. The original two, two storey residential development has been designed into four smaller two storey building elements.

The applicant is proposing a reduction from 24 bedrooms to 21 bedrooms (18 single bed bedrooms and 3 double bed bedrooms with associated en-suites), with the total maximum number of occupants for the development remaining the same at 24,


Page 9

Increased northern and southern boundary setbacks for the development from 1.5m to 3 and 4.5m respectively,

Increasing the open space and landscaping provision on site,

Reduction in overall building height up to 300mm, and

Reconfiguration and reduction of onsite car bays from 16 bays to 14.

See ‘Attachment 1’ of this report for a copy of amended development plans. CONSULTATION

Community

The amended application was not required to be re-advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. A summary of the original submissions can be viewed in ‘Attachment 2’ in the original Committee report. As stated above, on 20 and 22 June 2011, the applicant submitted additional information by way of signed letters and signed copies of amended development plans indicating 12 supporting submissions to the proposed amended development.

Four of the supporting submissions are from nearby residents to an existing Residential Building at Winterfold House).

One submission is from Foundation Housing and another from Shelter WA.

Three of the supporting submissions are from nearby residents to the subject site, and

The remaining three submissions coming from other residents within the City of Fremantle.

Furthermore since the Committee last dealt with this application one of the original three objecting submitters to the original application has withdrawn their submission. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The amended development plans have been assessed against the same statutory provisions as the original application and the applicant is seeking the same variation as originally proposal, which are:

‘Residential Building’ being a discretionary use (‘A’ use) under the LPS4, and

Relaxation for on-site car parking provisions of 5.7.3 of LPS4. Further discussion relating to these maters will be included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

As summarised in the original Committee report the key elements of the original proposal that required Council’s consideration were relation to;


Page 10

Whether the proposed ‘Residential Building’ use and development is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.2.1 (a) – Residential zone of LPS4, and

Whether the proposed development and use satisfies the matters outlined in clause 10.2 – Matters to be considered by Council.

However, whilst it’s noted that the same discretionary decisions are sought of Council in determining this amended proposal, the key issue that needs to be addressed is whether the proposed density for the ‘Residential Building’ use is too intense for this site and its immediate residential character. A mentioned in the previous report, the subject site has an R20 density coding under LPS4, and although the R-Coding is not applicable for assessing ‘Residential Building’ design provisions, this R20 density provision will be used as guidance in terms of assessing the compatibility of proposed use’s intensity and it’s compatibly with the surrounding density of the existing residential character of this area of O‘Connor. As part of the amended plans the applicant is proposing to reduce the number of bedrooms form 24 to 21 (including 3 Double bedrooms), however the total number of original occupants proposed to occupy the development still remains at 24. Whilst the proposed deign amendments to the built form are considered significant improvements to the overall development, this key issue still remains unaddressed. Again it is acknowledged that such uses as ‘Residential Buildings’ typically incorporate density’s that are greater than that commonly associated with single residential dwellings. Furthermore it’s also important to note that such Residential Building developments have for many years and still are operating within close proximity to existing residential uses throughout the Fremantle District (Stella Maris building, Ocean view Lodge and Winterfold House). Furthermore, with the required provision of an onsite manager, its envisaged that any future issues which may arise would be dealt with immediately and efficiently. Taking the above into account, Council may be of the opinion to support the proposed density of the ‘Residential Building’ as the level of intensity is manageable and fundamentally will result in no or limited detrimental impacts to the existing amenity of adjoining residential properties or the immediate area. However, as the proposed level of density for the development is greater than that of adjoining residential sites, it’s considered that the proposed development does have the potential to detrimentally impact the existing amenity of adjoining residential properties, therefore making the development contrary to the objectives of clause 4.2.1 (a) of LPS4. Built Form & Streetscape The proposed amended development has been assessed against and is complaint with all relevant L.P.P3.8 O’Connor Local Planning Area Policy development requirements, particularly regarding siting and building height requirements R-Code provisions, except for visual privacy.


Page 11

Although the original design was also compliant with these development requirements it was not considered to be of traditional form or sympathetic with the existing single residential character of this immediate area of O’Connor due to:

The buildings lacked visual interaction between the street and the development itself,

Both buildings provided a minimal level of surveillance of Stockdale Road, and

Overall, the original proposed development was not considered to address Stockdale Road in a traditional residential manner.

The applicant has redesigned the facades of the proposed development to now incorporate glazing on both the ground and upper floors of both facades of the Residential Buildings. Additionally the applicant has deleted two of the original hardstand car parking bays from the front southern side setback area and included additional significant landscaping which will help soften any streetscape impacts the development is envisaged to create. Other changes which the applicant proposes which are considered positive amendments in helping alleviate building bulk impacts on adjoining properties include:

Reducing the overall building heights of the development by 300mm,

increased northern side setback from 1.5m to 3m for the majority of new front building and 1.5m to 4.5m for the entire northern side of the new rear building,

increased setback for a major portion of the southern boundary setback for the new proposed front building from 1.5m to 3m,

Redesigning the onsite car parking to be screened adequate from the street and adjoining properties by the new building layout,

Increasing the landscaping provisions from 17% (200m2) to 27.5% (315m2), on site, and

Increasing the shade trees provisions of site from 15 to 21. Overall, the original skillion and two storey design remain the same and although the appearance of the development from the street is still considered simplistic, it presence would resemble a residential built form that is more compatible with the existing character of the area. Ultimately, these proposed alterations help improve the streetscape presence of the development, which adequately address the City’s original concerns regarding streetscape impacts. Submitter concerns The original submitter concerns raised regarding loss of views, loss of daylight, noise, antisocial behaviour have all been addressed in the original planning report and have not been effected as a result of the amened plans. However, the following original concerns raised need to be revisited:

Visual privacy,


Page 12

Again, it’s acknowledged that the amended development would allow for overlooking of the northern, eastern and western adjoining properties to occur from the upper floor bedroom windows, however if the development were to be supported, an appropriate screening condition could also be included to address this matter.

Excessive building bulk and scale (visual pollution) Again, the amended development has been assessed against and is compliant with the prescribed development requirements of L.P.P3.8 including building height, site coverage, setbacks and plot ratio. Furthermore, the redesign and reconfiguration of the development into four smaller buildings is considered to be a positive amendment as it a reasonable built form which is more compatible and comparable to the existing residential built form of the immediate locality in comparison to the original proposed two elongated buildings. The proposed alterations to the car parking layout and on site landscaping provisions are also considered appropriate amendments which would help soften the proposed development into its existing residential landscape. Ultimately, these design amendments are considered to significantly help reduce any visual amenity impacts on adjoining residential properties in terms of excessive building bulk and scale and streetscape appearance. Car Parking Clause 5.7.1 and ‘Table 3 – Vehicle Parking’

LPS4 Requirement Proposed Variation

Residential Building Car Parking Bays 1 car parking space per guest bedroom plus; 1 car parking bay per caretaker/ onsite manager. Total = Car Parking Bays – 21 car bays Delivery bay 1 service/ storage area Total = 1 Delivery Bay Bicycle Racks 1: 4 lodging rooms Total = 6 Bicycle Racks

14 Car Bays 2 Motorcycle Bays Nil 0 Bicycle racks

7 Car Parking Bay shortfall 1 Delivery Bay shortfall 6 Bicycle Racks


Page 13

Again, if this application were being recommended for approval, this variation is considered supportable under the provisions of clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 with the imposition of a condition requiring 6 Bicycle racks to be provided on site, as the site is within close proximity to both arterial public transport routes (South Street) and essential shopping facilities (Hilton Shopping Precinct). CONCLUSION On balance the application is not supported as the proposed Residential Building use is not considered to satisfy the prescribed objectives for a Residential zone under Clause 4.2.1 (a), as the level of intensity proposed for the use is not considered compatible with the existing low residential density to adjoining sites. Consequently the application is recommended for refusal. Should it be considered however that the development is supportable, the following without prejudice approval conditions are recommended: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Construction of Four, Two Storey Residential Buildings at No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 13 June 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

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

3. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan shall be

submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 10.8.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The plan shall include 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).

4. Prior to occupation, landscaping as indicated on the approved plan shall be

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

5. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the northern elevation of bedroom

marked SOU12 on approved plans dated 13 June 2011, shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6m above the upper floor level of alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres as determined from the internal floor level.

6. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the eastern elevation of bedroom



Page 14

7. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the southern elevation of bedroom marked SOU19 on approved plans dated 13 June 2011, shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6m above the upper floor level of alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres as determined from the internal floor level.

8. 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.

9. 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.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Construction of Four, Two Storey Residential Buildings at No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 13 June 2011, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is zoned and Clause 4.2.1 (a) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4, as the development does not;

a. Safeguard and enhance the amenity of the residential area of O’Connor

by ensuring that the land use and development is sympathetic and compatible with the residential character of O’Connor.

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

clause 10.2 of Local Planning Scheme No.4 by reasons of:

a. The proposal is not consistent with the residential zoning objectives of Clause 4.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4, and

b. The intensity of the proposed use is not sympathetic or compatible with the existing adjoining residential Single House’s.


Page 15

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Construction of Four, Two Storey Residential Buildings at No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions:



3. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan shall be

submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 10.8.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The plan shall include 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).



5. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the northern elevation of bedroom


6. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the eastern elevation of bedroom


7. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the southern elevation of bedroom




Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following advice note: The Applicant is advised that Council would support increasing the rear setback of the building in the north eastern corner to 4.5m and the subsequent loss of one car parking bay


Page 16

CARRIED: 5/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr John Dowson

Cr Bill Massie

Cr J Dowson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following advice note: That the applicant be advised that Council encourages the retention of mature trees on site. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Bill Massie Cr John Dowson

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Construction of Four, Two Storey Residential Buildings at No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions:



3. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan

shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 10.8.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The plan shall include 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).


Page 17

4. Prior to occupation, landscaping as indicated on the approved plan shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the northern elevation of

bedroom marked SOU12 on approved plans dated 13 June 2011, shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6m above the upper floor level of alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres as determined from the internal floor level.

6. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the eastern elevation of


7. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the southern elevation of




9. Advice Note

10. The Applicant is advised that Council would support increasing the rear

setback of the building in the north eastern corner to 4.5m and the subsequent loss of one car parking bay

11. That the applicant be advised that Council encourages the retention of

mature trees on site. CARRIED: 4/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Bill Massie Cr John Dowson

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


Page 18

Cr B Massie moved an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

9) Access to No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O'Connor shall be from Stockdale Road only as indicated on the approved plan.

SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Dave Coggin

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To restrict access to Stockdale Road only, as per the approved plan. COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr Andrew Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Construction of Four, Two Storey Residential Buildings at No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions:



3. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan

shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 10.8.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The plan shall include 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).


Page 19



5. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the northern elevation of


6. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the eastern elevation of


7. Prior to occupation, the upper floor window on the southern elevation of




9. Access to No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O'Connor shall be from Stockdale

Road only as indicated on the approved plan.

10. Advice Note

11.The Applicant is advised that Council would support increasing the rear setback of the building in the north eastern corner to 4.5m and the subsequent loss of one car parking bay

12.That the applicant be advised that Council encourages the retention of

mature trees on site.

SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 6/4

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith

Cr John Dowson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie


Page 20

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

PSC1107-122 COOKE STREET NO. 2 (LOT 98), HILTON, RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR FRONT FENCE TO SINGLE HOUSE (SM DA0216/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Strategic Planner Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Retrospective Planning Application and variation

justification report Date Received: 3 May 2011 Owner Name: Cameron Maher and Wendy Konowalow Submitted by: Cameron Maher and Wendy Konowalow Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: "Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct" Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Planning Services Committee for determination as it requires a discretionary decision under Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.7 "Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct" Heritage Area (LPP3.7) and is a retrospective application. Planning Approval is sought for a retrospective primary and secondary street fence addition to the existing Single House at No. 2 Cooke Street, Hilton (the subject site). The application has been assessed against the requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes) and Council’s LPP3.7 "Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct" Heritage Area. The proposed development requires a discretionary decision under LPP3.7 with respect to:

Street fences forward of the building line shall be a maximum height of 1.2 metres and visually permeable above 300 millimetres

Overall, the development is considered to satisfy the discretionary requirements set out within LPP3.7. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Residential under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) LPS4 and has a split density coding of R20/R25. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List though is located within the "Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct" Heritage Area as designated in accordance with LPS4. The site is approximately 756m² and is located on the Corner of Cooke and Collick Street, Hilton. The site has a north-south orientation and is improved by an existing single storey Single House. Both the western and southern elevations have a gentle sloping topography downwards towards the corner truncation. On 15 December 2010, the Western Australian Planning Commission endorsed a deposited plan to subdivide 2 Cooke Street, Hilton, (refer WAPC1140-10) into two survey strata lots. The house on the subject site, the front fence and the majority of the secondary street fence will be a part of proposed Lot 1. The front part of the house may be used for the purpose of proposed Lot 1’s outdoor living area in the future. As yet the conditions of approval have not been cleared. DETAILS On 3 May 2011, after an unapproved fence was bought to the City’s attention and the applicant was informed in writing, 23 February 2011, of the unapproved works, the City received a development application for a retrospective Primary and Secondary Street fence addition to the existing Single House at No. 2 Cooke Street, Hilton.


Page 22

The primary street fence as existing facing Cooke Street is solid for 400mm to 900mm in height at the base and 1.9m to 2.2m to the top of the 1.5m spaced piers. The applicant however, as part of the retrospective application, proposes removing the existing top limestone block from the piers, making the fence 1.2m to 1.8m in height to the top of the piers. This will reduce the height of the primary street fence to 1.25m in the lowest part to 1.8m at the highest. The applicant proposes bar infill panels which will give 89% visual permeability. Planter boxes are proposed to go inside the fence line to provide soft landscaping in the streetscape and privacy for future residents. The secondary street fence facing Collick Street is solid colourbond on top of limestone brick for 18.58m in length and due to the slope varies in height from 1.8m to 2.2m. The application has been assessed against and satisfies LPS4, the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the R-Codes and all relevant Council Local Planning Policies, except in relation to:

LPP3.7 "Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct" Heritage Area Further assessment and discussion is contained in the ‘Planning Section’ of this report. CONSULTATION

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is for a retrospective front fence. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 June 2011, the City had received no submissions. PLANNING COMMENT

The application has been assessed against and satisfies the requirements of the City’s LPS4 and the R-Codes. The development requires a discretionary decision under LPP3.7 with respect to:

Street fences forward of the building line shall be a maximum height of 1.2 metres and visually permeable above 300 millimetres

Primary Street fence

Required Provided

1.5.1 Maximum height of 1.2m and

visually permeable above 300 millimetres.

Primary Street 400mm to 900mm limestone base, visually permeable above this with limestone piers every 1.5m from 1.25m to 1.8m in height

Under the City’s LPP3.7 Council may, at its discretion, vary the requirements of clause 1.5.1 where it is satisfied that the proposed street wall and/or fence is consistent with the street walls and/or fencing within the prevailing streetscape (the adjoining three properties facing Cooke Street shall be considered. Greater weight is given to the immediately adjoining property) and the proposed fence maintains clear surveillance between the street and the dwelling.


Page 23

The fences in Cooke Street are generally of low and open construction. There is one fence on the opposite side of the street to the subject site that is of solid construction above 1.2m in height. The immediately adjoining property’s front fence at 4 Cooke Street has a fence with 1.2m high pillars stepping down the slope and visually permeable above approximately 500mm to 600mm with wooden picket infill. Number 6 Cooke Street does not have a fence and No. 8 Cooke Street has a low solid fence to approximately 800mm. The fence subject to this application (with the top limestone blocks removed), while it does not step down the slope, is in keeping with the immediately adjoining property’s fence. The fence will be the same height (1.2m high) where it adjoins the neighbouring property’s fence and, due to the sloping site, will be 1.8m high at the highest point on the corner of Cooke and Collick Street. The bottom solid part of the fence, where it adjoins the neighbouring fence will be lower (approximately 400mm) than the adjoining fence and gradually get higher as the natural ground level slopes down (900mm). The inclusion of the steel bars on the fence ensures clear surveillance between the street and the dwelling is maintained. Accordingly, the primary street fence is recommended for approval. Secondary Street fence Under Schedule 15 of LPS4 fences in the Secondary Street setback area are permitted without planning approval up to 1.8m. The existing limestone brick with colourbond on top secondary street fence is 1.8m to 2.2m in height. The variation is a slight 400mm over a distance of 18.58m and necessary due to the topography of the site. Accordingly, the secondary street fence is recommended for approval. Local Planning Policy 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Notwithstanding the assessment above these retrospective works are not considered ‘trivial’ or ‘insignificant’ and the unauthorised works, confirmed 23 February 2011, are considered committed within policy’s timeframe (6 month period). Therefore, even though the works are recommended for conditional approval, it is recommended that Council issue an infringement notice in accordance with clause 4.5(b) of the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance. CONCLUSION The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council Local Planning Policies. The application has been assessed against the discretionary requirements and proposes a height variation to LPP3.7. Due to the existing fences in the area being of similar height to the proposed fence it is considered there is precedence in the prevailing streetscape for a variation to LPP3.7’s fence heights. It is also considered that the fence, being of a visually permeable nature, provides surveillance between the dwelling and the street. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved with conditions.


Page 24

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan A. That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Front Fence to an Existing Single House at No. 2 (Lot 38) Cooke Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the Primary and Secondary Street Fence addition as indicated on the approved plans dated 3 May 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan B. The Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle is to issue an infringement

notice to the alleged offender in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s LPP 1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance.

CARRIED: 4/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie

Cr A Sullivan used his casting vote FOR the recommendation resulting in it being CARRIED. The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 25

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

B. The Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle is to issue an infringement notice to the alleged offender in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s LPP 1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance.


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Georgie Adeane Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie


Page 26

The following item number PSC1107-123 was moved and carried en bloc earlier in the meeting.

PSC1107-123 SOUTH STREET NO. 1 (LOT 304), SOUTH FREMANTLE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING THREE STOREY SHORT STAY DWELLING' (LP DA0130/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachment 1: Development Plans (22 March 2011) Attachment 2: Site Photos Attachment 3: Applicant’s submission of justification (30 May 2011) Date Received: 22 March 2011 Owner Name: V.L. Viney & P. Quartermaine (Joint Tennants) Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: Nil Heritage Area: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Residential Use Class: Short Stay Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for consideration as the nature of the proposed works present variations that cannot be resolved by means of planning conditions. Specifically, Planning Approval is sought for the construction of residential additions to the third floor of the existing three storey ‘Short Stay Dwelling’ at No. 1 South Street, South Fremantle. These additions would comprise of a new studio, ensuite and walk-in-robe built to the rear of the existing roof top garden and within the ‘corbel’ frame of the three storey dwelling. The applicant seeks approval for the following variation to the provisions of Council Policy D.G.S.5 – Wills Transport Site 122 Marine Terrace & 3 South Street, South Fremantle (D.G.S.5):

Building Height The application was advertised for public comment in accordance with clause 9.4 of the City’s LPS4 and the provisions of Council Policy L.P.P 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals (L.P.P. 1.3). At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 April 2011, the City had received no submissions. Council Policy D.G.S.5 does not prescribe circumstances where Council may exercise its discretion to vary the provisions of the policy. Further, it is considered that the proposed additions would result in the overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, it is recommended that on balance the application be refused. BACKGROUND

The property at No. 1 (Lot 304) South Street, South Fremantle (subject site) is zoned ‘Residential’ in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s (the City’s) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and has a density coding of R35. The subject site is not identified by the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) however the property is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area, which is a designated Heritage Area adopted in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site encompasses a total lot area of approximately 329m² and is located on the corner of South Street (primary street) and Marine Terrace (secondary street). The site also abuts Yuna Lane to the rear (south), where the site maintains vehicular access. The site is improved by an existing three store dwelling with loft, roof top garden and open framed ‘corbel’ which has a maximum external wall height of approximately 10m (refer Attachment 2). On 7 November 2007 the Council resolved to issue planning approval for the construction of the existing three storey dwelling with roof top garden and open framed ‘corbel’. On 20 July 2010 the City also issued approval for the site to be used for the purposes of ‘short term accommodation’ (i.e. accommodation for less than 3 months) for not more than 6 occupants.


Page 28

The site is located within sub area 4.3.3 of Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle. The site is also subject to the design guidelines of Council Policy D.G.S.5 - Wills Transport Site 122 Marine Terrace & 3 South Street, South Fremantle (D.G.S.5), which limits the heights of development to 6m (including roof heights) within 12m of the rear of the property. Notwithstanding, the existing open-framed ‘corbel’ located over the rear of the roof top garden has been approved to a height of 10m and within 12m from the rear boundary. At its meeting of 7 November 2007 the Planning Services the height variation of this ‘corbel’ structure in the opinion that: “[T]he corbel creates an open visually permeable area, which will not significantly restrict any views, but still creates a well proportionate building..” It is now proposed to fill in the corbel structure with a third storey to the rear of the Short Stay Dwelling (within 12 from the rear boundary) and to be occupied as a ‘studio’. The details of which are discussed in the body of the report below. DETAILS On 22 March 2011, the City received a development application for the construction of a studio addition to the existing three storey ‘Short Stay Dwelling” at No. 1 South Street, South Fremantle. Specifically, the proposed works comprise of the following elements:

The construction of a studio addition above the existing roof top garden space and within the frame of the existing 10m high ‘corbel’ structure to the rear of the site. The proposed studio would occupy approximately 44m2 total floor area and be connected to the dwelling’s third storey via the proposed 5m x 1.2m passageway, also to be developed to a maximum wall height of 10m;

The development plans dated 22 March 2011 (refer Attachment 1) were assessed against and satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ provisions of the Residential Design Codes (the R-Codes), the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and the relevant planning policies of the City, with the exception of the following:

Building Height (Local Council Policy D.G.S.5) CONSULTATION Community

The original development plans dated 11 March 2011 were required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the City’s LPS4 and the provisions of Council Policy L.P.P 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals (L.P.P. 1.3). At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 April 2011, the City had received no submissions.


Page 29

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Building Height City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) The subject site is located within sub area 4.3.3 of Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle. Pursuant to the height restrictions of schedule 12 of LPS4, for development located within sub area 4.3.3, buildings located along Marine Terrace between South Street and Scott Street are to be developed as follows: “Building height shall be limited to a maximum of three storeys (maximum external wall height of 10 metres as measures from ground level with a maximum roof plain pitch of 33 degrees)”. Local Council Policy D.G.S.5 – Wills Transport Site – 122 Marine Terrace and 3 South Street, South Fremantle The relevant development standards for lots within the D.G.S.5 policy area and along South Street are detailed below. Building

Lot 1 to be 3 storey development to the street (South Street). Height limit in accordance with Area C standards of the Residential Design Codes.

Height limit 6m (including height of roofs) within 12m of rear boundary. As stated, the subject lot, identified as ‘lot 1’ under D.G.S.5, is capable of development to a maximum height of 3 storeys fronting South Street in accordance with ‘Area C’ standards of the Residential Design Codes (i.e. 10m wall height (concealed roof) and 12m roof height). This is consistent with the height limitations prescribed under Schedule 12 of LPS4 for development located within sub area 4.3.4. Notwithstanding, Council Policy D.G.S.5 further limits development heights of properties fronting South Street to 6m within 12m of the rear boundary. Local Council Policy D.G.F.16 – Marine Terrace Policy The relevant clauses of this policy state: “1.1. The general character of the area should be distinctly inner urban. 1.2 Marine Terrace should act as a seafront boulevard and a formal gateway entrance to

the city. 1.3 Development should be 'hard edged' relating directly to the street, both on the

horizontal and vertical planes. Development should be of a scale appropriate to its setting and serve to close off the ends of the streetblocks abutting Marine Terrace. Incongruous isolated developments, and the overdevelopment of individual sites, will not be supported.”

The above development objective is discussed with reference to the subject application in the ‘planning comment’ section below.


Page 30

PLANNING COMMENT

Building Height As discussed above, the applicant seeks Planning Approval for the below variation: Building Height (Local Council Policy D.G.S.5) Required Proposed Variation

Maximum height (including roof height) to 6m within 12m from the rear boundary

Third storey addition with maximum external wall height of 10m within 12m from the rear boundary

4m external wall height

The subject site is located within sub area 4.3.3 of Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle. Irrespective of the abovementioned height limitations prescribed within Local Council Policy D.G.S.5 (i.e. 6m maximum height within 12m from rear boundary), Schedule 12 of LPS4 permits building heights within sub are 4.3.3 to a maximum of three storeys and with no reference to height limitations within 12m from the rear boundary. As stated: “Building height shall be limited to a maximum of three storeys (maximum external wall height of 10 metres as measures from ground level with a maximum roof plain pitch of 33 degrees)”. In this case, it is recognised that Council has previously exercised its discretion in allowing three storeys fronting South Street and with a loft addition contained wholly within this roof space. The previous approval cited the following reasons to vary the height requirements of DGS5:

1. to allow for a distinguishable landmark feature, in the essence of an entry statement, at the corner of Marine Terrace and South Street.

2. the ‘corbel’ creates an open and visually permeable space that adds to a well proportioned building. That is, the corbel adds substance and integrates the southern part of the development which would otherwise appear disproportionate to the northern element fronting South Street.

Although the proposal generally meets the objectives of DGF 16 as the development is consistent with other 3 storey buildings in the area and serves to close off the ends of the street block abutting Marine Terrace, the variation on balance should not be supported for the following reason:

Although it is acknowledged that there are some 3 storey developments in the area, the majority of properties in this street block adhere to the 6.0m height limit within 12.0m of the rear boundary.


Page 31

CONCLUSION

Although it is acknowledged that there are other 3 storey developments in the area and the proposal generally meets the scheme and DGF 16 requirements, the proposal is contrary to the building height and design requirements prescribed by Council Policy D.G.S.5. Accordingly, it is recommended that on balance, the application be refused. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the construction of studio additions to the existing three storey ‘Short Stay Dwelling’ at No. 1 (Lot 304) South Street, South Fremantle, for the following reason: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle Council Policy D.G.S.5 with

respect to building height and the objectives of the City of Fremantle Council Policy D.G.F.16.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the construction of studio additions to the existing three storey ‘Short Stay Dwelling’ at No. 1 (Lot 304) South Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 22 March 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


CARRIED: 5/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr John Dowson

Cr A Sullivan requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Mayor, Brad Pettitt.


Page 32

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the construction of studio additions to the existing three storey ‘Short Stay Dwelling’ at No. 1 (Lot 304) South Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 22 March 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.



For Against



Page 33


PSC1107-126 FINAL ADOPTION OF PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.8 NIEGHBOUR MEDIATION

DataWorks Reference: 117/045 Meeting Date 6 July 2011 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Manager Development Services Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC 20 April 2011 and Council 27 April 2011 Attachment 1: Report to PSC 20 April 2011 and Council 27 April 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed modification of LPP 1.8 Neighbour Mediation was advertised in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. Two submissions were received during the consultation period. One submission was from a government department stating no comment. The other was from the Beaconsfield Precinct Group who primarily made comments in relation to the public consultation requirements relating to development applications. The proposed policy does not relate to the public advertising of development applications but dispute resolution between neighbours. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the local planning policy in accordance with clause 2.4.2 (b) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 April 2011 Council resolved to adopt draft LPP 1.8 Neighbour Mediation for the purpose of advertising. In summary the purpose of the policy is to clarify circumstances where it may be appropriate for Council to defer the consideration of a minor planning related matter for neighbours to attend mediation paid for by the City. The report considered at the April 2011 meeting is attached for background information. STATUTORY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Clause 2.4 of LPS4 allows Council to formulate a local planning policy and outlines the procedure that by which this must occur.


Page 34

CONSULTATION The draft local planning policy was advertised in accordance with clauses 2.4 of LPS4 and local planning policy, LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals via:

1. Advertisement in a local newspaper for 2 consecutive weeks detailing where the policy can be inspected, the subject and nature of the draft policy and closing date of the 28 day advertising period;

2. Listing on the City’s web site; 3. Referral to precinct groups; and 4. Referral to various government departments including the State Administrative

Tribunal, Western Australian Local Government Association, Department of Local Government, Western Australian Planning Commission and the State Ombudsman.

Clause 2.4.2 of LPS4 requires the Council to consider any submissions received during its determination of the local planning policy. During the consultation period two submissions were received. One submission was from the Department of Local Government stating no comment. The other was from the Beaconsfield Precinct Group who primarily made comments in relation to the public consultation requirements relating to development applications rather than the proposed Neighbour Mediation policy that relates to dispute resolution. The following specific issues (summarised) were raised by the precinct group:

ISSUE OFFICER COMMENT

1. Not enough consultation occurs beyond ‘adjacent properties’.

This is not relevant to the proposed Neighbour Mediation policy.

2. The owners should not be responsible for communicating development proposal to neighbours.

As above.

3. A sign on site and letters to all nearby residences should be required.

As above.

4. Council can lead mediation sessions to resolve issues and if a stalemate occurs then take the issue to Planning Services Committee and/or full Council.

The purpose of this policy is to outline

circumstances where it may be appropriate

for Council to defer the consideration of a

minor planning related matter and invite

neighbours to attend mediation conducted

by a qualified professional mediator at the

cost of the City. The planning application

process is not designed nor is the

appropriate mechanism to resolve

neighbour disputes.

Based on the above comments it is considered that no changes are required to draft planning policy.


Page 35

CONCLUSION The proposed policy was advertised in accordance with LPS4. Two submissions were received during the consultation period. One submission was from a government department stating no comment. The other was from the Beaconsfield Precinct Group who primarily made comments in relation to the public consultation requirements relating to development applications. The proposed policy does not relate to the public advertising of development applications but dispute resolution between neighbours. No changes are proposed to the advertised policy. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the local planning policy in accordance with clause 2.4.2 (b) of LPS4. COMMITTEE/OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council resolve to adopt the draft local planning policy, LPP1.8 Neighbour Mediation, as detailed below in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 1.8

NEIGHBOUR MEDIATION

ADOPTION DATE: 27 July 2011 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 BACKGROUND

1. The Council encourages neighbours to resolve issues of dispute between themselves in a constructive and neighbourly way. Council also wishes to ensure that the planning and building approvals and compliance regime is not used in such a manner as to aggravate tension between neighbours.

2 The Council has a statutory obligation to uphold the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme, and to deal with applications and compliance matters effectively and efficiently. These obligations need to be balanced against the fact that statutory decision making is not always the most appropriate way to resolve issues between neighbours, and in many cases it is preferable that neighbours develop their own solutions to local issues as opposed to one imposed by a planning authority.

3. The purpose of this policy is to outline circumstances where it may be appropriate for Council to defer the consideration of a minor planning related matter and invite neighbours to attend mediation conducted by a qualified professional mediator at the cost of the City.


Page 36

POLICY

1. The Council may determine in a particular case that a planning issue that has arisen, either as a result of a planning application or a compliance issue, is causing a dispute between neighbours, the planning application and/or compliance action may be deferred for a period of a maximum of up to 2 months to enable the parties to attend mediation.

2. Council will meet the costs of up to 3 mediation sessions conducted by a professional mediator appointed by the City during the deferral period where these sessions are agreed to and attended by all parties.

3. The Council will not meet the costs of mediation where the matter falls outside of the statutory jurisdiction of the City.

4. This policy is intended for smaller scale proposals such as (but not limited to): a) privacy screens; b) fences; c) ancillary lightweight structures (e.g. patios and pergolas); d) external fixtures (e.g. antennae, aerials, air conditioning units, solar

panels, water tanks, flag poles); e) minor encroachments and extensions; f) outbuildings; g) trees and vegetation; h) home business; and i) amenity issues where no more than 2 adjoining neighbours (in addition to the applicant) are involved.

5 In determining whether mediation is necessary the Council shall take into consideration the (personal – non planning) nature of the issues raised by neighbours and any history of planning applications or compliance issues on the respective sites, and whether there are reasonable planning arguments on both sides (i.e. where the planning merits of the case for either approval or refusal could both reasonably be argued).

6 The Council will not defer for mediation any application which; a) Involves significant development on a particular lot. Significant

development refers to development which is not small scale as generally defined in 4 above (e.g. a new single house or substantial building alterations/additions are considered to be significant development); or

b) Involves planning issues which impact on the broader community;

7 Council cannot compel neighbours to participate in mediation. If after Council has formally invited neighbours to attend mediation and one or more neighbours do not wish to attend, the matter will be referred back to the next appropriate Council/Committee meeting for determination based on planning merits.

8 Where mediation has occurred, the matter will be referred back to Council for determination in accordance with normal planning requirements. The Council report will summarise the outcome of the mediation sessions.


Page 37

9 Where mediation has occurred, this does not affect the ability of an infringement to be issued or other legal action to occur in accordance with LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance. Where mediation is proposed, regard is to be given to the statutory time frames associated with infringements and legal action.

10 Where mediation has previously occurred, unless the current matter is significantly different to the previously mediated matter, further mediation will not be offered.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council resolve to adopt the draft local planning policy, LPP1.8 Neighbour Mediation, as detailed below in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 1.8

NEIGHBOUR MEDIATION

ADOPTION DATE: 27 July 2011 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 BACKGROUND

1. The Council encourages neighbours to resolve issues of dispute between themselves in a constructive and neighbourly way. Council also wishes to ensure that the planning and building approvals and compliance regime is not used in such a manner as to aggravate tension between neighbours.

2 The Council has a statutory obligation to uphold the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme, and to deal with applications and compliance matters effectively and efficiently. These obligations need to be balanced against the fact that statutory decision making is not always the most appropriate way to resolve issues between neighbours, and in many cases it is preferable that neighbours develop their own solutions to local issues as opposed to one imposed by a planning authority.


Page 38

3. The purpose of this policy is to outline circumstances where it may be appropriate for Council to defer the consideration of a minor planning related matter and invite neighbours to attend mediation conducted by a qualified professional mediator at the cost of the City.

POLICY

1. The Council may determine in a particular case that a planning issue that has arisen, either as a result of a planning application or a compliance issue, is causing a dispute between neighbours, the planning application and/or compliance action may be deferred for a period of a maximum of up to 2 months to enable the parties to attend mediation.

2. Council will meet the costs of up to 3 mediation sessions conducted by a professional mediator appointed by the City during the deferral period where these sessions are agreed to and attended by all parties.

3. The Council will not meet the costs of mediation where the matter falls outside of the statutory jurisdiction of the City.

4. This policy is intended for smaller scale proposals such as (but not limited to): a) privacy screens; b) fences; c) ancillary lightweight structures (e.g. patios and pergolas); d) external fixtures (e.g. antennae, aerials, air conditioning units, solar

panels, water tanks, flag poles); e) minor encroachments and extensions; f) outbuildings; g) trees and vegetation; h) home business; and i) amenity issues where no more than 2 adjoining neighbours (in addition to the applicant) are involved.

5 In determining whether mediation is necessary the Council shall take into consideration the (personal – non planning) nature of the issues raised by neighbours and any history of planning applications or compliance issues on the respective sites, and whether there are reasonable planning arguments on both sides (i.e. where the planning merits of the case for either approval or refusal could both reasonably be argued).

6 The Council will not defer for mediation any application which; a) Involves significant development on a particular lot. Significant

development refers to development which is not small scale as generally defined in 4 above (e.g. a new single house or substantial building alterations/additions are considered to be significant development); or

b) Involves planning issues which impact on the broader community;

7 Council cannot compel neighbours to participate in mediation. If after Council has formally invited neighbours to attend mediation and one or more neighbours do not wish to attend, the matter will be referred back to the next appropriate Council/Committee meeting for determination based on planning merits.


Page 39

8 Where mediation has occurred, the matter will be referred back to Council for determination in accordance with normal planning requirements. The Council report will summarise the outcome of the mediation sessions.

9 Where mediation has occurred, this does not affect the ability of an infringement to be issued or other legal action to occur in accordance with LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance. Where mediation is proposed, regard is to be given to the statutory time frames associated with infringements and legal action.

10 Where mediation has previously occurred, unless the current matter is significantly different to the previously mediated matter, further mediation will not be offered.


For Against



Page 40

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 20 JULY 2011

Cr A Sullivan moved en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1107-135, PSC1107-137. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



Page 41

PSC1107-128 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (JWJ DA0258/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1007-136 (July 2010) - Restaurant Attachment 1: Development Plans (February & April 2011) Date Received: 15 February 2011 Owner Name: Umberto Ricciardi Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted by: L & N Ford Scheme: Mixed Use R30 Heritage Listing: Historic / Archaeological Site - Demolished Existing Landuse: Restaurant Use Class: Entertainment Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 42

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before Planning Services Committee (the Committee) as the City has received submissions against the development which have raised concerns that cannot be dealt with via planning conditions. The applicant is proposing the:

Relocation of the unauthorised exhaust fan from the centre of eastern facing roof plane to northern Silver Street side;

Exhaust fan to be 2.38m in height above the roof and be 900mm wide at top;

Proposed coffee roaster flue approximately 1.5m in height above the roof located on south eastern side of roof;

Proposed 3 x exhaust outlets for new ablutions approximately 400mm in height outlets located on south eastern corner of roof;

Internal alterations to the existing building;

Modifications to existing cool room. The application is considered to satisfy the objectives of the ‘Mixed Use’ zone and is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Mixed Use in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R30. The site is located within Sub Area 4.3.4 of South Fremantle Local Planning Area in accordance with Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Historic / Archaeological Site relating to a previously demolished building. The site is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Precinct which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The site is improved by an existing single storey commercial building which currently incorporates an approved Restaurant use (refer DA0196/10 & VA0023/10). Vehicle access and parking is provided to the site from Silver Street (secondary street) to the rear. In January 2011, the City received complaints from adjoining residents regarding noise and odour emitted from the Restaurant operating on site. The complaints related to an unauthorised exhaust fan located in the centre of the eastern facing roof plane of the building. The applicant was subsequently advised that a planning application was required to be submitted to the City pertaining to the exhaust fan. Subsequently a planning application was received by the City on 15 February 2011 seeking retrospective approval for the unauthorised exhaust fan to the existing Restaurant. DETAILS On 15 February 2011, the City received an application for retrospective approval for unauthorised exhaust fan addition to the eastern roof plane of the existing building at No. 258 South Terrace, South Fremantle.


Page 43

On 20 April 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans to relocate the unauthorised exhaust fan closer to Silver Street (north) subsequent to discussions with the City officers. The proposal incorporates the following:

Relocation of the unauthorised exhaust fan from centre of eastern facing roof plane to northern Silver Street side;

Exhaust fan to be 2.38m in height above the roof and be 900mm wide at top;

Proposed coffee roaster flue approximately 1.5m in height above the roof located on south eastern side of roof;

Proposed 3 x exhaust outlets for new ablutions approximately 400mm in height outlets located on south eastern corner of roof;

Internal alterations to the existing building;

Modifications to existing cool room. Since the applicant has submitted the planning application for the above works, a separate application has been received for a partial change of use to ‘Light Industry’ (Coffee Roasting) and the associated position of the coffee flue. On this basis, a condition will be included recommending the coffee roaster be deleted from this proposal and determined as a separate matter. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to the report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 May 2011, the City had received four submissions. The following issues were raised: Objection to existing location of exhaust fan:

Odours emitted from exhaust fan impact on amenity of southern adjoining properties (residential and commercial complex);

Exhaust fan in line with balconies;

‘Sticky substance’ film on balconies;

Proposed relocation of exhaust fan to Silver Street side of roof supported:

However, relocation not considered to make sufficient difference from odours emitted;

Suggest height of exhaust fan be increased so not as same level as balconies on southern adjoining properties;

Objection to current noise emission from cool room motor

Request sound reduction or relocation due to noise levels emitted at night;


Page 44

Objection to noise emitted from kitchen exhaust when not turned off at close of business at night. Environmental Health Concerns were received regarding the potential issues associated with noise from the operation of the premise and further noise and fumes associated with the exhaust fan located on site. With concerns of this nature should it be noted that there are inherent environmental health regulations that the premise is required to adhere to, thereby should issues arise the operation will be monitored to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations. Notwithstanding, the proposal was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department in order to identify and ameliorate the possibility of any ongoing matters in relation to noise and dour. The Environmental Health department indicated the proposed relocation of the exhaust fan is consistent with the relevant Environmental Health requirements in regard to odour; furthermore the relocation will significantly reduce any impacts associated with noise emitting from the exhaust fan. It was further indicated that noise associated with the cool room will be attenuated through the enclosure of this area proposed as a part of this application. Accordingly no issues were identified in relation to the relevant Environmental Health requirements associated with the proposal. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 Permitted Development External fixtures such as exhaust fans or exhaust outlets are classified ‘Permitted Development’ in accordance with Schedule 15 of LPS4 in circumstances where fixed to a plane of the roof facing a rear or side boundary (excluding a secondary street) and not projecting more than 1m above the roof where it is fixed, and not more than 2m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point. On this basis, the exhaust outlets located on the south eastern corner of the roof constitute ‘Permitted Development’ and do not require the approval of Council. The exhaust fan proposed to be relocated to the northern side of the eastern facing roof plane is not permitted under schedule 15 of LPS4, and requires the approval of the council. Objectives of the Mixed Use zone The proposed relocation of the existing exhaust fan along with the proposed exhaust outlets are to satisfy the objectives of the mixed use zone. The objectives of the mixed use zone are as follows:


Page 45

Development within the mixed use zone shall—

(i) provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (ie. 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 used 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.

Note: Objective (iv) derived from Part 4.2 B1.1 of Fremantle Planning Strategy.

The assessment against the objectives of the Mixed Use zone will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. Local Planning Policy L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Clause 4.5 of L.P.P1.5 states that in addition to the City giving a written warning pertaining to unauthorised works, (Clause 4.2), ‘an infringement notice shall be issued as soon as possible after the offence has been committed, but in any event, must be given within 6 months after the alleged offence is believed to have been committed’. As it has been more than 6 months since the City was made aware of the unauthorised exhaust fan Council cannot issue an infringement notice in accordance with Section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, as prescribed by Council’s L.P.P1.5. PLANNING COMMENT

Of the objectives of the Mixed Use zone, it is considered that the Council be satisfied that the proposal satisfy the following objective of the Mixed Use Zone.

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

Given that the application has arisen as a result of complaints received by the adjoining properties, along with comment being provided raising points of concern throughout the consultation period, it is important Council is satisfied that the proposal satisfied this objective of the Mixed Use Zone. As discussed previously, the City’s Environmental Health Department have reviewed the proposed relation of the exhaust fan, along with the other alterations proposed as a part of this proposal and have indicated that the proposal is compliant with the relevant environmental health standards. Furthermore, given the exhaust fan is being relocated further from the closest adjoining property it is considered that any existing impacts on the adjoining properties will be minimised.


Page 46

CONCLUSION Whilst a number of concerns have been conveyed in relation potential for issues arising as a result of the proposed relocation of the exhaust fan, it is important to note that there is an existing regulatory framework external to planning control to deal issues such as odour and noise. As previously discussed, concerns raised in respect to issues that are not matters that relate to planning are dealt with through other statutory frameworks. To this end, it is fundamental that the Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone and that the proposal is not likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. Given such fixtures are mandatory in the operation of a premises of this nature, and that such premises is considered to be synonymous with a Mixed Use zone it is considered that the proposal in its current form, being satisfactory to the City’s Environmental Health Services is a positive outcome. The proposal will alleviate detriment to the adjoining properties whilst maintaining the operation of the premises in accordance with the appropriate environmental health standards. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. COMMITTEE/OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Relocation of unauthorised exhaust fan to Existing Restaurant at No. 258 (Lot 309) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the Relocation of unauthorised exhaust fan to

Existing Restaurant as indicated on the approved plans dated 15 February 2011 and 21 April 2011 with only such minor modifications as approved by the Manager Development Services. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The ‘Coffee Roaster Flue” indicated on the proposed plans does not form part

of this approval. 3. The relocation of the exhaust fan is to be undertaken within 60 days from the

date of the approval letter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTE The Planning Committee invites the applicant to consider increasing the height of the exhaust fan.


Page 47

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr John Alberti Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr A Sullivan requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Mayor, Brad Pettitt. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr G Adeane The item be deferred to the next Planning Services Committee meeting with delegation, to improve the amenity of the neighbours and explore avenues of height of the stack. SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 8/3

For Against

Cr Georgie Adeane Cr John Dowson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith


Page 48

PSC1107-129 THE TERRACE NO.1 (LOT 2095) (FREMANTLE PRISON), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TOURIST ACCOMMODATION, INCLUDING PARTIAL DEMOLITION ALTERAITONS AND ADDITIONS (JL/MS DA0557/10)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer/Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: External Heritage Advice Date Received: 8 November 2011 Owner Name: Fremantle Prison Submitted by: Adcroft Architects for Youth Hostels Australia WA Scheme: MRS Reserve – Civic and Cultural Heritage Listing: Management Category Level 1A, Heritage Council of

Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places, National Heritage List, UNESCO World Heritage Listing

Use Class: Proposed ‘Tourist Accommodation’


Page 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site is reserved for Civic and Cultural Purposes under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, and as such, the application is to be determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), with the City of Fremantle acting in an advisory capacity to the WAPC. The application is presented before Planning Services Committee (the Committee) given the significant nature of the proposed development, along with the heritage significance of the subject site. Additionally, the City has received submission against the development which have raised concerns that cannot be dealt with via planning conditions. The applicant is proposing the:

Partial change of use to ‘Tourist Accommodation’ (backpackers),

Partial demolition of existing building on site,

Two, Two Storey Relocatable Building Additions to the eastern portion of site,

One Single Storey Relocatable Building Addition to the middle of site, and

Internal Alterations to the existing buildings on site. The proposal has been referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia, the Fremantle Port Authority, external Heritage Consultants, and the Design Advisory Committee for comment. The application is not supported as its contrary to the aims and provisions of Clause 10.2 (h & k) of LPS4, in that the application would detrimentally impact the existing overall ‘Exceptional’ cultural heritage significance of the place. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The site is reserved for ‘Civic and Cultural’ Purposes under the provisions of the Metropolitan Regions Scheme. The site is included on the National Heritage List, State Register of Heritage Places, and City of Fremantle Heritage List and Municipal Heritage inventory as Management Category Level 1A place. The site is also registered on the UNESCO World Heritage List as part of the Australian convict establishment. The prison is the only built site in Western Australia with world heritage recognition. DETAIL The subject proposal relates to the Former Female Division of the Fremantle Prison which is located in the north-western corner of the prison site. The application includes a partial change of use to ‘Tourist Accommodation’ (backpackers), Demolition of existing building on site, Two, Two Storey Relocatable Building Additions to the eastern portion of site, One Single Storey Relocatable Building Addition to the middle of site and Internal Alterations to the existing buildings on site.


Page 50

As part of this proposed ‘Tourist Accommodation’ change of use, the applicant is proposing 62 bedrooms which will have the capacity to hold a maximum number of 214 occupants for the site. The applicant is proposing the demolition of the single storey structure (circa 1993) which has previously been used by TAFE for the purposes of an educational establishment in art and design. The general location of the former TAFE facility is the location where the applicant is proposing the addition of two, two storey relocatable buildings to be used for accommodation. The applicant is also proposing a freestanding single storey relocatable building to be located in the central courtyard area of the site. This area at present is undeveloped and is proposed to be used for the purposes of a kitchen and bathroom. The applicant is also proposing the addition of a freestanding relocatable building toward the southwest corner of the former female division. The building is proposed to be used for laundry and bathroom facilities. Furthermore, the proposal also includes an above ground swimming pool with decking to be located within the existing exercise yard area located on the western boundary wall of the prison adjacent to the entry of the site. The proposed internal works include stud wall additions, refurbishing floor coverings, Door furnishings, security systems, internal painting, power reticulation, plumbing infrastructure, FESA equipment installation and signage. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notice of Planning Proposals as a ‘significant application given the heritage status of the site. The proposal was advertised via neighbour notification, a sign on site, local newspaper notice, precinct group notification, advertisement on the City’s Website and a community information session conducted on the 16 December 2011 of which eight people attended. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 4 January 2011, the City had received nine submissions. Of the submissions provided the following issues were raised:

Proposed Change of Use For the most part, the submissions received were supportive of the proposed change of use to a ‘Tourist Accommodation’ and acknowledged the compatibility of such a use with the heritage significance of the site. Notwithstanding, there were a number of concerns raised regarding the proposal not conveying a sense of the experience that prisoners endured. There were also a number of concerns raised regarding the operation of the proposed use, which were identified as, but not limited to the following:

A number of concerns were raised in regard to the impact such a use will have in generating high levels of noise, thereby adversely impacting on the amenity of the adjoining residents;


Page 51

The parking associated with the use was a repeated concern, with a number of submitters stating that the one bay provided was grossly inadequate for the extent of the accommodation to be provided on site. Furthermore concerns suggested that the shortfall in parking would result in an increased demand on the parking provided within the locality.

Proposed Additions to existing Prison The following points were raised in regard to the proposed additions to the premises:

A repeated concern raised was in regard to the proposal possibly jeopardising the world heritage listing of the site. A number of submissions stated all appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the proposal will not impact on the heritage significance of the site;

A number of submissions raised concern regarding the location of the proposed pool, specifically implications this may have on the existing heritage fabric, the noise created by the pool itself and the inconsistency of the pool (associated with leisure) with the former use of the prison itself and the penal experience which contributes to the sites significance. Furthermore it was suggested this was an unnecessary addition given the close proximity of the site to an aquatic centre and the coast;

Submissions received raised concern in regard to the location of the proposed kitchen and toilets.

The content of the submissions is discussed further in the Planning Comment section below.

Fremantle Port Authority The Fremantle Port Authority provided comment to the City of Fremantle stating that there are no specific conditions that need to be provided in accordance with the Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines in this circumstance. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal was presented before DAC in order to have some feedback provided on the design of the proposal by DAC. Overall, DAC were not supportive of the proposal, specifically raising the following concerns:

The scale of the development is not appropriate for the site and, as proposed, will compromise the heritage value of the place. A similar proposal that is of a lesser scale (that is, less bedrooms) may be considered more appropriate.

The quality of external spaces will be lost and the design and location of the toilets could be more appropriately designed so not to obscure views and the experience of significant heritage fabric.

The design detail of the re-locatable buildings is not of a sufficiently high standard.


Page 52

The comment provided by the DAC will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. External Heritage Advice Commissioned by the City of Fremantle The proposal was referred to an external heritage consultant for comment in accordance with the City’s L.P.P1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments. The external heritage consultant provided the following comment regarding the proposal:

The partition walls proposed within Female Division are recommended to be reversible so that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Burra Charter;

The insertion of an ablutions and kitchen block between the original and east wing in contrary to the Conservation Management Plan (2010) prepared for the site;

The proposed buildings extend into the ‘sterile’ zone on the north side of the site as identified under the Conservation Management Plan;

The roof form of the proposed new structure will be visible from the New Division, which is therefore to be consistent with the character of the precinct as per the Conservation and Management Plan 2010, the advice has noted the shallow pitch of the roof and the presence of the verandahs are not deemed consistent with the conservation plan requirements;

Proposed elevated pool is unsympathetic and poses possible detriment to the limestone wall that it abuts;

The removal of existing bedroom door furniture to be replaced with card locks will result in a loss of significant fabric

The sitting of the proposed new buildings will adversely affect the relationship between the spaces of the buildings;

The form and scale of the new buildings are inappropriate in relation to the existing heritage buildings located on site.

The full content of the heritage advice is enclosed as an attachment to this report. Commissioned by the Applicant The applicant provided supplementary heritage advice to the City in relation to the proposal. The applicant provided the supplementary advice in order for the HCWA to finalise their determination of this matter. The content of the heritage advice provided by the applicant is summarised as follows:

Introduction of above ground swimming pool detrimental to the former garden;

The proposed two storey area having a greater floor area could be seen as a retrogressive step however proposal seen as having minimal impact on the proposed court;

The remaining works constitute an acceptable impact on the cultural heritage of the place.


Page 53

Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) The proposal was presented before the Heritage Council’s Development Committee who resolved to support the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The items noted as ‘Immediate Works’ in the Schedule of Conservation Works

included in the February 2010 Conservation Management Plan, shall be carried out prior to the completion of the Short Stay Accommodation facilities. The remaining items (noted as ‘Future Works’) are to be completed prior to the expiration of YHA WA’s lease of the Women’s Division. Completion Reports are to be submitted at the time of completing and are to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the Heritage Council.

2. A Standard Archival Record, as per our Guide to Preparing an Archival Record, shall be prepared and submitted to the Office of Heritage prior to the commencement of works.

3. The aboveground swimming pool and deck is deemed to be an unsympathetic temporary addition to the significance of the place and is to be deleted from the proposal.

4. An Interpretation Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Office of Heritage to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the Office of Heritage. It should develop strategies to interpret the previous use of the place and the individual spaces/rooms that operated as the Women’s Division. Interpretation should include retaining one to two rooms as samples of original and adapted cells over the eighty years that the place was used as a prison. Interpretation techniques included in the Heritage Impact Statements, prepared by Mr Bodycoat and Phillip Griffiths Architechts, should also be incorporated. A copy of the Interpretation Plan shall be submitted to the Office of Heritage for formal comment, and implemented within two years.

5. At the expiration of YHA’s lease, all pre-fabricated modular buildings shall be removed from the site with the building and grounds made good to standard acceptable to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the Office of Heritage.

6. Detailed fit out drawings (including air conditioning, materials and colour palette, finishes, finishes, lighting security mechanisms and other facilities) are to be submitted to the office of heritage for formal comment prior to the commencement of works.

7. A watching brief is to be carried out by a qualified archaeologist during all ground works.

8. Submission of the lease to the Office of Heritage for review. It is worth noting that the conservation works outlined in the conditions of the HCWA determination have not been included as part of the applicant’s submission for Planning Approval, nor have they been outlined within the lease documentation provided. The Heritage Council determination will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) The subject site is reserved for ‘Civic and Cultural Purposes’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). As such, the determining authority is the Western Australian Planning Commission (MRS).


Page 54

Additionally, Clause 3.2.2 of LSP4 states that “the approval of the Council under the Scheme is not required for the commencement or carrying out of any use or development on a regional reserve.” Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) Relevant provision of LPS4 used in the determination of this application referral is as follows: Clause 1.6 the aims of the Scheme are to-

(a) …. (f) protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage,..

Clause 10.2 (k) requires that Council, in considering planning applications, shall have due regard to, “the cultural significance of any place or area affected by the development, including but not limited to provision for the preservation, incorporation, or recording (by means including public artworks) and significant cultural values of the site.” As the site is located on an MRS reserve the City of Fremantle is not the determining authority of the application and acts a referral agency to the Western Australian Planning Commission. Accordingly, the provisions of the City’s LPS4 and Local Planning Policies do not bind development on the site from a statutory perspective, however will be used to guide the City’s assessment of the subject development application for the site.

PLANNING COMMENT

In assessing the current application three key areas of discussion that require Council’s consideration are in relation to the proposed:

‘Tourist Accommodation’ use,

On site Car Parking, and

Heritage/Design Concerns. Use The site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for ‘Civic and Cultural Purposes’. On this basis there is no specific indication as to the permissibility of the use, however in order to guide the City’s Assessment the Conservation Management Plan has identified that the uses outlined within the 2003 Fremantle Prison Master Plan should form the basis of decisions made in respect to the future use of the site. The 2003 ‘Fremantle Prison Heritage Precinct - Master Plan’ states “short stay accommodation, designed to meet a range of budgets is considered to be a compatible use with the tourism/retail and special event uses proposed for the site”. Accordingly, the proposed ‘Tourist Accommodation’ is considered to be a form of short stay accommodation and therefore is considered to be an appropriate use for the site.


Page 55

On site Car Parking Documentation provided by the applicant specifies that one bay will be provided for the lease of the site. Under the car parking provisions of LPS4 (Table 3) the required on site car parking bays needed for a ‘Tourist Accommodation’ use is one bay per bedroom and one bay per administration centre, of which corresponds to the following: Required Provided Shortfall

63 Bays 1 Bay 62 Bays

In assessing a variation to the onsite car parking requirements of LPS4, Council should use Clause 5.7.3 as a guide. It is considered that the proposal satisfies clause 5.7.3(a)(i), that states: (i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking. Whilst only one bay has been allocated exclusively for the Tourist Accommodation, it is worth noting the extent of parking bays located within the vicinity of the site. There are existing parking facilities provided on Parry Street, William Street and at the Queensgate complex there is considered to be ample parking to compensate for the short fall of parking proposed. Heritage The key matter for consideration in assessing the proposal is the extent of impact on the heritage significance of the site. Given the extensive heritage recognition of the site, it is imperative that the Committee be satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the world heritage significance of the site. The determination of the HCWA resolved to support the proposal, subject to a number of Conditions. The conditions subject to the HWCA approval were in relation to carrying out immediate works identified in the Conservation Management Plan, the preparation of archival records, the deletion of the proposed swimming pool and associated deck, the preparation of an interpretation plan, the removal of the introduced fixtures following the expiry of YHA’s lease, the provision of detailed fit out drawings, the provision of a archaeological watching brief and a submission of the lease for the review of HCWA (the complete set of conditions are listen in the consultation section of this report). Furthermore, heritage advice provided by the applicant indicated that the only contentious issue associated with the proposal was the location of the pool and deck area. This advice further indicated that the other alterations associated with the proposal were of an ‘acceptable impact’. The heritage advice provided by an external heritage expert commissioned by the City identified a number of issues associated with the proposal. Overall, the advice outlined a number of inconsistencies between the proposal and the requirements of the 2010 Conservation Management Plan along with the incompatibility of the proposed additions to the site in terms of sitting, scale and form.


Page 56

The comments of the external heritage consultant were further reflected by the advice of the DAC. The comment provided by the DAC indicated that overall the scale of the development is not appropriate for the site, the quality of external spaces will be lost through the obstruction of views of significant heritage fabric, which will lessen the experience of the place and that he design detail of the re-locatable buildings is not of a sufficiently high standard. The implication of these combined factors will result in the heritage value of the place being compromised. CONCLUSION Taking all of the above into account, the proposed ‘Tourist Accommodation’ use, along with the reduced onsite parking provision are considered to be supportable variations. However, given the heritage significance of the site, it is imperative that the council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the aims of the Scheme, specifically, part (f) being to “protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage” along the matters outlined within Clause 10.2 (k), of which requires that Council, in considering planning applications, have due regard to “the cultural significance of any place or area affected by the development, including but not limited to provision for the preservation, incorporation, or recording (by means including public artworks) and significant cultural values of the site.” It is considered that in light of the heritage advice provided to the city, these components of the scheme cannot be satisfied with the proposal in its current form. Whilst some of the advice provided suggests approval is appropriate, it is considered that for a building of this level of significance it is inappropriate to grant approval for a development unless the City can be completely satisfied that it will not be to the detriment of the site. Accordingly the proposal is recommended refusal. COMMITTEE/OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that the application for Partial Change of Use to Tourist Accommodation, Partial demolition of existing Building on site, Two, Two Storey Relocatable Building Additions, One Single Storey Relocatable Building Addition, and Internal Alterations to the existing Female Ward Prison building to No.1 The Terrace, Fremantle (Fremantle Prison) is NOT SUPPORTED, for the following reason: The proposed development is considered to detrimentally impact the existing buildings ‘exceptional’ cultural heritage significance, which is inconsistent with the aim of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to ‘protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage’.


Page 57

CARRIED: 4/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr John Alberti

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

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Deferral to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting with delegated authority to determine the application to allow the applicant to address the design heritage concerns raised by the Design Advisory Committee and in the planning report. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 10/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Donna Haney


Page 58

Cr T Grey-Smith vacated the chamber at 7.24 pm during the following item and returned at 7.25 pm prior to determination. Cr B Massie vacated the chamber at 9.07 pm during the following item and returned at 9.08 pm prior to determination. Cr D Haney vacated the chamber at 9.14 pm during the following item and returned at 9.17 pm after determination.

PSC1107-134 CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

DataWorks Reference: 039/066 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: C1006-4 Attachments: Background report – City Centre Strategic Sites Working

Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group was formed by Council in June 2010. The group has met a number of times over the last 12 months and has recently finalised its recommendations to Council which are presented in this report. The group identified a number of strategic development sites within the city centre and has recommended a set of development principles for the sites that are aimed at achieving the Council’s objectives for increased retail and commercial activity and residential population in the CBD. The working group determined that the current development provisions within Local Planning Scheme 4 are insufficient to enable development of the sites to meet the Council’s strategic targets. The development principles that have been recommended, and that address land use, built form, design and parking, would therefore require an amendment to LPS4. The working group has attempted to carefully balance economic objectives against the need to protect those areas of the city centre where existing heritage and built form character should be retained and enhanced. All of the sites recommended for change are within the inner east end of the city centre such as the Westgate Mall streetblock, Woolstores Shopping Centre, former Gas and Coke site, and the Myer building – all 1960’s to 1980’s developments that for some time have been generally considered as suitable for redevelopment. The potential for more intensive use of these city centre sites as a result of the recommended changes to LPS4, together with the recently gazetted planning scheme amendment for the east end area (Amendment No. 38), would reinforce the Council’s commitment to strengthening the city’s economic capacity and its status as an Activity Centre in the State Government’s Activity Centre hierarchy.


Page 59

This report recommends that officers draft an amendment to LPS4 for the identified sites based on the working group’s proposed Development Principles. The draft amendment, together with a report by officers on the process for its implementation, will be presented to Council for further consideration. The implementation process would also need to address the requirement to prepare an Activity Centre Structure Plan in accordance with State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres. BACKGROUND

The Council’s 2010-15 Strategic Plan includes the following action to help achieve the strategic imperative to ‘Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity’: “Establish a City Centre Sites Working Group to work with private landowners with a view to having these sites re/developed – including (but not limited to) Westgate, Myer, Coke & Gas, Woolstores.” The City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group was subsequently formed by the Council in June 2010 with the purpose of providing “response and feedback to the Council in the development of possible amendments to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to facilitate the redevelopment of key strategic sites within the Fremantle CBD”. The Council was of the view that there “is a need for increased retail and commercial activity, greater high grade office accommodation and significant increases in local resident population within the Fremantle CBD”. The Council recognised that certain sites within the CBD are underutilised and could be more intensively redeveloped, although economic and social development objectives need to be properly balanced against the need to protect and enhance the built form character of the Fremantle central area. The working group was requested to examine the Local Planning Scheme and policy provisions for these key sites to determine if they are appropriate and whether amendments could be made to the statutory planning regime to encourage redevelopment. Whilst it was acknowledged that there are other factors which influence the redevelopment of land, the Local Planning Scheme provisions are clearly a critical factor in determining the viability or otherwise of redevelopment. The Working Group comprised:

Mayor Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan (Presiding Officer) Cr John Dowson Peter Nolin representing the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce Don Whittington representing the Fremantle Society Ian Alexander, community representative Madeleine Hug, community representative Richard Longley, community representative Ian Scott, community representative.

Consultant urban designer Linley Lutton and local heritage architect Alan Kelsall were engaged by the City to assist the working group to carry out its investigations.


Page 60

The Director Planning and Development was the Project Mentor and the City’s Strategic Urban Designer was the Project Leader. The Manager Economic Development and Marketing also attended working group meetings to provide a link with the Economic Development Working Group. The Working Group met a number of times and has now recommended to Council:

Identification of strategic development sites Development Principles for the key strategic sites within the City Centre zone to

form the basis of an amendment to LPS4.

Location map of strategic sites identified by the working group A number of the strategic development sites are outside the area controlled by Local Planning Scheme No. 4 – sites A, B, R and S that are located on Victoria Quay or in the Fishing Boat Harbour. As the working group’s task was to consider possible amendments to the planning scheme it confined its consideration only to those sites within Local Planning Area 1 - City Centre of LPS4. The group concluded early in its investigations that the current LPS4 provisions that apply to sites C and Q are appropriate and were therefore these sites were not addressed in any further detail.


Page 61

The following summary outlines the process the group undertook between July 2010 and June 2011 to arrive at its recommendations. Further detail is provided in an attached background report. July 2010

The group examined data showing changes in city centre commercial land use and floorspace since 1990, including a reduction in employment during that period. This was compared to progressive increases in other similar centres during the same period.

City centre residential population has remained relatively unchanged at around 830 residents since 1990. Residential density in the city centre is about half what it is in Fremantle’s suburbs.

Reviewed the targets in the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-15 for additional commercial and retail projects.

Reviewed the State Government’s strategic direction for Activity Centres. Applying the desired residential density for an Activity Centre would result in more than 3,300 residents in the Fremantle city centre, compared to approximately 830 at present.

August 2010

Agreed city centre population targets that would be used in assessment of development sites. The targets doubled the number of workers to 12,400 and increased residents by 4 times to 3,320.

Identified major development sites that had the potential to accommodate this increased population.

Considered current planning scheme provisions and relevant policies for the identified sites.

Floorspace yields from redevelopment of all the sites in accordance with the current provisions of LPS4 indicated that the adopted target populations for workers and residents could not be achieved.

Agreed the following list of issues as a basis for more detailed analysis of the sites.

o Identity and character

townscape, heritage, views, height, scale, etc

o Amenity of public spaces

activation, comfort, shade, wind, etc

o Access and connectivity

public transport, parking, walking, etc

o Activities / land use

mix and locations of core uses September 2010

Joint meeting with the Economic Development Working Group for a presentation and discussion on the State Government Activity Centres policy.

Presentation of an outline of the history of development of the city centre, particularly focussing on the different phases and precincts of development and the implications for future development.

Consideration of the city centre’s urban structure, precincts, functions, linkages, spaces and desired character focussing on the general area of the strategic sites.


Page 62

October 2010 Consideration of the quality and preferred character of spaces around the key

strategic sites as this will be a major factor in determining appropriate building scale and form in those areas. Key spaces included Queen St, Cantonment St, High St, Kings Square and the railway forecourt and Elder Place.

November 2010

Joint meeting with the Economic Development Working Group to consider progress of the Retail Model Plan for Fremantle.

Joint meeting with the Design Advisory Committee to receive a presentation by the owners of the Woolstores Shopping Centre streetblock (site D) on the concepts for possible redevelopment of the site. The working group subsequently provided feedback on the concept and prepared draft development principles specifically for site D.

Examined implications of the extent of the 800 metre walkable catchment from the Fremantle rail station.

Reviewed floorspace yields and building heights required to achieve target population and considered locations where taller buildings might be appropriate with regard to urban structure and character.

Considered that quality building design and attractive and comfortable public spaces is more important than height.

Examined the potential development of each strategic site, which were generally subdivided into west end sites, core precinct sites and inner east end sites as each area or precinct had different characteristics and development opportunities.

Considered future visions for the streets and public spaces around the key sites and reinforced the importance of Queen St, Adelaide St and Kings Square.

Considered application of a 1:1 street width to building frontage height ratio as this is often accepted as an ideal proportion and sense of enclosure to a street space and is applied in many cities.

Discussed whether it was appropriate to apply the Local Identity Code to developments outside the west end.

January 2011

Addressed the recommendations in the Retail Model Plan that related to built form and development.

Further consideration of development principles for site D. Joint meeting with the Economic Development Working Group to consider the draft

Economic Development Strategy. February 2011

Considered development requirements specifically for the City owned Point St properties (site F).

Workshopped preparation of a desired urban character for the core of the city, particularly addressing connectivity, developing a ‘heart’, streetscape and public domain, height, mix of uses.


Page 63

March 2011 Considered building modelling of site plans and potential floorspace and occupancy

yields on key strategic sites for varying building heights. Workshopped draft development guidelines for all the sites that included building

scale, heights, uses and parking. Generally agreed that an average building height of 6 levels was acceptable as long as specific consideration was given to sensitive locations. A frontage height of 7 levels could be appropriate to Beach St to reinforce the traditional ‘city edge’ to the port waterfront while heights should reduce to a more intimate scale around Kings Square. Taller buildings above this average could be permitted mid block and at selected locations in order to provide a diversity of form and to achieve public benefits such as more open space and linkages at ground level.

Considered the importance of the role of the City’s Design Advisory Committee to ensure high design standards in new developments.

April 2011

Further consideration of the draft development principles for all sites. June 2011

The group finalised a set of development principles for all sites, including maximum building heights, which was adopted for recommendation to Council. An alternative recommendation for maximum building heights had been proposed by three members. As the working group had already finalised its recommendations, this alternative for lower heights was not pursued.

The Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2011-15 was adopted by Council in April 2011 and one of the actions is to “Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment for City Centre that supports development necessary to establish Fremantle as Primary Centre. The key tasks identified in the strategy to undertake this action are:: 1. “The Council adopt as a target Fremantle attaining, within ten years, Primary Centre

status in the Perth metropolitan area. 2. Determine the general area of City Central to be included in the Planning Scheme

Amendment to achieve the targets indicated by the City in response to Directions 2031, and in order to achieve Primary Centre staus, being:

o an additional 20,000 sqm of retail net lettable area;

o an additional 1,500 dwellings; and

o an additional 70,000 sqm of office net lettable area..

3. Prepare the Planning Scheme Amendment in accordance with statutory requirements and the recommendations of the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group.

4. Incorporate the targets and objectives within the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 and the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2011-2015 plus any planning scheme amendments within a corresponding structure/master plan as required of activity centres in Directions 2031.”


Page 64

CONSULTATION

The working group included 6 community members in order to provide a general indication of the range of community views on this issue. If the Council resolves to proceed with an amendment to LPS4 there would be extensive consultation with the wider community carried out as part of that process.

PLANNING COMMENT

Comparison of recommended development principles with current LPS4 provisions The recommended development principles address land use, built form, design and parking issues. In a similar way to the recently gazetted Amendment No.38 for the East End, the principles generally address planning and urban design issues in more detail than is currently considered in LPS4. This is probably a reflection of the detailed investigations carried out by the working group on the implications of development of the various strategic sites and an indication of importance that the working group placed on good urban design. At present this level of detail is sometimes addressed in site specific planning policies which will need to be reviewed accordingly if the principles are incorporated into a scheme amendment. The following table provides planning comment on each of the proposed development principles and in particular identifies where changes would be required to current LPS4 provisions:

Development principles proposed by the Working Group

Officer Comment

1. Fully activated frontages required at ground level to Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square to reinforce these spaces as primary ‘shopping streets’. Continuous weather protection to be provided to pedestrian routes along these streets. Active uses to be predominantly small scale retail, cafes, etc.

This supports the Retail Model Plan that identifies Queen St and Adelaide St as potentially key shopping streets where on-street interest and activity should be maximised.

2. Ground level frontages to other streets and public spaces to be predominantly activated with a mix of retail, residential and commercial uses and frontages designed to provide interest, variety, surveillance of open spaces and minimal blank walls at ground level.

Secondary streets could have a mix of uses at their ground level frontages, as long as they were appropriately well designed. Active retail uses would be too diluted if required on all street frontages in the city centre, and the priority in this area should be to concentrate them on the major retail streets of Queen and Adelaide and Kings Square.

3. A high standard of design required that addresses a design policy and is supported by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. The design policy will address context, compatibility with adjacent heritage places and other

A design policy would be prepared at a later stage to augment the scheme amendment and to assist the Council and Design Advisory Committee when considering development proposals.


Page 65

sensitive sites, character of public spaces, legibility, linkages, etc.

4. A diverse mix of compatible uses is encouraged, including retail, office/commercial space, residential, educational, hotels, hospitality etc. All sites larger than 3000 sqm required to accommodate a minimum of 15% non-retail commercial (i.e. office) floor space.

The current ‘City Centre’ zone permits a wide range and mix of uses and therefore does not require amendment for the strategic sites.

The working group was keen to encourage a significant amount of new high quality large floorplate office floorspace within the city centre and explored a wide range of options of how this could be achieved. While the group eventually recommended a mandatory requirement to include office floorspace in all larger developments there was concern that if the % is too high it could detrimentally affect development viability. The working group also considered the option of a lower office space target for all developments with an additional % as a performance criteria for discretional building height. Feedback from some property owners is that 15% is too high as a mandatory base requirement, particularly for large sites which could mean a significant area of office floorspace coming on to the market at the same time. It is considered therefore that officers should further explore the implications of this issue and other options to achieve the desired outcome, particularly a more flexible approach that responds to changing supply and demand, for reporting to Council with the draft scheme amendment.

5. To encourage residential diversity, all developments with ten or more residential dwellings to have a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings with a maximum floor area of 60sqm or less and no more than 25% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120sqm or more.

A similar provision was included in East End Amendment No. 38 and has been incorporated into the Residential Design Code.

6. Parking

- No parking required for office floorspace

Current requirement: 1 bay / 30sqm GLA. This modification is intended to provide an incentive for provision of office floorspace. Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 enables the Council to relax parking requirements subject to a number of conditions, however this


Page 66

provision would remove those conditions for office parking. This a major change to the current LPS4 provision that should be given further consideration by officers and reporting to Council with the draft scheme amendment, particularly addressing the relationship to the Council’s future approach to the cash-in-lieu provision.

- Parking provided as per LPS4 and RDC for other uses – cash in lieu to be negotiated.

No change required to LPS4.

7. Setbacks

- Site D (Woolstores S/C) to be setback 3.65 m from Queen St

- Site E (Gas and Coke) to be setback 6.35m from Queen St

Queen St is currently 12m wide between Cantonment St and Elder Place. The proposed setback will align new buildings with existing boundaries in Queen St between Cantonment St and Adelaide St, and provide improved conditions for pedestrians and open up views to and from the railway station.

- All other frontages – nil to 2m setback to 10m height

A generally zero setback would maintain a consistent street edge and containment to public space, and encourage a better relationship between ground floor activities in buildings and the adjacent street space. Not currently addressed by LPS4.

Council may vary the prescribed setbacks where it is satisfied that the design outcome will be improved.

Some flexibility will enable improved outcomes such as increased pedestrian space, enhancement of views, etc, where applicable.

8. Façade openings / gaps in the ground level street wall to all frontages – maximum of 8 metres at any one location.

This would ensure continuity of interest and protection for pedestrians.

9. Permitted maximum frontage heights The working group recommendations increase frontage heights by one storey (from 4 to 5 storeys) over all or parts of 6 of the strategic sites (D, G, F, H, I and J), reduce the maximum frontage height by one storey on part of one site (I) and propose no change to the maximum frontage height on the remaining 9 sites. A significant change however is that these maximum frontage heights become as-of-right in order to give owners and developers some certainty on the development potential of each property. In the current provisions of LPS4 all


Page 67

heights above 2 storeys are discretionary. Another major change is that the allowance for floor to floor heights is proposed to be increased compared to those in the current scheme which are considered insufficient for city centre standards of development. It is anticipated that frontage heights would be expressed only in metres in a planning scheme amendment. The working group generally based the recommended maximum frontage heights on a 1:1 height to street width ratio which is considered ideal from an urban design point of view as it provides a comfortably enclosed space for a person in the street while also allowing good sunlight access. Most streets in the area around the strategic sites are between 15 to 26 metres wide, while west end streets are narrower at 12 to 15 metres wide. The proposed frontage heights are between 1 metre to 8 metres higher than those recommended for this area by the Local Identity Code, however the working group had generally considered that while the code was relevant to redevelopment in the west end, the inner east end could develop its own identity and character. The Local Identity Code is silent on mid-block building heights.

10. Minimum street frontage height 10 metres.

LPS4 currently requires a minimum of 2 storeys. 10 metres is considered the minimum frontage to achieve adequate enclosure to the street space.

11. Ground level floor to floor height of at least 4.5 metres and ground floor residential levels to be no more than 600mm above adjacent footpath levels.

These dimensions would enable a higher standard of development, provide more interest and a better proportioned street frontage, and provide flexibility for possible future change of use of the ground floor. Not currently addressed by LPS4 but was included in the recent East End Amendment No. 38.

12. Council may permit additional height if setback and not visible from the adjacent street and the design is integrated with the overall building. Additional heights as follows:

Current LPS4 permits one additional 3m high storey if setback and not visible from the adjoining street. The additional storey is discretionary and subject to a number of conditions. Interpretation of ‘not visible from the adjacent street’ should be the same wording as incorporated into the East End Amendment No. 38; i.e “Visible from the


Page 68

street will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle from the streets adjoining the subject land at an assumed point 1 metre less than street width and 1.6 metres above ground level.” For sites adjacent to Victoria Quay and Kings Square, the line of site should be measured from within the relevant road reserves of Elder Place, Queen Street or Newman Court.

o Sites D and G: 7.2m Two additional storeys proposed on these sites would encourage more intensive development closer to the rail and bus stations.

o All other strategic sites:

3.6m

A 3.6m height is a more realistic floor to floor height that would enable a higher standard of development.

13. Minor projections up to 4 metres and for no more than 10% of the total roof area may be permitted for plant rooms etc.

Not currently addressed by LPS4 but was included in the recent East End Amendment No. 38.


Page 69

14. Additional discretionary height. Council may permit increased building height on sites D, E, G, I, J, M1, M3 and P where the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria:

- An exceptional standard of design quality and distinctive architecture is required that is supported by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. Design to address the relationship of taller components to lower levels (podium), impact on distant views, visual permeability, roofscape, etc.

- Min lot size 3000 sqm - No significant adverse effect on

the amenity of surrounding open spaces, e.g. scale, shadows, wind etc.

- Demonstrates best practice in environmentally sustainable design, incorporating into the building fabric measures to minimise energy consumption, water usage, emissions and waste

- Provides a high quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian environment at ground level that includes:

o East-west mid-block

pedestrian links that are convenient, legible, attractive, safe and activated as an integrated component of any development concept and linked to a broader pedestrian network in the area. Ongoing public access arrangements are to be determined by and be to the satisfaction of the City and set as a condition of planning approval.

o The area of any required front

setbacks being transferred at no cost to Council for the purposes of road widening.

Additional height may be approved at the discretion of the Council and subject to satisfying a range of performance criteria. No upper height limit has been specified but would be determined on a site by site basis at the time of development application and with regard to the particular design, layout and uses proposed. The working group frequently acknowledged that good design was more important than height, and that a taller but exceptionally designed building could still be acceptable. The possible additional height would provide the incentive of additional floorspace in return for a higher quality of development and provision of community facilities such as pedestrian access across the longer streetblocks. The discretionary height limits would also provide much greater design flexibility to achieve a more interesting and varied built form, particularly on the larger sites. For example it could, where appropriate, enable taller sections of the building to be brought forward within the upper setback area to add interest to the façade and help avoid a monotonous ‘wedding cake’ built form. It would also enable higher built elements at corners or on key viewlines to help reinforce the city’s layout and legibility. Taller buildings set within larger streetblocks would enable more open space at ground level within the sites and between buildings while still achieving a similar floorspace yield.


Page 70

Potential to achieve strategic targets The Council’s recently adopted Economic Development Strategy incorporated the following targets for growth in floorspace within the city centre:

An additional 20,000 sqm of retail nla

An additional 1,500 dwellings

An additional 70,000 sqm of office nla. The additional floorspace that could result from redevelopment of all of the identified strategic sites to the maximum permitted has been calculated as follows:

Current provisions of LPS4 (to maximum discretionary heights) will yield approximately 67% of the extra floorspace required to meet targets.

The development principles recommended by the working group will yield approximately 87% of the extra floorspace to meet targets.

It is anticipated that when redevelopment of the strategic sites is combined with development of minor city centre sites and other sites outside the area of LPS4, including Victoria Quay and the Fishing Boat Harbour, the additional floorspace targets could be achieved. The development principles seek to intensify development closer to the rail and bus stations to provide a close link between public transport access and places of employment and residence. More intensive development is also supported along Queen St and Adelaide St to reinforce these streets as key retail axes in the City’s Retail Model Plan. It is acknowledged that Fremantle is not able to compete with other potential Primary Centres, such as Joondalup and Rockingham, in terms of the quantity of development alone (due to the supply of developable land available to those centres) and needs to establish its Primary Centre credentials through the diversity and quality of Primary Centre activities and infrastructure. It is still important however that Fremantle pursues opportunities to increase its employment and residential populations wherever appropriate in order to strengthen its retail and economic base and reinforce its Primary Centre status. CONCLUSION

The City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group’s recommended development principles are considered a sound basis to move forward to the preparation of an amendment to LPS4. Should Council agree to the principles of a scheme amendment as recommended below, draft text will be prepared and presented to the Council for formal initiation. A report would also be prepared by officers on the process for its implementation, including the need to prepare an Activity Centre Structure Plan as required by State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres.


Page 71


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That

1. Officers prepare a draft amendment to Local Planning Scheme No 4 for the identified ‘strategic sites’ based on the following principles that have been recommended by the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group:

a) Fully activated frontages required at ground level to Queen Street, Adelaide Street

and Kings Square to reinforce these spaces as primary ‘shopping streets’. Continuous weather protection to be provided to pedestrian routes along these streets. Active uses to be predominantly small scale retail, cafes, etc.

b) Ground level frontages to other streets and public spaces to be predominantly

activated with a mix of retail, residential and commercial uses and frontages designed to provide interest, variety, surveillance of open spaces and minimal blank walls at ground level.

c) A high standard of design required that addresses a design policy and is

supported by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. The design policy will address context, compatibility with adjacent heritage places and other sensitive sites, character of public spaces, legibility, linkages, etc.

d) A diverse mix of compatible uses is encouraged, including retail,

office/commercial space, residential, educational, hotels, hospitality etc. All sites larger than 3000 sqm required to accommodate a minimum of 15% non-retail commercial (i.e. office) floor space.

e) To encourage residential diversity, all developments with ten or more residential

dwellings to have a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings with a maximum floor area of 60sqm or less and no more than 25% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120sqm or more.

f) Parking

No parking required for office floorspace (as an incentive for provision of office floorspace)

Parking provided as per LPS4 and Residential Design Codes for other uses – cash in lieu to be negotiated.

g) Setbacks

Site D (Woolstores Shopping Centre) to be setback 3.65m from Queen St

Site E (former Gas and Coke site) to be setback 6.35m from Queen St

All other frontages – nil to 2m setback to 10m height


h) Façade openings / gaps in the ground level street wall to all frontages – maximum of 8 metres at any one location.


Page 72

i) Permitted maximum frontage heights Refer to plan

j) Minimum street frontage height 10 metres.

k) Ground level floor to floor height of at least 4.5m and ground floor residential levels to be no more than 600mm above adjacent footpath levels.

l) Council may permit additional height if setback and not visible from the adjacent

street and the design is integrated with the overall building. Additional heights as follows:

Streetblocks D and G: 7.2m

All other strategic sites: 3.6m

m) Minor projections up to 4 metres and for no more than 10% of the total roof area may be permitted for plant rooms etc.


Page 73

n) Additional discretionary height

Council may permit increased building height on streetblocks D, E, G, I, J, M1, M3 and P where the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria:

An exceptional standard of design quality and distinctive architecture is required that is supported by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. Design to address the relationship of taller components to lower levels (podium), impact on distant views, visual permeability, roofscape, etc.

Min lot size 3000 sqm

No significant adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding open spaces,

e.g. scale, shadows, wind etc.

Demonstrates best practice in environmentally sustainable design,

incorporating into the building fabric measures to minimise energy

consumption, water usage, emissions and waste

Provides a high quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian

environment at ground level that includes:

- East-west mid-block pedestrian links that are convenient, legible, attractive, safe and activated as an integrated component of any development concept and linked to a broader pedestrian network in the area. Ongoing public access arrangements are to be determined by and be to the satisfaction of the City and set as a condition of planning approval.

- The area of any required front setbacks being transferred at no cost to Council for the purposes of road widening.

2. The draft amendment, together with a report by officers on the process for its

implementation including the need to prepare an Activity Centre Structure Plan as required by State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres, be presented to Council for consideration.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That 1. Officers prepare a draft amendment to Local Planning Scheme No 4 for the

identified ‘strategic sites’ based on the following principles that have been recommended by the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group:

a) Fully activated frontages required at ground level to Queen Street, Adelaide

Street and Kings Square to reinforce these spaces as primary ‘shopping streets’. Continuous weather protection to be provided to pedestrian routes along these streets. Active uses to be predominantly small scale retail, cafes, etc.

b) Ground level frontages to other streets and public spaces to be

predominantly activated with a mix of retail, residential and commercial


Page 74

uses and frontages designed to provide interest, variety, surveillance of open spaces and minimal blank walls at ground level.

c) A high standard of design required that addresses a design policy and is

supported by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. The design policy will address context, compatibility with adjacent heritage places and other sensitive sites, character of public spaces, legibility, linkages, etc.

d) A diverse mix of compatible uses is encouraged, including retail,

office/commercial space, residential, educational, hotels, hospitality etc. All sites larger than 3000 sqm required to accommodate a minimum of 15% non-retail commercial (i.e. office) floor space.

e) To encourage residential diversity, all developments with ten or more

residential dwellings to have a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings with a maximum floor area of 60sqm or less and no more than 25% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120sqm or more.

f) Parking


Parking provided as per LPS4 and Residential Design Codes for other uses – cash in lieu to be negotiated.

g) Setbacks





h) Façade openings / gaps in the ground level street wall to all frontages – maximum of 8 metres at any one location.

i) Permitted maximum frontage heights

Refer to plan


Page 75

j) Minimum street frontage height 10 metres.

k) Ground level floor to floor height of at least 4.5m and ground floor residential levels to be no more than 600mm above adjacent footpath levels.

l) Council may permit additional height if setback and not visible from the

adjacent street and the design is integrated with the overall building. Additional heights as follows:


All other strategic sites: 3.6m

m) Minor projections up to 4 metres and for no more than 10% of the total roof area may be permitted for plant rooms etc.


Page 76

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against




n) Additional discretionary height Council may permit increased building height on streetblocks D, E, G, I, J, M1, M3 and P where the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria:



No significant adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding open

spaces, e.g. scale, shadows, wind etc.









Page 77

CARRIED: 5/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr John Dowson



2. The draft amendment, together with a report by officers on the process for its implementation including the need to prepare an Activity Centre Structure Plan as required by State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres, be presented to Council for consideration.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr John Dowson

Cr J Dowson moved an amendment to the Committee Recommendation to remove the following wording:




No significant adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding open spaces,

e.g. scale, shadows, wind etc.





Page 78





SECONDED: Cr D Haney LOST: 2/9

For Against

Cr John Dowson Cr Donna Haney

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr A Sullivan moved an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: n) Additional discretionary height Council may permit increased building height on streetblocks D, E, G, I, J, M1, M3 and P where the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria:



No significant adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding open spaces, e.g. scale, shadows, wind etc.

Demonstrates best practice in environmentally sustainable design, incorporating into the building fabric measures to minimise energy consumption, water usage, emissions and waste


Page 79

Provides a high quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian environment at ground level that includes:



A maximum additional discretionary height of two storeys (7.2 metres) on streetblocks I, J, M1, M3 and P.

2. The draft amendment, together with a report by officers on the process for its implementation including the need to prepare an Activity Centre Structure Plan as required by State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres, be presented to Council for consideration. 3. The draft amendment report include the consideration of further aspects of the strategic sites development to be researched and developed in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee during advertising of the amendment, including a) development of broad design principles, b) establishing the desired precinct and streetscape character, c) development of objective performance criteria to be used for the determination of the required standards of design quality, d) detailed assessment of the capacity of taller buildings of exceptional design quality to make a positive contribution to the development of the character of the Core and Inner East End character precincts. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr John Dowson Cr Donna Haney


Page 80

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. To limit the extent of discretionary height permitted in and around King's Square to two storeys above the proposed permitted heights in recognition of the special characteristics of this part of the Core precinct and to protect the view cone from Monument Hill to key landmarks in the Core and West End precincts. 2. To provide clarity about the intended role of the Design Advisory Committee in researching and developing the design principles and performances criteria necessary to objectively assess proposals that include discretionary heights against the requirement for exceptional design. 3. To ensure that the question of acceptable height on sites D, E & G remains an iterative process that is able to be informed by professional advice from the Design Advisory Committee in developing the desired characteristics for the Core and Inner East End precincts. Cr J Dowson moved to defer the item to the next Council meeting in August, 2011 SECONDED: Cr D Haney LOST: 1/10

For Against

Cr John Dowson


Cr S Wainwright moved an amendment to the Committee Recommendation to include the following wording: f) Parking


Parking provided as per LPS4 and Residential Design Codes for other uses – cash in lieu to be negotiated to be provided in accordance with the Scheme and relevant Policy.

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson


Page 81

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To make the contribution to parking, non-negotiable. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That: 1. Officers prepare a draft amendment to Local Planning Scheme No 4 for the identified ‘strategic sites’ based on the following principles that have been recommended by the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group: a) Fully activated frontages required at ground level to Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square to reinforce these spaces as primary ‘shopping streets’. Continuous weather protection to be provided to pedestrian routes along these streets. Active uses to be predominantly small scale retail, cafes, etc. b) Ground level frontages to other streets and public spaces to be predominantly activated with a mix of retail, residential and commercial uses and frontages designed to provide interest, variety, surveillance of open spaces and minimal blank walls at ground level. c) A high standard of design required that addresses a design policy and is supported by the City’s Design Advisory Committee. The design policy will address context, compatibility with adjacent heritage places and other sensitive sites, character of public spaces, legibility, linkages, etc. d) A diverse mix of compatible uses is encouraged, including retail, office/commercial space, residential, educational, hotels, hospitality etc. All sites larger than 3000 sqm required to accommodate a minimum of 15% non-retail commercial (i.e. office) floor space.


Page 82

e) To encourage residential diversity, all developments with ten or more residential dwellings to have a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings with a maximum floor area of 60sqm or less and no more than 25% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120sqm or more. f) Parking


Parking provided as per LPS4 and Residential Design Codes for other uses – cash in lieu to be provided in accordance with the Scheme and relevant Policy.

g) Setbacks





h) Façade openings / gaps in the ground level street wall to all frontages – maximum of 8 metres at any one location. i) Permitted maximum frontage heights Refer to plan


Page 83

j) Minimum street frontage height 10 metres. k) Ground level floor to floor height of at least 4.5m and ground floor residential levels to be no more than 600mm above adjacent footpath levels. l) Council may permit additional height if setback and not visible from the adjacent street and the design is integrated with the overall building. Additional heights as follows:


All other strategic sites: 3.6m m) Minor projections up to 4 metres and for no more than 10% of the total roof area may be permitted for plant rooms etc. n) Additional discretionary height Council may permit increased building height on streetblocks D, E, G, I, J, M1, M3 and P where the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria:


Page 84









2. The draft amendment, together with a report by officers on the process for its implementation including the need to prepare an Activity Centre Structure Plan as required by State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres, be presented to Council for consideration. 3. The draft amendment report include the consideration of further aspects of the strategic sites development to be researched and developed in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee during advertising of the amendment, including a) development of broad design principles, b) establishing the desired precinct and streetscape character, c) development of objective performance criteria to be used for the determination of the required standards of design quality, d) detailed assessment of the capacity of taller buildings of exceptional design quality to make a positive contribution to the development of the character of the Core and Inner East End character precincts. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock


Page 85

CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Georgie Adeane Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr John Dowson


Page 86


PSC1107-135 FACILITATION OF AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE HOUSING THROUGH THE PLANNING SYSTEM

DataWorks Reference: 023/050 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Affordable and Diverse Housing Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its Ordinary Meeting of Council on the 25 May 2011, Council adopted a Policy on Affordable and Diverse Housing, which outlined several options to achieve affordable housing. Section 2 of this Policy identifies opportunities where affordable and diverse housing could possibly be achieved through the planning system, with reference to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 and Local Planning Policies. Accordingly, the purpose of this report is to further investigate the planning mechanisms identified in section 2 of the Policy, and make recommendations on how they might be implemented. These recommendations, if supported in principle by Council, would require the preparation of draft Local Planning Scheme Amendment/Local Planning Policy documents for further consideration by Council. BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle’s Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015 contains the Strategic Imperative of: ‘Providing a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal.’ A strategic outcome of this imperative is for ‘More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing for a changing and growing population.’ The recommended project to achieve this outcome is the development of an Affordable and Diverse Housing Policy. Subsequently, Council adopted the Affordable and Diverse Housing Policy (see Attachment 1) at its Ordinary Meeting on the 25 May 2011. The objectives of the Policy are as follows:

Affirms the City of Fremantle’s commitment to encouraging diverse and affordable housing development across the City.

To provide a set of principles to guide planning and development decisions, drawing from the City’s strategic vision (City of Fremantle, Strategic Plan 2010 -15) and linking it in with Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

To ensure that there is provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents.


Page 87

This is proposed to be achieved through the following: 1. Research and Cooperation 2. Facilitation of Affordable and Diverse Housing through the Planning System 3. Direct use of City Land and Assets for Affordable Housing

Section 2, part (a) and (b), of this Policy provides a framework for the development of provisions to enable the delivery of affordable housing through the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies, which is the focus of this report. Part 2 (a) is already being addressed by the City through a scheme amendment dealing with Small Secondary Dwellings. A report recommending final adoption of this scheme amendment is a separate item on this agenda. Small Secondary dwellings are also discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. Part (b) of section 2 of the Policy identifies three planning mechanisms for consideration to ensure a percentage of affordable/diverse housing is provided in large new developments. Each of these mechanisms is discussed in detail below with specific options for implementation as identified by officers. Affordable housing and diverse housing are defined in the Policy, and low cost housing is defined in LPS4. These definitions are provided below for reference in the discussion of this report. Affordable Housing refers to housing where people on low or moderate incomes pay no more than 30% of gross household income on rental or mortgage payments. This is distinct from social housing which is predominately defined as public housing provided for people who register with the Department of Housing for housing assistance. Affordable housing is generally for people who are working, have applied for public housing but do not qualify, yet suffer housing stress. Diverse Housing refers to dwelling and lot size, density, dwelling types (units, apartments, student housing, etc), design features, tenure, adaptability and affordability. Low Cost Housing means a dwelling, grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling provided by a public agency, religious organisation, housing cooperative, or other benevolent institution to a person or persons whose gross annual income is within the bottom quartile (25%) of income distribution categories as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. PLANNING COMMENT

Facilitation of Affordable and Diverse Housing through the Planning System Section 2 (a) of the Affordable and Diverse Housing Policy


Page 88

Section 2 (a) of the Policy, “to facilitate the development of Small Secondary Dwellings available for independent rental”, is currently being addressed by the City. At its Ordinary Meeting of 23 February 2011, Council resolved to initiate a scheme amendment to facilitate the development of small secondary dwellings on existing residential lots, in accordance with the set of principles adopted by Council at its meeting on 25 January 2011. Development provisions of the amendment permit the small secondary dwelling to be occupied by persons not related to the occupants of the main dwelling on the lot. This proposed amendment supports the objectives of the Affordable and Diverse Housing Policy in encouraging social and housing diversity and will facilitate the provision of affordable housing in the City through the option to independently rent these dwellings. Advertising of the proposed amendment was completed on the 1 July 2011 and the amendment is presented to Council with a recommendation for final adoption as part of this agenda. If this amendment is adopted and approved by the Minister for Planning it could provide a significant contribution towards achieving the City’s strategic imperative in the provision of affordable and diverse housing. Section 2 b) of the Affordable and Diverse Housing Policy Section 2 (b) of the Policy states: 2 b) Ensure a percentage of large mixed use or residential developments is set aside for

affordable housing through:

i. mandatory minimum affordable and diverse housing provisions,

ii. development incentives such as density bonuses to provide further diverse and

affordable housing outcomes,

iii. direct provision by affordable housing agencies or participation in shared equity or

national rental affordability schemes.

Officers have considered the above mechanisms and have identified the following options for their possible implementation:

A. Amend LPS4 to include mandatory requirements for the provision of affordable housing in new development (as a percentage or number of dwellings).

B. Amend LPS4 so that provisions for diverse housing as per the requirements of the recently gazetted Scheme Amendment No. 38 for the ‘East End’ Area would apply to development anywhere in the City.

C. Amend LPS4 to include discretionary provisions requiring a percentage of affordable housing as a criteria to qualify for development ‘bonuses’ such as additional building height/density on strategically important development sites, e.g. some city centre sites.

D. Structure Plans – develop a local planning policy to guide the provision of affordable housing in Development Areas as part of the structure plan preparation process.

E. Expansion of existing LPS4 Split Density Coding provisions. F. Develop Local Planning Policies to address other forms of low cost housing

accommodation (e.g. residential buildings and lodging houses).


Page 89

A) Mandatory requirement for provision of affordable housing in new development (as a percentage or number of dwellings) through LPS4

Any mandatory planning provisions to require a minimum percentage of the total number of dwelling units in a development to be affordable housing units would need to form part of the Local Planning Scheme in order to carry statutory weight. Further work would be required to determine how this could be achieved in practice, but might include the following provisions:

Minimum percentage of dwellings sold or rented at below-market value

Minimum percentage of land or dwellings sold at cost in perpetuity

Minimum percentage of dwellings provided to a Community Housing Provider at

cost or discount market tenure for a nominated time period

The mandating of affordable housing provisions through the Scheme could provide certainty that affordable housing will be achieved in future development, but with an absence of State-level legislation and planning policy to provide a clear ‘head of power’ for the implementation of affordable housing through statutory planning instruments, it is uncertain if an amendment of the Scheme to mandate affordable housing would be supported by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Minister for Planning. Furthermore the inclusion of additional mandatory mechanisms within LPS4 to require affordable housing could be viewed by developers as a disincentive to develop at all. Provision of an element of affordable housing could alternatively be achieved through the

development of City owned land, and without amendment to the Scheme, through a legal

agreement with the developer or a partnership/agreement with a community housing

provider, as recommended in section 2 (b)(iii) and 3 of the Policy.

Officers therefore do not recommend pursuing mandatory provision of affordable

housing, through an amendment to the Scheme, as a mechanism to achieve the

objectives of the Policy.

B) Amend LPS4 to apply provisions for diverse housing as per the requirements

of the recently gazetted Scheme Amendment No. 38 for the ‘East End’ Area to development anywhere in the City

Diverse housing (in terms of dwelling size) is currently addressed in Part 7, design element 7.4.3 – Dwelling Size (A3.1 and A3.2) of the Residential Design Codes. This part of the Codes applies to multiple dwelling developments at a density greater than R30 and mixed use developments. The Acceptable Development provisions of Design Element 7.4.3 require development containing more than 12 dwellings is to provide diversity in dwelling types and sizes, with a minimum of 20 percent of one bedroom dwellings and a minimum of 40 percent of two bedroom dwellings. In addition to the provisions of the R Codes, the City is addressing housing diversity through the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 46 – Small Secondary Dwellings (as discussed earlier and in another agenda item of this meeting), and through the recently gazetted Scheme Amendment No. 38 – East End Area. Schedule 12 – LPA 2 Fremantle – Sub Area 1, clause 2.3.1 (k) of this amendment states:


Page 90

“In developments comprising of ten or more dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40 per cent of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more.” The above scheme amendment provisions were prepared before the multiple dwelling provisions in Part 7 of the R Codes were published in November 2010. However in any event officers consider the housing diversity requirements in the ‘East End’ Area amendment are more robust than the R Code requirements because they trigger the provision of diverse dwelling types in smaller scale development than that required in the R Codes, and require a higher minimum percentage (25%) of dwellings of a maximum floor area of 60 square metres (equivalent to a one bedroom dwelling) than prescribed in the R Codes. Additionally, the scheme provision limits the proportion of larger dwellings (120 sq m +) to 40%. The mandatory provision of diverse dwelling sizes in a development is likely to be less of a disincentive to the developer. Additionally, the increased supply of smaller dwelling types may well have a positive flow on effect to price and/or demand, and combined with what is assumed would be lower construction costs, produce housing that is more affordable as well as diverse. This may not be achieved however where development occurs in gentrifying or high amenity areas. Consequently officers consider this type of scheme provision could have wider application in achieving a higher level of housing diversity. It is therefore recommended that Council support the principle of including this provision into the Scheme as a general development standard that can be applied to multiple dwelling or mixed use development throughout the City, rather than being limited to specified locations such as the East End. If Council supports this recommendation, a Scheme Amendment to introduce this requirement would be prepared for Council’s further consideration and approval. C) Amend LPS4 to include discretionary provisions linking development

incentives (e.g. height/density bonuses) to provision of a percentage of affordable housing on key development sites e.g. city centre strategic sites

As provided in the ‘East End’ Area scheme amendment, development bonuses such as additional building height may be offered at selected strategic sites as an incentive for such provisions as higher standards of design, public amenities and improved public spaces. A nominated percentage of affordable housing could be considered as one such criterion to be met to achieve development bonuses. This would be a discretionary provision and as such would not necessarily guarantee the provision of affordable housing. Further to this, consideration would need to be given to how the affordable housing would be made available and enforced, as discussed in part A above.

As an example, East Perth Redevelopment Authority’s Development Policy 9 – Affordable and Diverse Housing requires affordable housing to be sold “at construction cost” to a social housing provider or as shared equity and delivers this through a covenant on Certificate of Title and/or conditions of planning approval. However in many cases EPRA is the landowner which makes such an approach easier to implement.


Page 91

Potential difficulties/issues associated with this approach to provision of affordable housing include the following:

Community housing providers may lack the finances to purchase the amount of affordable housing offered through this type of mandate.

Development may not be located in an area of need as identified by the social housing provider and this may be a disincentive to purchase.

Developers may perceive the requirement as a disincentive which outweighs the benefit of the additional building height/density and therefore not seek the discretionary development bonus.

A separate agenda item dealing with the recommendations of the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group identifies a series of development principles which could be used as the basis for preparation of a scheme amendment relating to a series of key sites in the city centre. One of the development principles refers to additional discretionary building height linked to satisfying certain development criteria. The criteria currently suggested by the Working Group do not include affordable housing provision (although diverse dwelling unit sizes is a separate development principle recommended by the Working Group). Subject to Council’s acceptance of the Working Group’s recommendations, further work will need to be undertaken to prepare a draft scheme amendment for future consideration by Council. Officers consider that the possibility of including a criterion relating to affordable housing provision could be examined further as part of the preparation of the draft scheme amendment. D) Structure Plans – develop a Local Planning Policy to guide the provision of

affordable housing in Development Areas The City contains a number of Development Areas (zoned on the LPS4 Scheme Map) which do not currently have an adopted Structure Plan. These sites present an option to provide affordable housing as part of the requirements of a proposed structure plan. The development of a local planning policy would assist in providing guidance and detailed requirements for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing in structure plans for these Development Areas when such plans are prepared by the landowners and subsequently assessed by the City. There is only a finite amount of land in Fremantle suitable for major new residential development, and much of this land is located in Development Areas identified in LPS4. The development of a policy to guide structure planning in Development Areas with specific reference to affordable housing provision would help ensure the land is utilised to its full potential and the opportunity to provide affordable housing large scale development is not missed. Officers therefore recommend the preparation of a local planning policy to address this issue. The draft policy would be presented to Council for further consideration. In the case of City owned land in Development Areas, provisions in the Affordable Housing Policy relating to direct use of City land and assets could be applied in any event.


Page 92

E) Expansion of Split Density Coding provisions in LPS4 Clause 5.3.4 – Split Density Coding of LPS4 contains the provision whereby a property with a split density coding may achieve the higher code where one or more of the following requirements are met:

a) a building of cultural heritage significance is retained on the lot b) provision of “low income housing” c) buildings designed in accordance with Council’s energy efficiency and

sustainability schedule, and d) removal of non-conforming use.

Split density coding of either R20/R25 or R25/R30 is provided in four areas of the City, and with one of the higher coding requirements being the provision of “low income housing” (as defined by the Scheme), this mechanism already meets section 2 (b) (ii) of the Policy. As an option to provide further affordable housing outcomes, the split density coding could be expanded to encompass a greater number of properties within the City, although as it is not a mandatory provision, this would not guarantee the provision of low income housing. Additionally, officers note that out of the four development requirements specified under clause 5.3.4, applications for subdivision or development approval based on the higher density coding primarily meet the provision to develop within the requirements of the Council’s energy efficiency and sustainability schedule. Furthermore, expansion of the split coding would require detailed investigation of suitable areas for its application and would raise a much broader range of planning g issues associated with potential up-coding of large areas of the City. Officers therefore consider the expansion of the split density coding within the City would not be an effective mechanism to deliver affordable housing outcomes, and recommend that this option should not be pursued. F) Other forms of low cost housing accommodation

It is recognised by officers that low cost housing is additionally provided by private and not-for-profit landowners in the form of a Lodging House. This is a specialist type of accommodation to meet the needs of for a specific target group, generally being persons whose gross annual income is within the bottom quartile (25%) of income distribution categories as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as defined in “low cost housing” in LPS4. A lodging house is defined by the Health Act as the following: “lodging house means any building or structure, permanent or otherwise, and any part thereof, in which provision is made for lodging or boarding more than 6 persons, exclusive of the family of the keeper thereof, for hire or reward; but the term does not include –

(a) premises licensed under a publican’s general licence, limited hotel licence, or way-side licence, granted under the Licensing Act 1911;

(b) residential accommodation for students in a non-government school within the meaning of the School Education Act 1999; or

(c) any building comprising residential flats.”


Page 93

The Scheme in its current form does not adequately deal with this type of development and in conjunction with the Residential Design Codes (which refers to Residential Buildings rather than lodging houses), creates ambiguity in the assessment of these types of development applications. Other Local Governments have addressed this issue by providing a definition in their Scheme for a lodging house and including the land use in the Zoning Table of the Scheme. Additionally, the City of Subiaco has identified suitable location(s) for a lodging house in Schedule 2 – Additional Uses of their Scheme, with provisions on height, open space and assessment through the Scheme. The City of Cockburn is currently proposing a Local Planning Policy – Lodging Houses Development Guidelines, which addresses size (intensity), location, site planning, building design and management. Officers recommend further planning advice be provided through a Local Planning Policy and/or Scheme Amendment (providing a definition and inclusion into the Table 2 – Zoning) to provide guidance on the design provisions and location of lodging houses in the City, in recognition that such forms of development do respond to the particular affordable housing needs of certain sectors of the community. CONCLUSION With consideration to the options A – F as identified by officers in this report, it is recommended that options B, C, D and F are pursued further. Subject to Council endorsement of this recommendation in principle, officers will prepare further report(s) on details of relevant planning provisions. COMMITTEE/OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That officers prepare draft Local Planning Scheme Amendment and/or Local Planning Policy documents for further consideration by Council on the following matters:

1. An amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to require that in all developments comprising of ten or more dwellings, a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more;

2. An amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to include discretionary provisions linking development incentives (e.g. building height/density bonuses) to provision of a percentage of affordable housing on identified key development sites;

3. A draft Local Planning Policy on the requirements for inclusion of affordable housing in the preparation of structure plans.

4. A draft Local Planning Policy and/or Scheme Amendment to provide guidance on the design and location of lodging houses and similar land uses including residential buildings as defined in the Residential Design Codes.


Page 94

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 95

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That officers prepare draft Local Planning Scheme Amendment and/or Local Planning Policy documents for further consideration by Council on the following matters:

1. An amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to require that in all developments comprising of ten or more dwellings, a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more;

2. An amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to include discretionary provisions linking development incentives (e.g. building height/density bonuses) to provision of a percentage of affordable housing on identified key development sites;

3. A draft Local Planning Policy on the requirements for inclusion of affordable housing in the preparation of structure plans.

4. A draft Local Planning Policy and/or Scheme Amendment to provide guidance on the design and location of lodging houses and similar land uses including residential buildings as defined in the Residential Design Codes.

SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



Page 96

Cr J Dowson left the meeting at 9.18 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return. Cr G Adeane left the meeting at 9.18 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return.

PSC1107-136 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 46 - SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS

DataWorks Reference: 218/050 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1010-201 – PSC 20 October 2010

PSC1101-12 – Council 25 January 2011 PSC1102-41 – Council 23 February 2011

Attachment 1: Minutes Council 23 February 2011 – advertised amendment

Attachment 2: Schedule of Submissions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Scheme Amendment 46 – Small Secondary Dwellings was adopted by Council in February 2011 for public consultation. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment, with minor modifications. The most significant modification to the amendment relates to the originally proposed exemption from planning approval for Small Secondary Dwellings on all properties, including heritage listed properties, where specific circumstances are met. In light of submissions received from the Heritage Council of Western Australia and the Fremantle Society, it is recommended that the amendment be modified so that Small Secondary Dwellings on heritage listed properties require planning approval under all circumstances. BACKGROUND

On 20 October 2010, the Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered a report outlining the principles of a future amendment to LPS4 to facilitate the construction of small secondary dwellings on existing residential lots. The PSC resolved to deter the item to the next appropriate PSC meeting to allow further consideration on the matter. On 12 January 2011, the PSC adopted a revised set of principles, a resolution that was subsequently adopted by Council on 25 January 2011. On 23 February 2011, Council adopted Scheme Amendment 46 – Small Secondary Dwellings for the purpose of advertising. The minutes of this meeting, including the advertised amendment text, is included as Attachment 1.


Page 97

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted the City consent to advertise the proposed amendment on 29 April 2011. Community consultation was undertaken from 17 May 2011 to 1 July 2011 – 46 days in total. Advertising consisted of:

- Public advertising notice in the West Australian newspaper – 18 May 2011; - Public advertising notices in the Fremantle Gazette local newspaper – 17 & 24 May

2011; - Media releases outlining the amendment and advising the advertising of the

amendment provided to state and local newspapers; - City of Fremantle website notification for the duration of consultation period; - Notification of the amendment on the City of Fremantle public notices board at the

City offices; - Preparation of a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ information document, including

sketches demonstrating the siting and design of Small Secondary Dwellings envisioned by the proposed amendment;

- Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies, property and development industry bodies, and known architectural and building companies.

- Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups with an offer for City officers to attend precinct meetings to discuss the proposal.

- Attendance of the Samson Precinct meeting 13 June 2011; and - Community information session held on 14 June 2011 at the City offices.

A total of 17 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. 16 of the submission were supportive of the proposed amendment either as proposed or with modifications, whilst 1 submission objected to the proposed amendment. Attachment 1 provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response to any relevant concerns. The Planning Comment section of this report will elaborate on the issues raised that have resulted in officers recommending modifications to the amendment. PLANNING COMMENT Modifications Four modifications are recommended to the amendment text following advertising. These are outlined below. 1 - Scheme provision to specifically require a Single House to exist before a Small Secondary Dwelling is permitted. The proposed amendment as advertised included a text provision (clause 5.3.5.5) that explicitly required a Single House to exist on a lot before a Small Secondary Dwelling could be developed. After further consideration this provision is considered unnecessary as a dwelling the size of a Small Secondary Dwelling could be developed on a vacant lot, however in that circumstance the development would be classed as a Single House.


Page 98

Various other amendment provisions restrict future development on the lot to 1 Single House and 1 Small Secondary Dwelling, so deletion of this provision would not affect the total number of dwellings able to be ultimately developed on a lot. It is therefore recommended that the originally proposed clause 5.3.5.5 be deleted from the amendment. 2- Requirement for planning approval for a Small Secondary Dwelling on a heritage listed property. The proposed amendment as advertised included provisions enabling a Small Secondary Dwelling to be developed without planning approval subject to satisfying various requirements relating to minimum lot area, setbacks, and compliance with certain Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes. No differentiation was made in these requirements between properties which are heritage listed and those which are not. The submissions from both the Heritage Council of WA and the Fremantle Society support the amendment in principle, but suggest that the exemption from planning approval provisions should not apply to any place included on the State Register of Heritage Places or the City’s Heritage List under LPS4. In the light of these submissions officers recommend that the amendment should be modified to require planning approval to be obtained in all cases where a small secondary dwelling is proposed to be developed at a property included on the State Register or the City’s Heritage List. This would enable any potential impact of the development of a small secondary dwelling upon the heritage values of a listed property to be given due consideration through the assessment of a planning application. The wording of the amendment text as modified to address this issue is intended to make it clear that in cases where planning approval is required solely because the subject site is a place on the State Register or City’s Heritage List, the only planning consideration in determining the application will be the potential impact of the development upon the cultural heritage significance of the place. Furthermore it is recommended that Council shall not be required to give notice of the proposal (advertise) solely for the reason that the proposal involves development on a heritage listed property. Public notification will occur normally should the proposal involve any variations to the relevant Acceptable Development requirements of the R-Codes. 3. Minor change to wording of proposed clause 5.4.1 (b) – Subdivision of Small Secondary Dwellings. The proposed amendment included clause 5.4.1 (b) which states that Council will not support the creation of freehold, strata or survey strata lots that are occupied wholly by a small secondary dwelling. Whilst no submissions raised any concern with this clause, upon further review of the amendment, minor modifications are recommended to this clause to remove the plurality of the wording and clarify the intent that Council will not support the creation of a lot wholly occupied by a small secondary dwelling. 4. Renumbering of paragraphs under clause 5.3.5 – Small secondary dwellings. In light of the recommended changes above (points 1 & 2), the paragraphs under proposed clause 5.3.5 are recommended to be renumbered in sequence.


Page 99

Calculation of floor area with regards to patio/verandah additions During the submission period, questions were asked whether or not covered areas attached to the Small Secondary Dwelling, such as patios or verandahs, would be included in the calculation of floor area and whether approval would be required for a patio/verandah attached to a Small Secondary Dwelling. It is considered appropriate to discuss this matter. The definition of floor area in the R-Codes does not include patio or verandah areas. Thus a covered outside area would not be included in the calculation of floor area under the proposed amendment. Under LPS4, patios are exempt from the requirement for planning approval where located within the side or rear setback areas and compliant with the Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes, except on heritage listed properties. The Acceptable Development provisions allow patios, verandahs and the like to be included as a lot’s open space up to a total of 50sqm or 10% of the lot area, whichever is the lesser. Covered areas that exceed this total area would require separate planning approval, with particular assessment against the open space provisions of the R-Codes. Therefore under the current amendment, a patio attached to a Small Secondary Dwelling would be considered permitted development only where the total aggregate of patios, verandahs and eaves on the lot (including those associated with the existing Single House) is less than 50sqm or 10% of the lot area. Essentially, this situation is the same as what currently exists for any patio additions to existing dwellings. Implementation of the proposed amendment will require consistent interpretation of the definitions of the R-Codes, the current permitted development circumstances under LPS4 and the proposed permitted development circumstances for Small Secondary Dwellings under the proposed amendment, and in particular the interaction between these provisions. However, this is not anticipated to present any significant problems to the successful implementation of the proposed amendment and therefore no changes to the definition or method to calculate floor area is recommended. CONCLUSION Amendment No. 46 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 has been prepared to facilitate the development of Small Secondary Dwellings on existing residential lots. The amendment was advertised in accordance with the process detailed in the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and relevant local planning policy. The recommended modifications to the amendment are considered relatively minor in nature and thus do not warrant further advertising of the proposal. Therefore it is recommended that Council approve Scheme Amendment No. 46, as modified, for final adoption.


Page 100

COMMITTEE/OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 2. 2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and

Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolve to adopt with modification Scheme Amendment No. 46 to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

i) Amending Table 2 – zoning, by:

1. Add ‘small secondary dwelling’ to the list of residential use classes. 2. Insert ‘P’ in the column for the residential zone and ‘X’ in all other

zones.

ii) Amending clause 5.3 – Special Application of Residential Design Codes, by adding clause 5.3.5:

‘5.3.5 Small secondary dwellings 5.3.5.1 The development of a small secondary dwelling is to conform

to the provisions of the following design elements of the Residential Design Codes or the provisions of a local planning policy varying or replacing the provisions of any of the following design elements (as the case may be), as they apply to single houses: (a) Design Element 6.2: streetscape requirements; (b) Design Element 6.3: boundary setback requirements; (c) Design Element 6.4.2: outdoor living area; (d) Design Element 6.6: site works requirements; (e) Design Element 6.8: privacy requirements; (f) Design Element 6.9: design climate requirements; (g) Design Element 6.10.1: outbuildings; (h) Design Element 6.10.2: external fixtures.

5.3.5.2 For the purpose of applying design elements 6.3 and 6.8 of the

Residential Design Codes under clauses 5.3.5.1 and 8.2(o)(iv), all windows, doors or other openings in an exterior wall of a habitable room which has a floor level of more than 0.5m above natural ground level shall be regarded as a major opening.

5.3.5.3 Except as provided in clause 5.3.5.1, the provisions of the

Residential Design Codes do not apply to small secondary dwellings.


Page 101

5.3.5.4 Where planning approval is required for a small secondary dwelling solely due to the small secondary dwelling being located within a place that is:

(i) entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

(ii) the subject of an order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; or

(iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of this

Scheme,

Council, when considering the application for approval, shall only have regard to the potential impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place that may be caused by the small secondary dwelling.

5.3.5.5 Council shall not be required to give public notice or require the applicant to give notice of a planning application where the requirement for planning approval is solely due to the small secondary dwelling being located within a place that is:





Scheme. 5.3.5.6 The development of more than one small secondary dwelling

on a lot is prohibited. 5.3.5.7 Except for the definitions of ‘grouped dwelling’, ‘small

secondary dwelling’ and ‘single house’ all provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

5.3.5.8 Any small secondary dwelling approved, constructed or

substantially commenced before the date on which the provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings cease operation shall thereafter be subject to clauses 4.8 to 4.12.’


Page 102

iii) Amending clause 5.4.1 subdivision as follows:

5.4.1 Subdivision

Council will not support the creation of:

(a) freehold or survey strata lots with an area per dwelling less than that prescribed under Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes unless otherwise permitted by this Scheme; or

(b) a freehold, strata or survey strata lot which is solely occupied

by a small secondary dwelling at the time the application for approval of the lot is made.

iv) Amending Table 3 – vehicle parking by:

1. Adding ‘small secondary dwelling’ as a residential use class, and; 2. Inserting ‘not applicable’ under the headings ‘Car Parking Bays’,

‘Delivery Bays’ and ‘Bicycle Racks’.

v) Amending clause 5.8.2 – Variation to other requirements by adding clause 5.8.2.2, as follows:

5.8.2 Variation to other requirements

5.8.2.1 The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme

subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following: (a) the variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of

adjoining properties or with the locality generally; (b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings

on-site and adjoining; and (c) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local

planning policies.

5.8.2.2 The powers conferred by clauses 5.8.1, 5.8.2.1 and 7.5 do not apply to vary the requirements of any land use definition in Schedule 1- Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions’.

vi) Amending clause 8.2 by adding new clause 8.2(o) as follows:

(o) a small secondary dwelling which:

(i) is located on a lot with a minimum area of 450 square metres; (ii) is detached from the existing single house on the lot; (iii) is set back from the primary street and any secondary street by

a minimum of 6 metres; and (iv) conforms with the acceptable development provisions of the

following design elements of the Residential Design Codes or the provisions of a local planning policy varying or replacing


Page 103

the acceptable development provisions of any of the following design elements (as the case may be), as they apply to single houses:

(A) Design Element 6.3: boundary setback requirements; (B) Design Element 6.4.2: outdoor living area; (C) Design Element 6.6: site works requirements; (D) Design Element 6.8: privacy requirements; (E) Design Element 6.9: design for climate requirements; (F) Design Element 6.10.1: outbuildings; and (G) Design Element 6.10.2: external fixtures’,

except where the small secondary dwelling is located within a place that is:

(i) entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of

Western Australia Act 1990;


(iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of this Scheme.

vii) Introducing the definition of ‘small secondary dwelling’ into clause 12.1

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions, Land Use Definitions:

‘small secondary dwelling means a dwelling on the same lot as an existing single house where: (a) the total floor area of the dwelling including any areas above

the ground floor level, such as a loft or mezzanine level, does not exceed 55 square metres on a lot with an area of 600 square metres or less;

(b) the area of the ground floor level of the dwelling does not exceed 65 square metres and the total of all floor areas does not exceed 70 square metres on a lot with an area greater than 600 square metres;

(c) the height of any external wall of the dwelling, except an external gable end wall, does not exceed 3.0 metres;

(d) the height of any external gable end wall of the dwelling does not exceed 5.5 metres to the apex of the roof; and

(e) the building height of the dwelling does not exceed 5.5 metres’.

viii) Amending the definition of ‘grouped dwelling’ in clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions, Land Use Definitions: ‘grouped dwelling has the same meaning as in the Residential Design Codes but excludes a small secondary dwelling’.


Page 104

ix) Amending the definition of ‘single house’ in clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions, Land Use Definitions:

‘single house has the same meaning as in the Residential Design Codes but also includes a dwelling which, together with a small secondary dwelling, occupies a lot’.

x) Amending clause 11.11, as follows:

‘11.11 Notices in relation to small secondary dwellings 11.11.1 Where, in the opinion of council, a small secondary dwelling is

in conflict with the amenity of the locality, the council may by written notice require the owner of the lot on which the small secondary dwelling is located to:

(a) remove, relocate, alter, repair or repaint the small

secondary dwelling; and (b) remove overgrown vegetation, rubbish, machinery or

disused materials or vehicles.

11.11.2 For the purpose of clause 11.11.1, any notice served on an owner must specify:

(a) the small secondary dwelling the subject of the notice; (b) the reasons why the small secondary dwelling conflicts

with the amenity of the locality; (c) the action which the owner must take to comply with the

notice; and (d) the period, being not less than 60 days from the date of

the notice, within which the action specified in the notice is to be completed by the owner.

11.11.3 An owner who fails to comply with a notice served under clause

11.11.1 contravenes this Scheme. 11.11.4 An owner on whom notice is served under clause 11.11.1 may

apply for review of the determination of the Council to issue the notice to the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.’

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme

Amendment No. 46 as referred to in (2) above.


Page 105

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 2. 2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and

Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolve to adopt with modification Scheme Amendment No. 46 to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

xi) Amending Table 2 – zoning, by:

1. Add ‘small secondary dwelling’ to the list of residential use classes. 2. Insert ‘P’ in the column for the residential zone and ‘X’ in all other

zones.

xii) Amending clause 5.3 – Special Application of Residential Design Codes, by adding clause 5.3.5:

‘5.3.5 Small secondary dwellings 5.3.5.1 The development of a small secondary dwelling is to conform

to the provisions of the following design elements of the Residential Design Codes or the provisions of a local planning policy varying or replacing the provisions of any of the following design elements (as the case may be), as they apply to single houses: (a) Design Element 6.2: streetscape requirements; (b) Design Element 6.3: boundary setback requirements; (c) Design Element 6.4.2: outdoor living area; (d) Design Element 6.6: site works requirements; (e) Design Element 6.8: privacy requirements; (f) Design Element 6.9: design climate requirements; (g) Design Element 6.10.1: outbuildings; (h) Design Element 6.10.2: external fixtures.


Page 106

5.3.5.2 For the purpose of applying design elements 6.3 and 6.8 of the

Residential Design Codes under clauses 5.3.5.1 and 8.2(o)(iv), all windows, doors or other openings in an exterior wall of a habitable room which has a floor level of more than 0.5m above natural ground level shall be regarded as a major opening.

5.3.5.3 Except as provided in clause 5.3.5.1, the provisions of the

Residential Design Codes do not apply to small secondary dwellings.

5.3.5.4 Where planning approval is required for a small secondary

dwelling solely due to the small secondary dwelling being located within a place that is:





Scheme,

Council, when considering the application for approval, shall only have regard to the potential impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place that may be caused by the small secondary dwelling.

5.3.5.5 Council shall not be required to give public notice or require the applicant to give notice of a planning application where the requirement for planning approval is solely due to the small secondary dwelling being located within a place that is:





Scheme. 5.3.5.6 The development of more than one small secondary dwelling

on a lot is prohibited. 5.3.5.7 Except for the definitions of ‘grouped dwelling’, ‘small

secondary dwelling’ and ‘single house’ all provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication


Page 107

in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

5.3.5.8 Any small secondary dwelling approved, constructed or

substantially commenced before the date on which the provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings cease operation shall thereafter be subject to clauses 4.8 to 4.12.’

xiii) Amending clause 5.4.1 subdivision as follows:

5.4.1 Subdivision

Council will not support the creation of:

(a) freehold or survey strata lots with an area per dwelling less

than that prescribed under Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes unless otherwise permitted by this Scheme; or

(b) a freehold, strata or survey strata lot which is solely occupied

by a small secondary dwelling at the time the application for approval of the lot is made.

xiv) Amending Table 3 – vehicle parking by:

1. Adding ‘small secondary dwelling’ as a residential use class, and; 2. Inserting ‘not applicable’ under the headings ‘Car Parking Bays’,

‘Delivery Bays’ and ‘Bicycle Racks’.

xv) Amending clause 5.8.2 – Variation to other requirements by adding clause 5.8.2.2, as follows:

5.8.2 Variation to other requirements

5.8.2.1 The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme

subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following: (a) the variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of

adjoining properties or with the locality generally; (b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings

on-site and adjoining; and (c) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local

planning policies.

5.8.2.2 The powers conferred by clauses 5.8.1, 5.8.2.1 and 7.5 do not apply to vary the requirements of any land use definition in Schedule 1- Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions’.


Page 108

xvi) Amending clause 8.2 by adding new clause 8.2(o) as follows:

(o) a small secondary dwelling which:

(i) is located on a lot with a minimum area of 450 square metres; (ii) is detached from the existing single house on the lot; (iii) is set back from the primary street and any secondary street by

a minimum of 6 metres; and (iv) conforms with the acceptable development provisions of the

following design elements of the Residential Design Codes or the provisions of a local planning policy varying or replacing the acceptable development provisions of any of the following design elements (as the case may be), as they apply to single houses:

(A) Design Element 6.3: boundary setback requirements; (B) Design Element 6.4.2: outdoor living area; (C) Design Element 6.6: site works requirements; (D) Design Element 6.8: privacy requirements; (E) Design Element 6.9: design for climate requirements; (F) Design Element 6.10.1: outbuildings; and (G) Design Element 6.10.2: external fixtures’,

except where the small secondary dwelling is located within a place that is:

(i) entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of

Western Australia Act 1990;


(iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of this Scheme.

xvii) Introducing the definition of ‘small secondary dwelling’ into clause 12.1

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions, Land Use Definitions:

‘small secondary dwelling means a dwelling on the same lot as an existing single house where: (a) the total floor area of the dwelling including any areas above

the ground floor level, such as a loft or mezzanine level, does not exceed 55 square metres on a lot with an area of 600 square metres or less;

(b) the area of the ground floor level of the dwelling does not exceed 65 square metres and the total of all floor areas does not exceed 70 square metres on a lot with an area greater than 600 square metres;

(c) the height of any external wall of the dwelling, except an external gable end wall, does not exceed 3.0 metres;


Page 109

(d) the height of any external gable end wall of the dwelling does not exceed 5.5 metres to the apex of the roof; and

(e) the building height of the dwelling does not exceed 5.5 metres’.

xviii) Amending the definition of ‘grouped dwelling’ in clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions, Land Use Definitions: ‘grouped dwelling has the same meaning as in the Residential Design Codes but excludes a small secondary dwelling’.

xix) Amending the definition of ‘single house’ in clause 12.1 Schedule 1 –

Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions, Land Use Definitions:

‘single house has the same meaning as in the Residential Design Codes but also includes a dwelling which, together with a small secondary dwelling, occupies a lot’.

xx) Amending clause 11.11, as follows:

‘11.11 Notices in relation to small secondary dwellings 11.11.1 Where, in the opinion of council, a small secondary dwelling is

in conflict with the amenity of the locality, the council may by written notice require the owner of the lot on which the small secondary dwelling is located to:

(a) remove, relocate, alter, repair or repaint the small

secondary dwelling; and (b) remove overgrown vegetation, rubbish, machinery or

disused materials or vehicles.

11.11.2 For the purpose of clause 11.11.1, any notice served on an owner must specify:

(a) the small secondary dwelling the subject of the notice; (b) the reasons why the small secondary dwelling conflicts

with the amenity of the locality; (c) the action which the owner must take to comply with the

notice; and (d) the period, being not less than 60 days from the date of

the notice, within which the action specified in the notice is to be completed by the owner.

11.11.3 An owner who fails to comply with a notice served under clause

11.11.1 contravenes this Scheme. 11.11.4 An owner on whom notice is served under clause 11.11.1 may

apply for review of the determination of the Council to issue the notice to the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.’


Page 110

5. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

6. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme

Amendment No. 46 as referred to in (2) above. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 111


PSC1107-137 FINAL ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.13 AND SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 45 - SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

DataWorks Reference: 218/049 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 July 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC0901-14, PSC0903-56, PSC0905-92, PSC0910-12 &

PSC1102-29 Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 45 to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policy 2.13 Sustainable Building Design Requirements policy. The scheme amendment introduces into LPS4 wording that will provide Council with a clear authority to prepare Sustainable Building Design Requirements policies for any type of development in any zone (currently LPS4 provides for such policies for residential development only). The provisions of the draft policy will require new commercial, mixed use and multi-residential development over a certain size to achieve a minimum 4 Star rating for sustainable design under the ‘Green Star’ rating tool. The amendment and policy were placed out for comment and four submissions were received. The submissions support the aims of the scheme amendment and policy but express concerns with regard to the potential impact of sustainable building design requirements upon heritage conservation and streetscape. It is recommended that Council resolves to adopt the amendment without modification and the Local Planning Policy with modification. BACKGROUND

The Minister for Planning, on 30 November 2010, refused to grant final approval to scheme amendment no. 22 which sought to introduce into the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) mandatory provisions to require new commercial, mixed use and multi-residential development over a certain size to achieve a minimum 4 Star rating for sustainable design under the ‘Green Star’ rating tool. The Minister, in the reasons for his decision, specifically referred to a local planning policy as a more appropriate implementation tool for achieving sustainable building design:


Page 112

1. “The introduction of mandatory provisions in the local planning scheme for sustainable building design is considered to be outside the ambit of the Planning and Development Act 2005.”

2. “Current national initiatives support the application of energy efficiency objectives

on a policy basis and it is considered that given the complexity of sustainable design principles, a local planning policy would provide a more effective implementation tool.”

Accordingly a local planning policy (LPP 2.13) incorporating the provisions of the unsuccessful scheme amendment No. 22 was drafted. A minor scheme amendment to LPS4 was concurrently proposed to ensure consistency with the policy. These documents were approved for public advertising by Council in February 2011. For more information on Scheme amendment No. 22 see Council minutes PSC0901-14, PSC0903-56, PSC0905-92 and PSC0910-12. For further background on Amendment No. 45 and LPP2.13 see minutes PSC1102-29. CONSULTATION

Following referral from the Environmental Protection Authority, advertising of the scheme amendment was undertaken in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The proposed scheme amendment was advertised for comment from 3 May 2011 to 20 June 2011, with advertisements being placed in the Fremantle Herald and West Australian newspapers. The draft Local Planning Policy 2.13 was advertised concurrently. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, and other interested parties and key agencies were also specifically notified and copies of the amendment and policy documents were made available for viewing at the Service and Information Counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. Four submissions were received (refer to Attachment 1 – schedule of submissions for further information). Two stated no objection (Western Power and Main Roads). The other two submissions (from the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) and a local architecture firm) are summarised below:

Both the local architecture firm and the Heritage Council support in principle the scheme amendment and policy, however both recognise the need to reconcile Sustainable Building Design requirements with the need to protect the character of the historic environment. The local architecture firm further note that the proposed policy needs to include a requirement that will ensure that the right balance between sustainable building requirements and heritage conservation is achieved. Without this requirement being mandatory, it is possible that sustainable building design could be used to justify intrusive developments that would undermine the significant heritage character of an area.

HCWA suggest that the City could consider including in the policy provisions encouragement for accreditation to a Green Star Rating of more than 4 stars or a voluntary accreditation where the policy would otherwise not be applied.


Page 113

PLANNING COMMENT

The proposed scheme amendment and draft policy were advertised widely. Four submissions were received, of which two made substantive comments. These comments are addressed in the discussion below. Proposed Scheme Amendment The purpose of the scheme amendment is to provide a clear statutory basis for adoption of local planning policies dealing with sustainable building design requirements, and to align LPS4 with the outcomes of the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-15 which include:

The expansion of green star rating requirements in all future commercial developments.

Initiate Scheme Amendments and Local Laws for improved sustainable housing outcomes.

The scheme amendment aims to:

broaden the scope of sustainable building design requirements that may be sought through local planning policy to include, in addition to energy efficiency, also water efficiency, construction materials, landscaping, emissions and transportation etc.

broaden the scope of what classes of development and land use sustainable building design requirement policies can apply to (currently LPS4 clause 5.4.5 provides for such policies to be prepared for residential development only).

Proposed Local Planning Policy 2.13 The proposed policy takes the provisions of scheme amendment No. 22 and reformats them into a Local Planning Policy. The policy would not apply to certain types of development due to the cost burden associated with obtaining Green Star Certification, as was proposed in amendment 22. The excluded development classes are:

single and grouped residential (Energy efficiency rating already provided for under the Building Code of Australia);

industrial;

development with a floor area of less than 1000 sq m; and

refurbishments of buildings over 1000m2 existing floor space not involving substantial structural or internal alterations and all refurbishments to buildings under 1000m2.

The HCWA’s suggestion that the City could consider including provisions in the policy that encourage accreditation to a Green Star Rating of more than 4 stars or a voluntary accreditation where the policy would otherwise not be applied is a valid suggestion. The City would be supportive of any development voluntarily achieving a 4 star or higher Green Star rating; however it is not considered necessary to specify this in the policy. The policy is specific to new commercial, mixed use and multi-residential developments. Therefore no change to the wording of the draft policy is recommended in respect of this comment.


Page 114

Another matter highlighted in the submissions from both the local architecture firm and the HCWA is the notion of ‘getting the balance right’ between requiring sustainable building design and the protection of heritage character. The local architecture firm is concerned that if this balance is not achieved sustainable building design requirements could be used to justify intrusive developments that would undermine the heritage character of an area. Officers acknowledge that this is a valid concern and one which the City endeavored to address in scheme amendment no. 22. Accordingly, the draft policy, as advertised, makes provision for Council to exercise discretion to waive the requirement to achieve a 4 Star Green Star rating in the case of development affecting a building on the Heritage List, if Council considers that adherence to this requirement would detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the building. Officers consider that if this provision was amended to also apply to Heritage Areas (as referred to in clause 7.2 of LPS4) this modification would address the issue of potential impact of such development on the streetscape as raised in submissions. Consequently it is recommended that a modification to the wording of clause 1.2 of the policy text be made as shown below (additional wording in italics). This wording would be the same as proposed in the final version of Scheme amendment No. 22 which was also modified in light of a similar submission. 1.2 Council may exercise discretion to waive the requirements of the policy in the

case of development where either or both of the following circumstances apply:

a) refurbishment of a building included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 or in a Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the Scheme where, in the opinion of the Council, adherence to the requirements of clause 1.1 would detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the building or area.

b) where no suitable sustainability rating tool has yet been developed for assessment of the type of development proposed.

It is considered appropriate to provide Council with the flexibility to exercise this discretion, although officers believe there is no inherent conflict between achieving a high standard of sustainable design whilst at the same time protecting the heritage values of a building or place, and therefore the concern about this issue should not be over-estimated. There are many examples of development which has achieved a 4 Star (or higher) Green Star rating in new buildings adjacent to heritage listed buildings, and in refurbishments of heritage listed buildings themselves, whilst also safeguarding the heritage values of the place. A development proposal subject to this policy would, as in any other case, be assessed on its individual planning merits having regard to all material planning considerations including relevant provisions of LPS4 and any other relevant local planning policies. Further requirements of the policy are:

A statutory declaration by the land owner acknowledging that an assessor accredited by the Green Building Council of Australia formed part of the design team and contributed to the overall design of the proposal.


Page 115

A requirement through a condition of planning approval that the owner submits to the City a copy of the documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars. The process of accreditation is two-phase and often lengthy as accreditation takes up to 26 weeks. For this reason the policy states that any applicable planning approval should be implemented within 4 years rather than the usual period of 2 years.

CONCLUSION

The proposed Local Planning Policy aims to ensure that prescribed types of development within the City of Fremantle will achieve a minimum of 4 Star Green Star rating therefore securing more sustainable designs and management of new buildings. The associated scheme amendment will provide a clear head of power through LPS4 for adoption of this policy (and any similar sustainable design policies prepared in the future under the provisions of LPS4). Accordingly it is recommended that Council note the submissions received, adopt scheme amendment No. 45 without modification and adopt Local Planning Policy 2.13 Sustainable Building Design Requirements with the modification described earlier in this report. COMMITTEE/OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

attachment 1;

2. Resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, to adopt without modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

A. Delete clause 5.4.5 Energy Efficiency in its entirety. B. After clause 5.15, Note 2, insert the following clause:

5.16 Sustainable building design requirements 5.16.1 Council may prepare a sustainable building design requirements policy

for any class of development. Development prescribed in this policy shall have regard to the minimum energy efficiency requirements specified in the policy.

5.16.2 The sustainable building design requirements policy shall be prepared

and amended in accordance with the provisions contained in clause 2 – local planning policy framework


Page 116

3. Adopt the following Local Planning Policy 2.13 Sustainable Building Design Requirements with modification, in accordance with clause 2.4 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.13

SUSTAINIBLE BUILDINGS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

ADOPTION DATE: 27/06/2011 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.16 of LPS4 states as follows; 5.16 Sustainable building design requirements 5.16.1 Council may prepare a sustainable building design requirements policy



and amended in accordance with the provisions contained in clause 2 – local planning framework

PURPOSE To create sustainable building design requirements for new commercial, mixed use and multi-residential developments. APPLICATION The requirements of this policy apply to all development with the exception of:

a) Single houses and grouped dwellings; b) Buildings used for any industrial use class under the heading

Industrial Use Classes in zoning table 2 of the Local planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4);

c) Any development with a Gross Lettable Area (GLA) of less than 1000 m² GLA;

d) Refurbishments of existing buildings over 1000m² GLA not involving substantial structural or internal alteration and all refurbishments to buildings under 1000m².

POLICY 1. Sustainable Building Design Requirements


Page 117

1.1 Subject to clause 1.2, all developments to which this policy applies shall be

designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool*.

*Note: Should any other accreditation tool similar to the Green Star tool be developed and used nationally Council can review the policy and amend accordingly.

1.2 Council may exercise discretion to waive the requirements of the policy in

the case of development where either or both of the following circumstances apply:

a) refurbishment of a building included on the Heritage List under clause

7.1 or in a Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the Scheme where, in the opinion of the Council, adherence to the requirements of clause 1.1 would detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the building or area.

b) where no suitable sustainability rating tool has yet been developed for

assessment of the type of development proposed. 2 Additional Information for Sustainable Building Design applications 2.1 Where an application for planning approval is made to commence or carry

out development as referred to in clause 1.1, unless the Council waives any particular requirement the application shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration signed by the applicant and/or owner stating:

a) an assessor accredited by the Green Building Council of Australia

formed part of the design team and contributed to the overall design of the proposal; and

b) acknowledging that the applicant and/or owner is aware of and on

completion will be able to meet the requirements of clauses 1 and 3 of this policy.

3 Conditions of approval 3.1 Where a development meets the requirements of clause 1.1 and is not

exempt under 1.2 a condition shall be placed on the approval that states:

Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of classification for the development, the owner is to submit to the Council a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star rating of at least 4 Stars.

3.2 Planning approvals issued under this policy shall have a planning approval

period specified of no less than 4 years unless otherwise determined by Council, with the following condition applied to the planning approval:


Page 118

The development hereby permitted must substantially commence within [insert timeframe] from the date of this decision letter. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: 4. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

attachment 1;

5. Resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, to adopt without modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

A. Delete clause 5.4.5 Energy Efficiency in its entirety. B. After clause 5.15, Note 2, insert the following clause:

5.16 Sustainable building design requirements 5.16.1 Council may prepare a sustainable building design requirements policy



and amended in accordance with the provisions contained in clause 2 – local planning policy framework

6. Adopt the following Local Planning Policy 2.13 Sustainable Building Design Requirements with modification, in accordance with clause 2.4 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 as shown below:


Page 119

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.13

SUSTAINIBLE BUILDINGS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

ADOPTION DATE: 27/06/2011 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.16 of LPS4 states as follows; 5.16 Sustainable building design requirements 5.16.1 Council may prepare a sustainable building design requirements policy



and amended in accordance with the provisions contained in clause 2 – local planning framework

PURPOSE To create sustainable building design requirements for new commercial, mixed use and multi-residential developments. APPLICATION The requirements of this policy apply to all development with the exception of:

a) Single houses and grouped dwellings; b) Buildings used for any industrial use class under the heading

Industrial Use Classes in zoning table 2 of the Local planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4);

c) Any development with a Gross Lettable Area (GLA) of less than 1000 m² GLA;

d) Refurbishments of existing buildings over 1000m² GLA not involving substantial structural or internal alteration and all refurbishments to buildings under 1000m².

POLICY 1. Sustainable Building Design Requirements 1.1 Subject to clause 1.2, all developments to which this policy applies shall be

designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool*.


Page 120

*Note: Should any other accreditation tool similar to the Green Star tool be developed and used nationally Council can review the policy and amend accordingly.

1.2 Council may exercise discretion to waive the requirements of the policy in

the case of development where either or both of the following circumstances apply:

a) refurbishment of a building included on the Heritage List under clause

7.1 or in a Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the Scheme where, in the opinion of the Council, adherence to the requirements of clause 1.1 would detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the building or area.

b) where no suitable sustainability rating tool has yet been developed for

assessment of the type of development proposed. 2 Additional Information for Sustainable Building Design applications 2.1 Where an application for planning approval is made to commence or carry

out development as referred to in clause 1.1, unless the Council waives any particular requirement the application shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration signed by the applicant and/or owner stating:

a) an assessor accredited by the Green Building Council of Australia

formed part of the design team and contributed to the overall design of the proposal; and

b) acknowledging that the applicant and/or owner is aware of and on

completion will be able to meet the requirements of clauses 1 and 3 of this policy.

3 Conditions of approval 3.1 Where a development meets the requirements of clause 1.1 and is not

exempt under 1.2 a condition shall be placed on the approval that states:

Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of classification for the development, the owner is to submit to the Council a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star rating of at least 4 Stars.

3.2 Planning approvals issued under this policy shall have a planning approval

period specified of no less than 4 years unless otherwise determined by Council, with the following condition applied to the planning approval:

The development hereby permitted must substantially commence within [insert timeframe] from the date of this decision letter. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith


Page 121

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



Page 122

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 15 JUNE 2011

SGS1106-2 SOUTH TERRACE IMPROVEMENTS WORKING GROUP FINAL REPORT

DataWorks Reference: 039/067 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 June 2011 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Philip Gale, Manager Infrastructure Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: South Terrace Improvements Working Group Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item presents the recommendations of the South Terrace Improvement Working Group for consideration of budget and implementation processes.

BACKGROUND

In June 2010, Council directed that a number of community based working groups be formed to undertake deliberative consideration of issues that stemmed from the Council’s major strategic imperatives. The South Terrace Improvement Working Group (STIWG) was formed with the following objective;

To deliver an urban design solution that identifies the vision and core principles for the future traffic management and design of South Terrace within the city’s central section from Market Street to Wray Avenue. This design solution will cover such issues as traffic management / calming, pedestrian and cyclist safety and accommodation in the transport mix. Public transport needs and accommodation in the transport corridor, the aesthetics of the urban streetscape and the commercial viability of any preferred option. The Working Group is to develop a number of options with analysis of each option to provide a list of prioritised recommendations. The output from the Working Group is to be provided for consideration and adoption by Council.

The group first met in August 2010 and has met on a regular basis over the past 9 months. The work of the group entailed site visits, interactive workshops and rigorous debate over the issues facing the South Terrace environment and community.


Page 123

COMMENT

The group determined that there was a matrix of processes and activities that would best describe their direction and outcomes. The time element of the matrix focused on three elements, short, medium and long term activities. The activities themselves were divided into community and urban design criteria. Thus the recommendations derived through the groups deliberations were categorised by time and activity. There are a number of recommendations, ranging from very simple community engagement ‘do now’ type ideas to longer term strategic transport planning suggestions. It is worthy of note that a number of ideas have already either occurred or been funded through interim budget allocations by the Council. These funded solutions include; $28 000 for greening activities within the Terrace, $10,000 for the establishment of pedestrian crossings and shared zones on the Terrace and $2000 for the Cappuccino Strip activities which occurred between January and April 2011 Separate to the working group was the construction of the round-a-bout at the Wray Ave intersection as part of the streetscape improvements. It is proposed to include landscaping elements in Wray Ave, South Tce and Howard St. The cost of these works is $12,000 and this can be allocated from the roundabout project funds.

It is proposed to plant up to 3 mature Grass Trees that will be between 2m and 3m high, along with ground covers in the round-a-bout itself.

Two street trees (Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallow) are to be planted outside Wild poppy, with the possibility of a third tree after further investigation.

Three trees (Platanus x acerfifolia London Plane Tree) will be planted at the Howard St and South Tce intersection.

Officers are investigating the options for further street tree planting along the southern side of Wray Ave, closest to the round-a-bout

The Working Group’s requests specifically for the 2011/2012 financial year are limited to $5000 to continue the Cappuccino Club activities and $15 000 to employ Place Maker Consultant David Enwight to develop a mentor program. This program would involve;

Training focused on ‘low hanging fruit’ Action Plan

Mentoring and support during implementation of the action plan

Review and feedback of outcomes of implemented action plan.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

The report makes a number of recommendations that will need to be considered in conjunction with other working groups requests and the usual Council budget requirements.


Page 124

Legal

Nil Operational

Some of the activities and recommendations have the potential to impact on current operational processes. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The STIWG has undergone a metamorphosis from individuals coming together with a common passion for their community into a cohesive group which has been able to produce a comprehensive report with recommendations to guide the future look and feel of the area that is South Terrace. The allocated funding provided thus far will be used in the new financial year to make a start on putting the recommendations into place and the requested extra funding in the 2011/2012 year will further enhance the community engagement activities hilighted in the groups’ report.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Strategic Imperative - Character Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage an history. Strategic Imperative - Urban Renewal &Integration Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The whole process of setting up the working groups has been a community engagement and facilitation exercise.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


Page 125

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council;

1. Receives the report from the South Terrace Improvements Working Group. 2. Lists funds of $20,000 to further implement the recommendations of the

South Terrace improvements Working Group for consideration in the 2011/12 draft budget.

3. Gives further consideration to the recommendations of the South Terrace

Improvements Working Group as part of the draft forward capital works program.

4. Thanks the South Terrace Improvements Working Group for their efforts in

developing the 'South Terrace Improvements Strategy 2011'. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Georgie Adeane Cr John Alberti Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson


Page 126

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council;

1. Receives the report from the South Terrace Improvements Working Group. 2. Notes that funds of $20,000 to further implement the recommendations of

the South Terrace Improvements Working Group has been allocated in the 2011/12 Budget.

3. Gives further consideration to the recommendations of the South Terrace

Improvements Working Group as part of the draft forward capital works program.

4. Thanks the South Terrace Improvements Working Group for their efforts in

developing the 'South Terrace Improvements Strategy 2011'. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 8/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Funds are now available as 2011/12 Budget has been adopted.


Page 127

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 13 JULY 2011

Cr D Coggin moved en bloc recommendations numbered SGS1107-2, SGS1107-3, SGS1107-4, SGS1107-6, SGS1107-7, SGS1107-8. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 128

The following item number SGS1107-2 was moved and carried en bloc earlier in the meeting.

SGS1107-2 COMMERCIAL RECYCLING SERVICE

DataWorks Reference: 171/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 July 2011 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Manager City Works Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The increasing cost of waste disposal and the strategic aim of the City to be more sustainable has provided the impetus to identify ways of increasing the yield of recyclable waste and in particular from the commercial sector. Better recycling will provide environmental benefits to the community and reduced disposal costs for the City’s current commercial refuse service. The disposal costs for the previous financial year was $100/ tonne for landfill compared to recyclables disposal at $85/tonne through a private facility. Following assessment of various options to increase commercial recycling and in recognition that other private operators are already providing forms of commercial recycling services the preferred strategy is to provide commercial premises with access to a domestic sized recycling service. In this regard it is proposed that the City will offer a fortnightly recycling collection service to commercial premises for one bin being either 120 L, 240L or 360L size. The commercial premise will be responsible for the purchase cost of one of these bins. The implementation of a promotional program improving the awareness of the benefits of recycling and encouraging sustainable waste disposal will form part of the roll out.

BACKGROUND

In May 2009, Bowman and Associates presented a report to the City regarding commercial recycling. This report states that the major recoverable recyclable stream is paper and cardboard and that a segregated cardboard and paper recycling service can be introduced. It also recommended that a commingled recycling stream be introduced where contamination is manageable. Existing waste services The City of Fremantle currently provides the following commercial waste services:


Page 129

1. Commercial waste is collected from the majority of commercial / businesses that have been provide with a 240 L bin and the refuse is sent to landfill. Some businesses have been provided with additional bulk bins. The City collects approximately 5000 tonnes of this commercial waste each year.

2. A small stream of commercial cardboard being approximately 80 tonnes is collected by a contractor and delivered to Amcor for recycling.

3. A six month trial of commercial recycling commenced in O’Connor in December 2010. This involved approximately 90 businesses who were provided with a free 240 L recycling bin. Over this period of time approximately 15 tonnes of recycled waste was collected.

COMMENT

If the Council decides to implement a commercial recycling service and in recognition that there are existing private operators already providing recycling services including larger bins, and to avoid potential competition issues, the preferred option is to supplement the current recycling services. Therefore, the preferred option is a commingled recycling service, similar to the domestic service that can collect glass, paper, plastics, cardboard, aluminium and metal. It is proposed that commercial premises within the City will be offered a free collection service for one recycling bin being either 120 L, 240L or 360L size. Each commercial premise will be liable for the cost of the required bin. A range of bins is proposed so it can suit the capacity needs and site constraints of individual commercial premises. It would be most efficient to collect this stream by utilising the current residential recycling collection routes. The most significant benefits of this option are;

The ability to implement it incrementally as and when requested by a specific commercial premise thereby minimising upfront expenditure.

Retaining a fortnightly collection thereby removing the need to expend funds on additional collection processes and minimising the carbon output due to extra collection vehicle emissions.

Benefits of commercial recycling The City currently collects a large amount of commercial waste which is sent to landfill. Prices for sending a commingled commercial waste stream to landfill are approximately $100/tonne. Residential recycling disposal currently costs $85/tonne. In the medium term it is likely that the gap between recycling and landfill costs will increase and diverting commercial waste from landfill through recycling will further reduce costs. Also, the diverting of waste from landfill would save greenhouse gases and allow for recycling and reuse of materials.


Page 130

Potential difficulties The most likely issue that would prevent a successful commercial recycling scheme is contamination with inappropriate waste. Domestic recycling is a well accepted practice and there are several materials recovery facilities (MRFs) that have been designed to sort this comparatively homogeneous waste stream. Some commercial waste, such as sheet metal or large quantities of shrink wrap can damage a MRF and are therefore not suitable for inclusion in recycling streams. If a commercial recycling service was to be introduced contamination would need to be minimised. Education would play a key role in promoting responsible behaviour.


Financial

If a fortnightly commercial recycling service with a range of 120L, 240L, or 360L mobile garbage bins is implemented the main cost to the City will be the collection and disposal costs. The City has approximately 1700 commercial businesses to which a green bin refuse service is provided. If most of these businesses were to take up a forthrightly recycling service the cost of collection would be in the order of $150,000. The disposal costs are difficult to estimate due to uncertainty of participation and recycled tonnages but based on the trial in O’Connor an expected range would be from $50,000 to $100,000. Funds of $270,000 have been listed in the 2011/12 Budget for this service. Legal

Through the Waste and Recycling Act Local Governments are tasked with the exclusive responsibility for dealing with waste services from residential sources. The City is entitled to but not obliged to provide waste services to any commercial premises. There are also a number of companies that specialise in waste collection who are or can provide a commercial recycling service to commercial businesses. The Local Government Act allows a Local Government in performing its executive functions to provide services but it is required to satisfy itself that such services integrate and coordinate at the public sector, and do not duplicate services provided by the private sector. National competition policy prohibits government agencies from unfairly competing with businesses. The City currently contracts Perth Waste for the collection of residential recyclables under tender FCC346/10. This contract specifically identifies the receptacles as 240L bins. Changes to the collection with different size bins will need a variation to contract, and also take into account any extra time taken on a residential route. This contract is due to expire 30th June 2012.


Page 131

Operational

The collection of residential recyclables is currently outsourced to a contractor and therefore the internal operational impact is limited. Organisational

A fee for the supply, assembly and delivery of bins has been listed in the 2011/12 Budget as follows;

Fees / Charges – 120L bin - $ 92.00 240L bin - $ 106.00 360L bin - $ 138.00 Costs are inclusive of GST

CONCLUSION

Whilst there may be several avenues that can be investigated to divert commercial waste from landfill the preferred strategy for the City to be a recycling service provider to the commercial sector is to implement a commingled recycling scheme, similar to the existing residential service. It is proposed that the commercial sector be offered this service on the basis that the mobile garbage recycling bin is at the individual commercial premise’s cost and the collection is on a fortnightly basis. It would appear from the trial in O’Connor that some businesses would prefer dedicated larger bins for specific recycling of material such as glass or cardboard. There are other recycling operators that already or can provide this service. It is anticipated that the provision of the range of mobile garbage bins for recycling is likely to suit the smaller office type businesses. As it is uncertain as to what the participation will be it is proposed to undertake a review of the commercial recycling service in twelve months time and provide a report to Council on the participation rates and costs incurred.


Strategic Plan Outcome – Reduced Carbon Emissions SG2 – Waste Minimisation


As part of the Consultant’s report, interviews were conducted with several businesses. Most of these expressed a desire to recycle, but a low willingness to pay for the service. There is an expectation from many business owners, especially small to medium enterprises, that recycling should be provided as a matter of course to all premises. Developing a recycling system will meet this expectation.




Page 132

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council;

1. Offers to commercial premises a comingled recycling collection service on a fortnightly basis for one bin being either of 120 L, 240L, or 360L size with the commercial premise’s responsible for the bin purchase cost.

2. Requests a report on a review of the effectiveness of the commercial

recycling service in twelve months time. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Georgie Adeane Cr John Alberti Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council;

1. Offers to commercial premises a comingled recycling collection service on a fortnightly basis for one bin being either of 120 L, 240L, or 360L size with the commercial premise’s responsible for the bin purchase cost.

2. Requests a report on a review of the effectiveness of the commercial

recycling service in twelve months time. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 133

The following item number SGS1107-3 was moved and carried en bloc earlier in

the meeting.

SGS1107-3 CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF OLD HILTON POLICE STATION

DataWorks Reference: 102/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 July 2011 Previous Item: SGS0912-04 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Site plan

Arial photo

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Advice has been received from Department of Regional Development and Lands (DRD&L) that the government intends to dispose of the Old Hilton Police Station by sale on the open market. However, prior to doing so the property is being offered to the City of Fremantle at valuation. Council will recall its resolution of December 2009 that established a council preference for the property to remain in public ownership. In accordance with that resolution, the Mayor and CEO met with the Minister for Police in early 2010 seeking that outcome, however it was made clear by the Minister that the Police had no further use for the property and the Minister would not intervene in the government disposal process. In March this year, the CEO wrote to DRD&L seeking the valuation for the property to allow council the opportunity to consider whether there is a strategic benefit to the City of Fremantle in acquiring the property. Advice has now been received that the Landgate valuation is $680,000. The property is offered for sale to the City of Fremantle at this price. This report discusses the options for council consideration.

BACKGROUND

In December 2009, Cr Wainwright moved a Notice of Motion with a recommendation as follows: “That the Council, via the Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie, directly approaches the Police Minister regarding the future of the Hilton Police Station building. Specifically, Council asks that the building not be disposed of by the Police Department or State Government, until Council can give consideration to future uses.”


Page 134

On 14th April 2010, the Mayor and CEO met with the Minister for Police seeking to have the Minister support the council’s position of retaining the property in public ownership. However, the Minister made it clear that the Police had no further use for the property and that he would not intervene in the government disposal process. As a result, the property is now being managed by the DRD&L for disposal, who have written to the City seeking an indication of the City’s interest in purchasing the property prior to the property going on the open market. The CEO has responded seeking a valuation so that the matter can be considered by council. That valuation has been received and is $680,000.

COMMENT

The property is lot 1975 on D26484, Reserve 26457 on Corner Paget Street and Nicholas Crescent Hilton. The lot is an L shaped lot with frontages to both streets. It has an area of 1,416 square metres and is currently zoned residential (R20). An inspection of the property was undertaken by officers. There are two significant buildings – the police station fronting Paget Street and a residence fronting Nicholas Crescent. There is also a brick and tile storeroom/shed at the rear of the residence, and a metal shed at the rear of the police station. The Police Station The main building is brick and tile constructed, about 80 square metres in floor area, built probably around the 1960’s, and a fairly typical fit for purpose building for a small local police station. The building appears to be in sound condition, but would require some works to be habitable for any purpose. Residence The residence is also brick and tile constructed, about 100 square metres in floor area, and likely built at the same time as the station for the police sergeant. The building also appears to be in sound condition, although the roof has some buckling and the gutters need replacing. Opportunities Option 1 - As they stand, both buildings would require works to be undertaken to be fit for occupation. The grounds are relatively unkempt, and the bitumen paved areas are showing cracking. A total investment of around $1 million (including purchase value) would provide a residence that could be let at residential market rates, probably between $350 - $400 per week ($20,000 per annum) and an ex police station that could be used for community purposes, although that purpose/s has not been identified for this report. However, any community purpose is not likely to provide any significant financial return to the City so the overall return on investment after outgoings is likely to be 1 – 2% per annum. It should be noted that the new Hilton PCYC/Community Centre which will be completed in the coming months at a total cost of over $6 million is only 200 metres away and also the soon to be completed Hilton Fremantle Junior Dockers building on Hilton Park is also within easy walking distance and has a large community use space in the development.


Page 135

Consequently, officers believe that holding this property for community use is a luxury that council cannot afford and recommend against purchase for community purposes. Option 2 - The property could be purchased for residential development and it is likely that a return on investment would be made. The valuation does seem to be on the low side of the market given the potential, although the current zoning is Residential R20 is somewhat restrictive to developing the site to its full potential and does hold the valuation down. To test the valuation officers have sought a market valuation from a local agent. That valuation will be provided when it becomes available. However, residential development is not council’s core business and the private sector is better able to undertake this if this is to be the ultimate use for the property. Officer would not recommend purchase if the council is simply intending to develop for the broader residential market. To look at further options, officers considered for what purposes a development outcome could support the council’s strategic plan. And whilst it could potentially be developed to meet a number of imperatives, the most obvious ‘fit’ seems to be with the provision of affordable housing. Option 3 - If council was keen for the site to be developed with affordable or special purpose housing, there would be a number of decisions that would need to be made so that a business plan could be prepared and advertised for community comment prior to purchase. In outlining those decisions below, officers have assumed that council would not be the developer.

Determine whether the council is intending to on sell at cost or perhaps whether to subsidise the price to achieve an outcome;

Determine the type of development it is seeking;

Determine whether there is any appetite to increase the current zoning density or use from Residential R20;

Determine the process to be undertaken to identify the developer to whom the council will either on sell the property, or enter into an agreement with for the development; and

Determine the funding source for the purchase. To test the likelihood of there being interest in the market of affordable housing providers, officers contacted Access Housing to gauge whether the property is appropriate for such a development and whether there might be any interest. Their response was positive, although at a significantly greater density than would be permitted under the current zoning. So if Council did want to facilitate such a development then it could proceed to purchase with the intent to on sell to a housing provider through some sort of competitive process, but would have to consider the zoning as well. Of course the above would be subject to the DRD&L would have to agree to deferring the disposal until council had determined its desired outcome and undertaken the business planning and advertising process.


Page 136


Financial

Council would have to determine how to fund the purchase as there is no funding provided or contemplated in the current or future budgets for such a purchase. And unless the council’s outlays were recovered relatively quickly there is a cost of capital consideration that’s needs to be factored into a decision. Legal

Purchase of the property would require a business plan to be prepared and advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act. To achieve an outcome consistent with the strategic plan imperatives for affordable housing, the zoning would more than likely need to changed, which also requires a lengthy advertising and approval process. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is stressed that the options explored are conceptual and the financials are ‘back of envelope’ only, provided for guidance. The government is keen to progress the sale of the property so there is not any long time frames for decision making by council. On balance officers are of the view that a purchase of the site only marginally meets the council’s strategic imperatives and, given the current zoning of the property and council’s ambitious program to deliver the many projects earmarked for the 2011/12 budget, therefore recommend that council declines the government’s offer to dispose of the property to the city.


As discussed above


Nil – if Council were to proceed community consultation is required through the business plan process and rezoning process if that were also undertaken.




Page 137

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council advises the Department of Regional Development & Lands that it does not wish to pursue purchase of the old Hilton Police Station and Residence at Lot 1975 on Diagram 24684, Reserve 26457, Corner of Paget Street and Nicholas Crescent, Hilton. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council advises the Department of Regional Development & Lands that it does not wish to pursue purchase of the old Hilton Police Station and Residence at Lot 1975 on Diagram 24684, Reserve 26457, Corner of Paget Street and Nicholas Crescent, Hilton. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 138


SGS1107-4 APPOINTMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER TO THE LIIVNG SMART BOARD

DataWorks Reference: 078/015 Disclosure of Interest: The author has an interest in Be Living Smart Inc Meeting Date: 13 July 2011 Previous Item: SGS1010-6 Responsible Officer: Paul Garbett, Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Alex Hyndman, Sustainability Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Be Living Smart Inc has been formed as an independent non-for-profit association to promote and coordinate the Living Smart program. As a founding partner, the City has had a close relationship with Living Smart and relies heavily on this program for community sustainability education. In return for handing over the intellectual property to Be Living Smart Inc, the City has requested the ability to appoint a member to the group’s board. This report recommends that the City’s sustainability officer be appointed to this position.

BACKGROUND

On 27 October, 2010 Council resolved:

1. That Council support the establishment of an independent legal entity for the purpose of managing activities and programs operated under the Living Smart trademark and approve the transfer of the City’s current share of ownership of the trademark to an entity properly constituted for this purpose subject to:

a) the City of Fremantle being acknowledged as a co-founder of Living

Smart in relevant material produced under the Living Smart trademark; and

b) the City being offered the option of nominating a representative onto the managing body of the new independent entity.

2. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the

detailed terms of an agreement with relevant parties for the purposes of (1) above.

Be Living Smart Inc has been incorporated as the independent legal entity to manage the activities and programs under the Living Smart trademark.


Page 139

As per the Council resolution s.10 (1) (g) of the Be Living Smart Inc constitution allows for the City to appoint a representative to the Be Living Smart Inc board. The inaugural Annual General Meeting was held on 22 June 2010 and the City’s sustainability officer has provisionally applied for and been appointed as this representative. It should also be noted that the constitution also states that if the “position remains unfilled for 12 months, or the appointed representative does not attend 5 concurrent Committee meetings, then the position will be annulled”. The author and actioning officer, Alex Hyndman, has an interest in the Living Smart program. He is trained as a Living Smart facilitator and is planning on facilitating a Living Smart course later this year.

COMMENT

The City has a strong history and relationship with the Living Smart Program. The City relies heavily on the Living Smart program as the primary tool for sustainability community engagement and education. Of the 2000 people who have participated in a Living Smart, possibly half of them have been Fremantle residents. It is therefore appropriate that the City appoints someone to the board. The City’s sustainability officer has represented the City during the formation of Be Living Smart Inc and the transition from the informal Living Smart partnership. He is therefore well placed to represent the City on the board.


Financial

The board position does not confer any authority to make commitments for the City. Legal

The board position does not confer any authority to make commitments for the City. Operational

Fulfilling the obligations as a Board member, will take some time, which is intended to be met out of existing resources. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

Nil


The City relies heavily on Living Smart programs to deliver community sustainability education. With the potential wrapping up of SMRC’s Climate Wise, Living Smart will be the City’s main community education program.


Page 140


Nil


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council approve the appointment of the City’s Sustainability Officer to the 'Be Living Smart Inc' board. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council approve the appointment of the City’s Sustainability Officer to the 'Be Living Smart Inc' board. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 141

SGS1107-5 ADOPTION OF LOW CARBON CITY PLAN FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

DataWorks Reference: 039/069 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 July 2011 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Philip St John, Director Planning and Development

Services Actioning Officer: Alex Hyndman, Sustainability Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Low Carbon City Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Low Carbon City Plan represents the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy Working Group’s response to climate change mitigation for both the community and corporate sectors. This is an ambitious document and does not represent business as usual. It includes an ambitious target of 40% corporate emissions reduction by 2020 and a large number of actions to support community emission savings. It will need significant staff and financial resources if it is to be implemented in its entirety. This report recommends that the Low Carbon City Plan be approved for community consultation prior to further consideration for final adoption by Council.

BACKGROUND

The Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy Working Group was convened to achieve the following outcomes:

1. A strategy to enable the City of Fremantle to adapt to the impacts of sea level rise, storm events and other predicted climate change impacts.

2. A strategy for the City of Fremantle to reduce its carbon emissions, through more energy efficient operations and greater use of renewable energy.

3. A strategy for the Fremantle community to reduce its carbon emissions and to shift towards producing and using more renewable energy

4. A strategy for the City of Fremantle to address potential impacts of climate change through its regulatory and planning functions

The Working Group has developed a draft Low Carbon City Plan in response to the 2nd and 3rd outcomes of the Working Group’s outcomes. The City’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan also requires that a Low Carbon City Plan be developed and implemented.


Page 142

COMMENT

The City as an organisation is already carbon neutral, but relies heavily on offsets and Green Power to achieve this. In line with the continuous improvement that the Council committed to when it resolved to become carbon neutral, the proposed corporate target in the plan is a 40% reduction in the use of Green Power and offsets by 2020. This is loosely aimed at 20% through energy efficiency and 20% through on-site renewable energy generation. The plan proposes actions to be implemented by 2015 that could achieve half of this target. A further plan will need to be developed for 2015-2020 to achieve the remaining emission reductions. A 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is in line with what is recommended by mainstream climate scientists to maintain a safe climate. There are however credible climate scientists who advocate much stronger emission reductions. This plan does not represent business as usual. Achieving a 40% reduction will require considerable resources in addition to what has historically been allocated for climate change initiatives by Council from now until 2020. The City has only limited impact on community emissions – the most important decisions such as carbon pricing and the type of fuel used for electricity generation are made by federal and state government. Consequently the plan does not set targets regarding community emissions. It does however make a large number of recommendations about how to support the community to reduce their emissions. It also includes a number of issues upon which the City can lobby other tiers of government for action. The Working Group has had some preliminary discussions regarding climate change adaptation. Now that the draft Low Carbon City Plan has been completed, the Working Group will be developing a strategy on how to respond to climate change adaptation issues.


Financial

The adoption and implementation of the Low Carbon City Plan will have significant budget implications. Forward estimates of these implications will be developed by officers and presented to Council with the results of the community consultation on the draft plan. Legal

The Low Carbon City Plan makes several recommendations that will need legal consideration, such as modifying the Local Planning Scheme. An initial comment on these will be presented to Council with the community consultation results. Operational

The implementation of the Low Carbon City Plan will have implications for the City’s operations. Full implementation of the plan may potentially have staff resource implications. Proposals on how to deal with this will be presented to Council with the community consultation results.


Page 143

Organisational

Policies will need to be developed as part of implementing the Low Carbon City Plan, such as changes to the procurement policy and a renewable energy purchasing policy. These will be presented to Council at the appropriate time as the Plan is implemented.

CONCLUSION

The Low Carbon City Plan represents the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy Working Group’s response to climate change mitigation for both the community and corporate sectors. This is an ambitious document that will need a significant allocation of staff and financial resources if it to be implemented in its entirety.


The Low Carbon City Plan is an outcome of the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Working Group and also a direct requirement of the City’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan.


The Working Group is largely comprised of community members and could be said to represent a community engagement outcome. The recommendation of the Working Group is to conduct a formal community engagement process before finally adopting the plan.


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council release the draft Low Carbon City Plan for community consultation and enable the City's Climate Change Working Group to consider incorporation of community feedback into a final plan to be reported back to Council for consideration for final adoption. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 144

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That Council release the draft Low Carbon City Plan for community consultation and enable the City's Climate Change Working Group to consider incorporation of community feedback into a final plan to be reported back to Council for consideration for final adoption. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 145


SGS1107-6 VARIANCE TO BE USED IN MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2011/2012

DataWorks Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Committee 13 July 2011 and Council 27 July 2011 Previous Item: SGS1008-7 of 25 August 2010 Responsible Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance & Administration Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance & Administration Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The recommendation is to adopt a percentage of 2.5% in combination with a threshold amount of $200,000 below which a variance report would not be required. Compared to 2010/2011, the percentage is the same but the threshold amount represents an increase of $50,000 to the $150,000 that applied in 2010/2011.

BACKGROUND

Changes to the Financial Management Regulations under the Local Government Act 1995 were proclaimed on 31 March 2005 and they applied from 1 July 2005. The changes required a monthly financial activity report with explanations being provided for material variances between year to date (YTD) budget and YTD actual. The regulations require that Council adopt a percentage or value each financial year and that is to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting of material variances. This item seeks to adopt a percentage or value, calculated in accordance with AASB 1031 Materiality, to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances in 2011/2012.

COMMENT

On the reporting of variances, extracts from AASB 1031 Materiality give some guidance as to what is regarded as material:-

15 Quantitative thresholds used as guidance for determining the materiality of the amount of an item or an aggregate of items shall, of necessity, be drawn at arbitrary levels. Materiality is a matter of professional judgement influenced by the characteristics of the entity and the perceptions as to who are, or are likely to be, the users of the financial report, and their information needs. Materiality judgements can only be properly made by those who have the facts. In this context, the following quantitative thresholds may be used as guidance in considering the materiality of the amount of items included in the comparisons referred to in paragraph 13 of this Standard:


Page 146

(a) An amount which is equal to or greater than 10 per cent of the appropriate base amount may be presumed to be material unless there is evidence or convincing argument to the contrary; and

(b) An amount which is equal to or less than 5 per cent of the appropriate base amount may be presumed not to be material unless there is evidence, or convincing argument, to the contrary.

Having regard to the AASB 1031 Materiality, the fact the financial report where the materiality is to be applied is a monthly year to date financial report (as opposed to annual report), the size of the City of Fremantle budget and the nature of the local government business, it is considered a percentage figure of 2.5% with a threshold of $200,000 before a variance report is required would be an appropriate level. With monthly reporting, the key objective is seen as having monthly budget data so that any variance reporting is based on the planned situation. A lot of the revenue and expenditure, especially capital expenditure, does not occur in an even or proportional manner over the year. Timing differences can explain the majority of variances if the materiality is set too low. Also in relative terms, $150,000 equates to 0.7% of rates or employee costs. With a 2.5% variance, it effectively means that budgets under $8 million might have variances greater than 2.5% which would not require reporting as the value of the variance could be under $200,000. However once the budget reached $8 million, a variance greater than 2.5% would automatically trigger a variance report. Experience from commenting on material variances during the 2010/2011 financial year has highlighted the following points:-

If budgets are not phased for expected activity, then material variances are generated and items unnecessarily reported.

Where officers do not have a clear timeframe for their work program, then the budget(s) are scaled to be received or spent in the latter part of the financial year. This leads to materially increased variances in those months when it became obvious that the works will not occur and require carry forward to the next financial year.


Financial

The item has no direct financial implications, but the reporting of variances will highlight budget issues that might need to be addressed at a later date. Legal

Financial Management Regulation 34(5) under section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers. Operational

The item does not impose any new operational requirements. Organisational

The item does not impose any new requirements.


Page 147

CONCLUSION

By maintaining the 2.5% percentage variation and increasing the threshold limit it is not considered to impact on the quality of information that might otherwise have been reported.


The annual budget is a strategic document; therefore its ongoing monitoring should highlight any budgetary issues.


Nil.


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin That the variance to be used in statements of monthly financial activity for reporting material variances under AASB 1031 Materiality be set for 2011/2012 at 2.5% with a threshold of $200,000 below which variance reporting is not required. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 148

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin That the variance to be used in statements of monthly financial activity for reporting material variances under AASB 1031 Materiality be set for 2011/2012 at 2.5% with a threshold of $200,000 below which variance reporting is not required. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 149


SGS1107-7 AGE FRIENDLY CITY PLAN

DataWorks Reference: 023/039 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SGS 13 July 2011 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Helen Emery, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1: Age Friendly City Consultation Report

Attachment 2: Online Survey Summary Attachment 3: Age Friendly City Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development of an Age Friendly City Plan is an action of the City Strategic Plan 2010-2015 and has been completed (Attachment 3) in order to respond to the challenges of an ageing population. Of the Fremantle population 22.8% is currently over the age of 55 and this is forecast to grow by 10 percent in the next five years. The plan is a three year document (2011 - 2014) which identifies eight strategies and related actions in order to continue to develop Fremantle as an age friendly city. The plan envisions that:

Older residents live in good health, feel safe and remain active in their local communities.

Barriers people can encounter as they grow older are addressed and removed.

Services, policies and structures support and allow people to actively age.

The physical environment is designed with consideration to the needs of older people.

Significant community consultation was undertaken with the over 55s community and aged care services to identify age friendly features, barriers and areas for improvement. This included an online survey and eight focus groups. A total of 121 people participated in the engagement, 99 community members and 22 service providers. A demographic profile of the over 55s community was also completed. BACKGROUND An Age Friendly City is an inclusive and accessible urban environment that promotes active ageing. The World Health Organisation has established eight domains of the urban environment that contribute to healthy and active ageing. These domains include social participation, community support and health, housing, civic participation and employment, communication and information, transportation, outdoor spaces and buildings, respect and inclusion and transport.


Page 150

The development of an Age Friendly City Plan is an action in the City Strategic Plan. The City of Fremantle applied for and received funding from the Department of Communities in 2010 to undertake a consultation project with the over 55s community, exploring the City’s age friendly features, barriers and areas for improvement. This consultation was completed through eight focus groups and an online survey that included the participation of 99 community members and 22 aged care services. Attachment 1 is the report from the focus groups and Attachment 2 is the summary of the online survey. COMMENT The Age Friendly City Plan (Attachment 3), seeks to address barriers and areas for improvement identified by participants during the consultation period. Common suggestions to improve the age friendliness of Fremantle included the importance of good public transport, the need for affordable housing options, good in-home services, addressing safety at night and the requirement for a seniors citizens centre in Fremantle. Coinciding with the development of the plan has been the process of consultation around the future use of the Stan Reilly site. The provision and utilization of community space for older people is being explored further. It is planned that The One Stop Shop will become a ‘drop in’ centre for the over 55’s community rather than a more formalized information centre in response to these ideas. The City currently provides a range of low cost and free services and initiatives within Fremantle Town Hall and King’s Square. They are specifically designed for the over 55s community and include ‘Dial a Ride’ (low cost bus trips for Home and Community Care assessed eligible seniors), The One Stop Shop, Come and Try program, Talks of the Town, social dancing in the Town Hall and in-home library services. The City’s aim is to cater to the varying requirements of differing age groups within the ‘seniors’ community. Some of the actions identified are already being implemented in other strategies of the City, however, they have been included in the Age Friendly City Plan as they are considered to have key benefits to improving life in Fremantle for seniors. The Age Friendly City Plan is divided into eight strategies aligned with the eight domains identified by the World Health Organisation. These strategies are as follows:

Provide a range of lifelong learning activities that encourage older people to participate in community life.

Assist people in Fremantle to age positively and actively by providing appropriate information and support to maximize health and wellbeing.

Ensure that there is provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the older people.

Create opportunities for older people to actively participate in the community through civic involvement, paid and voluntary work.

Provide accessible information on aged care services, health, finance, retirement, community groups and clubs in a variety of formats.

Ensure that older people are able to move around their community easily through public and active transport.

Ensure that older people have the same opportunities as other people to access the City’s buildings, facilities, parks, reserves, playgrounds and beaches.

Provide activities that promote positive images of older people of diverse cultures and increase community participation.


Page 151

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial The implementation of the plan has been budgeted within the 2011/12 budget cycle. Legal Nil Operational The plan identifies strategies and actions required for implementation by staff. Organisational The Age Friendly City Plan is a whole of City Plan. The actions have organisational wide implications and will require business units to implement them over a three year period. CONCLUSION The Age Friendly City Plan responds to current and future challenges associated with an increasingly ageing population, and is in line with the City’s Strategic Plan. The City has undertaken significant community consultation with the over 55’s community and aged care services. In general, participants from the consultation said that they like living in the Fremantle region and considered the city to be vibrant, diverse, inclusive and friendly with wonderful physical assets. The development of the plan actively addresses identified barriers to healthy active ageing in Fremantle, and provides details on the proposed actions within the eight domains of an Age Friendly City. The plan identifies strategies and actions which are practical, realistic and reflective of the City’s diverse role. They will be implemented over a three year time period, noting that a number of the recommended actions are already underway and being addressed in other City strategies. The identification of indicators to monitor the progress of the plan is currently being developed. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Character – Develop an Age Friendly City Plan. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The City has completed significant community consultation among the over 55’s community, including focus groups and an online survey to explore age friendly features, age friendly barriers and suggestions for improvement.


Page 152

A total of 121 people participated comprised of:

22 service providers and 43 community members in the focus groups.

56 people responded to the survey. An online survey was developed to capture the ideas of Fremantle community members over the age of 55 who were not able to participate in focus groups. The City of Fremantle requested public feedback on a draft Age Friendly City plan during a four week period in June 2011. The plan and comment form were available on the City’s website, in the One Stop Shop, the Meeting Place, Fremantle City Library and Fremantle Community Legal Centre. It was also advertised in the Fremantle Gazette. Four people responded to the feedback request. The City was commended by one respondent for its commitment to an Age Friendly City Plan. The other three comments related to:

Replacement of the seniors citizens centre at the Stan Reilly Centre.

o Consultation regarding the future of the Stan Reilly site is currently in

progress.

Provision of a subsidised hairdressing service for older people with arthritis.

o Personal care is provided by Silver Chain. This service can be accessed

through Fremantle Community Care for Home and Community Care eligible people.

o Low cost haircutting is available at St Patricks Community Support Centre.

Provision of a central meeting place for older people.

o The One Stop Shop is an accessible community space for over 55’s in the

Fremantle Community. It provides a comfortable sitting area, free games and activities, free tea/coffee and is a meeting place for community groups.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required


Page 153

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr D Coggin The Age Friendly City Plan 2011 – 2014 is adopted with implementation to commence within the 2011/12 financial year. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin The Age Friendly City Plan 2011 – 2014 is adopted with implementation to commence within the 2011/12 financial year. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 154


SGS1107-8 NOTICE OF MOTION - VERGE MOWING ALTERNATIVES POLICY

DataWorks Reference: 097/004 and 045/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 July 2011 Previous Item: SGS1105-5 Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Councillor: Cr Sam Wainwright Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: Nil ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY Mowing twice a year is insufficient, aesthetically, to maintain a lawn in keeping with general community standards. Furthermore, it does not address the other measures needed to maintain lawn such as summer watering and fertilizing. Residents who are unable or are uninterested in mowing the verges in front of their houses are most likely not doing the other things necessary to maintain healthy lawn. In line with the imperative to reduce water consumption, it is more useful for the city to assist residents in the maintenance of verges by helping them install mulched garden beds with water wise native plants. In time, converting verges from lawn to water wise gardens will deliver cost and water savings to the City and community. Regardless of what assistance the City gives to residents, verges look their best when residents take active responsibility for them. Residential verges should be seen as the responsibility of whole streets and neighborhoods. The City should encourage the community at large, and assist with the means,to take active responsibility for verges in front of houses occupied by those who are unable to maintain them. Point 7 of the policy commits the city to "Develop a strategy to engage with neighbours, community and not for profit groups to assist residents to manage their verges where they are unable to". However it is unclear as to how thorough and well resourced this strategy will be, and what will happen in cases where, in spite of efforts by the City; support cannot be found from among friends, neighbours and the broader community to maintain the verge in front of a house of someone who is unable to. Point 4 of the policy anticipates that the majority of the savings from phasing out the twice yearly residential verge mowing will go into maintaining verges on main roads and that the "balance" will go to assisting residents convert verges from lawn to water wise gardens. This is a very imprecise formulation. It could see as much as 49% of the funds go to the second part of the programme, or as little as 1%.


Page 155

If it were near the latter amount then the City's extra assistance to residents to install water wise gardens, particularly those unable to do it themselves, would be negligible and tokenistic. For the policy to be properly understood and its success measured, the strategy described at Point 7 needs to be developed as soon as practical and an approximate division of funds described at Point 4 proposed.


Simple Majority Required NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED Cr Sam Wainwright The strategy to help residents who are unable to maintain the verges in front of their houses as described at Point 7 of Infrastructure Streetscape Programme - Verge Mowing Alternatives SGS 1105-5 be developed in consultation with city officers, Councillors and interested members of the community. The strategy will be presented to council for adoption before the end of 2011. An approximate allocation of funds between the two verge mulching programmes described at Point 4 of the policy also be proposed so that scope of the residential verge assistance strategy can be properly determined. Cr D Thompson moved an amendment to the Notice of Motion to include the following wording: The strategy to help residents who are unable to maintain the verges in front of their houses as described at Point 7 of Infrastructure Streetscape Programme - Verge Mowing Alternatives SGS 1105-5 be developed in consultation with city officers, Councillors and interested members of the community. The strategy will be presented to council for consideration as a priority. An approximate allocation of funds between the two verge mulching programmes described at Point 4 of the policy also be proposed so that scope of the residential verge assistance strategy can be properly determined. MOVED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 156

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO NOTICE OF MOTION To remove the words ‘for adoption before the end of 2011’ and replace with ‘for consideration as a priority’.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin The strategy to help residents who are unable to maintain the verges in front of their houses as described at Point 7 of Infrastructure Streetscape Programme - Verge Mowing Alternatives SGS 1105-5 be developed in consultation with city officers, Councillors and interested members of the community. The strategy will be presented to council for consideration as a priority. An approximate allocation of funds between the two verge mulching programmes described at Point 4 of the policy also be proposed so that scope of the residential verge assistance strategy can be properly determined. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 157

SGS1107-9 NOTICE OF MOTION - STATE BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENTS

DataWorks Reference: 097/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 July 2011 Previous Item: SGS1105-5 Councillor: Cr Josh Wilson Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY

1. That the Council supports the Mayor's written protest to the Minister, and his representations to WALGA;

2. That the Council rejects this discrimination against local governments when it comes to funding for the provision of important community services;

3. That the Council remains strongly committed to providing these services, and believes that local government is often best-placed to provide high-quality services that are tailored to the needs of local communities;

4. That the Council believes it is critical for local government to continue to provide community service as a provider that sets high and appropriate workplace and employment conditions standards; and

5. That the Council resolves that the Mayor/CEO should write to the Premier of WA to request that this discriminatory, regressive funding decision be overturned.

Staff comment In the recent staff budget 15% funding increases for not for profit agencies with service agreements with the state government were announced. These increases are flowing through from July 1 2011. Local Governments who provide community services under service agreements with the state government are exempt from these funding increases. There was no reason outlined as to why. In practice a not for profit agency providing the same service as City of Fremantle will receive 15% more funding to provide the a similar service level.

1. The Mayor has written to WALGA on June 23 to request that this inequity in funding is addressed. WALGA have responded to indicate that this would be directed to Allison Hailes, Exec Manager Planning and Community Development requesting the issue be investigated and raised with the Policy Forum.

2. To exempt local government from the funding changes simply by virtue of being a local government authority staff believe is inequitable.


Page 158

3. All community services provided by local government should be high quality service. It is recommended that Council make decisions on whether to continue to provide a community service under a service agreement as each “service agreement” falls due for renewal as contracts and funding arrangements change over time. There is no evidence staff are aware of, that suggests that local government is often best placed to provide such services. Other agencies can and do provide high quality community services that meet community need and may be better placed to do so for a range of reasons. It is important for Council to understand the nature of the service and how best it can be effectively and efficiently delivered for the community rather than assume that local government is the best provider. It is recommended that Council make decisions based on service evaluations for quality, effectiveness and efficiency.

4. As for item 3 above – it is recommended that services are reviewed over the contract period and decisions made on quality, effectiveness and efficiency rather than history. A high standard of employment conditions are beneficial to attract and retain a workforce with experience and qualifications to provide high quality services. If local government has to provide a similar level of service for a lower level of funding it may mean that the City has to increase the CoF subsidy to provide what is often a regional service and therefore it may not be the best provider of the service.


Simple Majority Required NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED Cr Josh Wilson


2. That the Council rejects this discrimination against local governments when it comes to funding for the provision of important community services;

3. That the Council remains strongly committed to providing these services, and believes that local government is often best-placed to provide high-quality, cost effective, targeted and efficient services that are tailored to the needs of local communities;

4. That the Council believes it is critical for local government to continue to provide cost effective, targeted and efficient community services as a provider that sets high and appropriate workplace and employment conditions standards; and

5. That the Council resolves that the Mayor/CEO should write to the Premier of WA to request that this discriminatory, regressive funding decision be overturned.


Page 159

Cr D Thompson moved an amendment to the Notice of Motion to include the following wording:


2. That the Council rejects this discrimination against local governments when

it comes to funding for the provision of important community services; 3. That the Council remains strongly committed to providing these services,

and believes that local government is often best-placed to provide high-quality, cost effective, targeted and efficient services that are tailored to the needs of local communities;

4. That the Council believes it is critical for local government to continue to

provide cost effective, targeted and efficient community services as a provider that sets high and appropriate workplace and employment conditions standards; and

5. That the Council resolves that the Mayor/CEO should write to the Premier of

WA to request that this discriminatory, regressive funding decision be overturned.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To add the words ‘cost effective, targeted and efficient’ to parts 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion.


Page 160

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Coggin


2. That the Council rejects this discrimination against local governments when

it comes to funding for the provision of important community services; 3. That the Council remains strongly committed to providing these services,

and believes that local government is often best-placed to provide high-quality, cost effective, targeted and efficient services that are tailored to the needs of local communities;

4. That the Council believes it is critical for local government to continue to

provide cost effective, targeted and efficient community services as a provider that sets high and appropriate workplace and employment conditions standards; and

5. That the Council resolves that the Mayor/CEO should write to the Premier of

WA to request that this discriminatory, regressive funding decision be overturned.

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 161

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

C1107-2 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT TO 30 JUNE 2011

DataWorks Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council, 27 July 2011 Previous Item: C1106-2 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to 30 June

2011 2. Balance Sheet to 30 June 2011 3. Payment Report for June 2011 4. Schedule of Accounts Paid June 2011 5. Investment Report to 30 June 2011 6. Debtors Outstanding as at 30 June 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reflects an update as to the financial position of the City as at 30 June, 2011. The City adopted its Annual Budget on 28 July, 2010 and modified this in the mid-year budget review to an estimated deficit of $39,099. This report will only highlight any areas of interest or significant variations to the budget which are considered of importance to be brought to the attention of elected members. This executive summary will indicate highlights from the business units to assist elected members, management and the community in understanding where projects were placed at year end and any general issues emerging which should be taken into account when reviewing the financial information being presented.

BACKGROUND

The 2010/11 Budget was adopted on 28 July, 2010 with an estimated cash surplus of $100,000. At the ordinary Council meeting of 25 August 2010, Council resolved to receive the Financial Report under Financial Management Regulation 34 in the nature and type format and set 2.5% with a $150,000 threshold as the level where variances are to be reported.


Page 162

Guidelines on Delegated Authority Item 3.2 (Investment of Surplus Cash Funds) require a monthly investment report to be submitted to Council. The midyear review was presented to council in March, 2011 and as a result the original budget surplus estimate of $100,000 was modified to an estimated deficit of $39,099.

COMMENT

Chief Executive Office Economic Development/Marketing There is some underspend in this area and generally relates to the allocation of the differential rate allocation. The purchase of the Fremantle Visitor Centre at the end of June has impacted on the area and the end of year position. The programmed upgrade works for the North Fremantle Hall will be carried forward into next year. Corporate Services Investments Investment revenue is above the end of year estimate. An additional $350,000 may be achieved by year end. Rates Rates also finished the year over budget estimates by an additional $250,000. Administration Building The allocation of maintenance for the admin building finished up. The end of year cost reflects a $120,000 overspent. Parking The installation of the new ticket machines is underway but will not be completed until July, therefore the unspent funds will be carried forward into next year. Community Development Community Development Programs A general surplus across the programs will accrue at year end. Whilst figures are currently being assessed for the end of year result it could be as high as $600,000.


Page 163

Leisure Centre Fees from the health club and aquatics programs are above budget estimates and will provide an additional $200,000 above estimates to the end of the year. This will be used to fund the additional costs associated with the hydrotherapy pool. Planning Services Planning Projects There are some funds still to be spent in this area for projects still on the go. Most have new allocations in the next budget. The heritage grants remain unspent by approximately $70,000 and will be carried forward. Technical Services Construction and Design Some of the grants for road construction are still to be sought and are expected to be processed before year end. There will be carry forward projects for PCYC completion of approximately $1.2 million and for the Queen Victoria Street upgrades.


Financial

This report is provided to enable council to keep track of how the allocation of costs is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget which council should be informed of. It is anticipated that some $5.3 million in projects will be carried forward into the new budget. These are currently being assessed. Legal

Regulation 34 (Financial Management) under section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Financial Report by Nature and Explanation of Variances). Regulation 13 (Financial Management) under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Listing of Accounts Paid). Operational

This report is provided to council to keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2010/11 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.


Page 164

CONCLUSION

Council receive and note the financial statements for the City of Fremantle for the period ended 30 June, 2011.


Nil.


Nil.




The City of Fremantle Financial Report for the period ended 30 June, 2011, is received.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The City of Fremantle Financial Report for the period ended 30 June, 2011, is received. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 165

COUNCIL ITEMS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt moved en bloc recommendations numbered C1107-3, C1107-4. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 166

The following item number C1107-3 was moved and carried en bloc earlier in the meeting.

C1107-3 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT JUNE 2011

DataWorks Reference: 030/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council, 27 July 2011 Previous Item: C1106-6 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Strategic Plan Progress Report, June 2011

Capital Works Program, June 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council adopted its new Strategic Plan in June, 2010. One of the key projects of the plan was to commence a reporting regime that informed the council and community of progress against the achievements of the plan. The report format shows in graph form the target and actual completion percentages cumulatively each month, the planned commencement and completion dates, the budget allocated to each project, and a comment from the responsible Director for each project. The report also has easy to read indicators for each project and summary indicators showing overall progress against each of the Strategic Imperative areas from the Plan. The report ensures the City remains focused on its strategic imperatives. The report is provided for information and discussion as appropriate. This report represents the comments towards each target for the first year of this plan.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its new Strategic Plan in June 2010. The Plan contains seven ‘strategic imperative areas’ within which there are a number of projects that the council determined were priority projects to achieve the outcomes it sought in each of these strategic areas. One of the strategic areas is Organisational Capability. The focus of this area is to ensure that we are capable of delivering the Strategic Plan projects within the expected timeframes. A key part of that is to ensure that progress on each project is regularly monitored and reported on by officers and overseen by council to ensure the focus in maintained. The product ‘Interplan’ was selected as the reporting tool for this project and the attached report details the progress against the plan.


Page 167

COMMENT

A majority of the projects are tracking on target and are representative of the work for the past twelve months. This is also indicated in the dashboard indicators provided on page 2 and 3 of the report. The comments provided within the report for June represent the summary of the progress over the past twelve months, as the Strategic Plan has now completed its first year since adoption. Projects which require additional work will have their time frame adjusted into the next year. Not all projects which reflect 100% completion to date are completed projects. The percentage figure indicates whether the project has reached its expectations by the end of June, rather than whether it has been fully completed. Where a project was the formulation of a plan, officers will be updating the plan with any tasks required under the plan for the coming year. Projects which are less than 40% of their target progress are commented on below; 1.1.2.1 – Introduce performance review of Council decision making processes and structures This project has yet to be commenced and will require council involvement. It is anticipated this project will commence once the annual budget process is completed. This project will be undertaken by the governance unit. 1.2.2.1 – Participate in at least one regional resource sharing project. The City is involved in the shared services committee of the South West Group. Whilst several projects are in progress no project has been finalised at this time. Of the projects in progress the City will likely be involved in the library procurement sharing whilst the IT resource sharing will likely have City involvement but appears to be some time off completion. 5.2.4.1 – Facilitate at least one new accommodation hotel in the city centre. At this time there is no progress on this issue. All other projects are progressing satisfactorily.


Financial

Nil. Legal

Local Governments are required to develop and maintain a Strategic Plan (for the moment known as a Plan for the Future).


Page 168

Operational

Relevant staff have been trained in the use of this software, which will be further developed and integrated with corporate systems over the next year or two to provide enhanced reporting options. Organisational

The whole organisation is involved in the delivery of the strategic plan. Organisational capacity and focus on achievement is recognised as a critical success factor in the plan. Reporting against progress on projects the council has identified as priorities is critical in sustaining the focus and reviewing capacity along the way.

CONCLUSION

The City of Fremantle Strategic Plan Progress Report for June 2011 shows sound progress toward implementation of the strategic plan and is presented for information. The summaries provided with each project reflect a summary of the work undertaken over the past year as the Plan is now twelve months old.


As discussed within this report.


Nil.




That Council receives the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan Progress Report for June 2011.


Page 169

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council receives the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan Progress Report for June 2011. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 170

The following item number C1107-4 was moved and carried en bloc earlier in the meeting.

C1107-4 ADOPTION OF MEETING DATES

DataWorks Reference: 096/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 July 2011 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Graeme Mackenzie Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Graeme Mackenzie Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for November

2011 to October 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The new schedule provides a monthly cycle of meeting dates for the Planning Services Committee meeting to e held on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month, the Library Advisory Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday every quarter, the Strategic and General Services Committee meeting to be held every 2nd Wednesday of each month and the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held every 4th Wednesday of each month. In December the cycle has been reduced to three weeks by the deletion of the second planning services meeting so that the business for the month is completed prior to Christmas. In April the Ordinary Meeting of Council has been brought forward a day to allow for the ANZAC Day public holiday.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1995 (Section 5.25 (g)) requires that meetings be advertised in advance.

COMMENT

Each year Council is requested to approve the meeting dates prior to being advertised in accordance with the Act. Meeting dates proposed are in accordance with current schedules.


Financial

Nil Legal

Section 5.25 (g) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 199 require that local public notice of meeting dates are to be advertised in advance.


Page 171

Operational

The meeting schedule is to be set in advance for operational planning purposes. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

As per comment.


Nil


Nil




That the meeting schedule for November 2011 to October 2012 as attached to this agenda be adopted. MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the meeting schedule for November 2011 to October 2012 as attached to this agenda be adopted. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 172

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 9.35 PM.


Page 173

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation

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


Page 174


any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

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 175


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 176

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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


Page 177


Page 178

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS


Wednesday, 27 July 2011,6.00 pm

ATTACHMENT 1

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS


Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 6.00pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

27 July 2011

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT PAGE

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION - PSC1107-134 - CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (SUBMITTED BY CR. JOHN DOWSON) 4

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION - PSC1107-134 - CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (SUBMITTED BY CR. ANDREW SULLIVAN) 5

MINOR AMENDMENT - PSC1107-134 - CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (SUBMITTED BY CR. SAM WAINWRIGHT) 7

MINOR AMENDMENT - PSC1107-119 - NO. 62 STOCKDALE ROAD (LOT 9), O CONNOR DEFERRED ITEM FOUR, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ADDITIONS (JL DA 0630/10) (SUBMITTED BY CR. BILL MASSIE) 8


27 July 2011

Page 4

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION - PSC1107-134 - CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (SUBMITTED BY CR. JOHN DOWSON)

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION









REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To remove the unlimited height clause from the recommendation.


27 July 2011

Page 5

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION - PSC1107-134 - CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (SUBMITTED BY CR. ANDREW SULLIVAN)

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION










3. The draft amendment report include the consideration of further aspects of

the strategic sites development to be researched and developed in

consultation with the Design Advisory Committee during advertising of the

amendment, including

a) development of broad design principles,

b) establishing the desired precinct and streetscape character,

c) development of objective performance criteria to be used for the

determination of the required standards of design quality,

d) detailed assessment of the capacity of taller buildings of exceptional

design quality to make a positive contribution to the development of the

character of the Core and Inner East End character precincts.


27 July 2011

Page 6

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. To limit the extent of discretionary height permitted in and around King's Square to two

storeys above the proposed permitted heights in recognition of the special characteristics of this part of the Core precinct and to protect the view cone from Monument Hill to key landmarks in the Core and West End precincts.

2. To provide clarity about the intended role of the Design Advisory Committee in researching and developing the design principles and performances criteria necessary to objectively assess proposals that include discretionary heights against the requirement for exceptional design.

3. To ensure that the question of acceptable height on sites D, E & G remains an iterative process that is able to be informed by professional advice from the Design Advisory Committee in developing the desired characteristics for the Core and Inner East End precincts.


27 July 2011

Page 7

MINOR AMENDMENT - PSC1107-134 - CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (SUBMITTED BY CR. SAM WAINWRIGHT)

MINOR AMENDMENT

a) Parking


Parking provided as per LPS4 and Residential Design Codes for other uses – cash in lieu to be negotiated to be provided in accordance with the Scheme and relevant Policy.

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To make the contribution to parking, non-negotiable.


27 July 2011

Page 8

MINOR AMENDMENT - PSC1107-119 - NO. 62 STOCKDALE ROAD (LOT 9), O CONNOR DEFERRED ITEM FOUR, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ADDITIONS (JL DA 0630/10) (SUBMITTED BY CR. BILL MASSIE)

MINOR AMENDMENT 12. Access to No. 62 (Lot 9) Stockdale Road, O'Connor shall be from Stockdale Road only as indicated on the approved plan. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To restrict access to Stockland Road only, as per the approved plan.

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF FREMANTLE: CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES WORKING GROUP DISSENTING REPORT ON PERMITTED HEIGHTS IN EASTERN CBD AREA, July 2011. Submitted to Council by CCSSWG members: Dr Ian Alexander, Community Representative Cr John Dowson, Council Representative & Mr Don Whittington, Fremantle Society Representative (former Councillor & Chair of Planning and Development Committee) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We are strongly supportive of the current initiative of the City of Fremantle to encourage renewal and redevelopment of commercial premises in the eastern part of the City’s CBD (the area bounded by Market St, Parry Street and Elder Place). We believe that high-quality retail, office and residential development in this part of the CBD will reinvigorate it socially and economically. However, we take issue with some of the proposals that have been agreed to by the Working Group, and use this report to propose an alternative approach. We also take issue with the CCSSWG proposals’ preoccupation with building height, and their underplaying of broader urban design concerns. In order to meet the target additional floor-space proposed by the City, proposals adopted by CCSSWG call for considerable increases in the maximum permitted (discretionary) heights of up to 10 stories, increasing from maxima of up to 6 in the vicinity of King’s Square to heights of up to 10 levels on sites towards the railway station area. In our view, there is substantial doubt as to whether or not any changes to LPS4 are justified – two-thirds of the floor-space targets could be met if the full potential of additional development space available under LPS4 were taken up. This figure does not include the large amount of vacant space on upper floors of CBD buildings, space that could – given some incentives – also be used to fulfil growth targets.


27 July 2011

Page 9

A more creative approach to the redevelopment of the eastern CBD is required, one that pays greater respect to the area’s longstanding character. Such an approach would also provide incentives for redevelopment of currently underused non-heritage sites, and regeneration of vacant and underused space within heritage buildings. In pursuing the objective of additional CBD floor-space, we understood that the amount of future development provided for – beyond that allowed under the current City LPS4 – would be considered by CCSSWG in context. This has not been done in any detail. More consideration should have been given to the impact that the proposed intense development will have on:

the intrinsic character of central Fremantle,

its inherent human scale and related urban amenity,

its heritage, social and community value,

its predominately low-rise profile,

the economic viability of the West End of the CBD, and

traffic volumes and associated pedestrian amenity The working group spent a large proportion of its meeting time considering the question of building heights. It scarcely discussed other important questions such as desirable building densities and forms. We consider that the CCSSWG height proposals will unduly dominate heritage buildings such as:

the Town Hall,

the Railway Station,

Victoria Hall,

Fremantle Post Office and

other heritage buildings in Market Street.

The proposals, if implemented, will adversely affect the human-scale of the eastern part of the CBD. In this respect, we believe that the CCSSWG should have received advice from the City Architect. This would have made it possible to examine the proposals in the light of the City’s Local Identity Code. The code provides guidelines for development in harmony with the existing buildings in terms of scale, building form and design. At the very least, the CCSSWG should have been provided with an analysis of the impact the proposals will have on heritage buildings in and adjacent to the study area. More attention should also have been paid to the existing planning scheme provisions and planning policies, documents that give detailed guidelines for appropriate development of the sites in question. In most cases, these have been ignored or pushed aside, on the erroneous assumption that they are a ‘barrier’ to redevelopment.


27 July 2011

Page 10

It is also the case that the CCSSWG did not meet widely with owners of development sites in the study area, as called for by our terms of reference. At the one meeting where members attended a presentation from the owners of the Woolstores shopping centre site, there was little chance for proper discussion of the proposals in relation to the amenity of the city centre. Conclusion We are unhappy with the narrow focus of the CCSSWG proposals and the lack of detailed consideration of their impact on existing development in the CBD. The proposals are not in sympathy with the prevailing human scale and character of the CBD, features that give the city its prized identity and attract thousands of visitors and tourists annually. Moreover, the proposals fly in the face of many of the City’s existing planning guidelines and policies, and appear to be a response to the supposed demands of the development lobby, rather than reflecting the needs of the community. However, given the preoccupation with questions of building height, we propose the following modifications to the proposed permitted heights in the area (see Table 1 below). Our approach provides the greatest development opportunities on the Woolstores shopping centre site, and from there reduced heights to the city centre, in order to respect neighbouring sites. The concept is illustrated in the accompanying graphics, Strategic Sites Alternate Plan.JPG and Strategic Sites Alternate.JPG : TABLE 1: CCSSWG AND DISSENTING HEIGHT PROPOSALS FOR CITY CENTRE STRATEGIC SITES CCSSWG HEIGHT PROPOSALS DISSENTING PROPOSALS Site Base Additional Total Base Additional Total

D 6/7 +3 6/10 5 +1 6 E 4/5 +1 4/6 4 +1 4/5 F 4/5/6 - 4/5/6 3/4 - 3/4 G 5/6 +2 5/8 4/5 - 4/5 H 3/4/5/6 - 3/4/5/6 3/4 - 3/4 I 3/4/5/6 - 3/4/5/6 3/4 - 3/4 J 4/5 4/5 4/5 - 4/5 K 4/5 - 4/5 4/5 4/5 L 4 +1 5 4 - 4 M1 4/5 +1 4/6 4 - 4 M2 3 3 3 3 - 3 M3 4 - 4 4 - 4 N 3/5 - 3/5 3/4 - 3/4 O 3 - 3 3 - 3 P 3 - 3 3 - 3


27 July 2011

Page 11

We also believe that the City should urgently proceed with development of the Point Street site, following guidelines already approved by Council. This development will provide an example of what can be achieved at sympathetic scale and will act as a catalyst for appropriate future development.

Note: A photographic Appendix to this report follows. The photographs provide examples of alternative approaches to development and show that quality development for sub-regional centres can be achieved at heights of three and four stories.


27 July 2011

Page 12


27 July 2011

Page 13


27 July 2011

Page 14

ATTACHMENT 3