minutes - city of fremantle · 2018-03-08 · minutes - planning services committee 1 april 2015...

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 1

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PSC1504-1 DEFERRED ITEM - WATKINS ST, NO. 87 (LOT 1), AND NEWBOLD STREET, NO. 1/1 (LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSES - (CJ DA0683/14) 4

PSC1504-2 DEFERRED ITEM - MARTHA STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 150), BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND TWO STOREY (WITH LOFT) ADDITIONS AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0470/14) 13

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 22

PSC1504-3 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 118 (LOT 101), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE & 4 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0690/14) 22

PSC1504-4 KWONG ALLEY NO. 16-18 (LOTS 77 & 78), NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL (DAP80002/14) - (JL DAPV002/15) 40

PSC1504-5 SOUTH STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 34), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0687/14) 51

PSC1504-6 TRAFFORD STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 29), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY REAR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0025/15) 64

PSC1504-7 DOURO ROAD, NO. 5 (LOT 20), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA & JL DA0024/15) 72

PSC1504-8 MULBERRY FARM LANE, NO.11 (LOT 3), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ANCILLARY DWELLING - (JL DA0695/14) 79

PSC1504-9 PASS CRESCENT, NO. 14A (LOT 88), BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE STOREY (WITH LOFT) GROUPED DWELLING - (TB DA0027/15) 89

PSC1504-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 96

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 97

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 97

CLOSURE OF MEETING 97

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 1 April 2015

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 1 April 2015 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm. NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." IN ATTENDANCE Cr Robert Fittock Presiding Member / North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton Deputy Presiding Member / City Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward (arrived 6.12 pm) Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward / Deputy Mayor Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Approvals Sam Van Baren Minute Secretary There were approximately 23 members of the public and no members of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil


Page 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-1: Franco Ranallo David Steadman The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-1: Chadia Scheel The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-2: Tanya Martin Paul Ornsby Phil Harress The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-3: Gary Keen Peter Froud The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-4: Robert Woodruff The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-5: Susan Allwood Glenn Hefter The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-6: Anne’sofia Deleflie Gary Briscow The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1504-7: Guy Greenwood John Greenwood


Page 3

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Nil LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 4 March 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record, with the following correction to part c) of item PSC1503-7 87 Watkins Street and 1/1 Newbold Street, White Gum Valley – Two Single Storey Single Houses. The resolution currently states: Part c) of this deferral to “reduce the bulky appearance of the double garage of Unit 2 as viewed from Watkins Street” 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. The resolution should be corrected to read: That the item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that indicate in section how the openings and outdoor living area of the adjoining southern property are affected by overshadowing from the proposed development. The correction is made as a result of misinterpretation of 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie

TABLED DOCUMENTS Nil


Page 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr J Strachan arrived at 6.12 pm prior to consideration of the following item. PSC1504-1 DEFERRED ITEM - WATKINS ST, NO. 87 (LOT 1), AND NEWBOLD

STREET, NO. 1/1 (LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSES - (CJ DA0683/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1503-7: 4 March 2015 Attachments: Attachment 1: Previous PSC Report (PSC1503-7) Attachment 2: Additional information from applicant Date Received: 16 December 2014 Owner Name: Act 6 Submitted by: Steadman Group Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of two single storey Single Houses at No. 87 Watkins and No. 1/1 Newbold Street, White Gum Valley. The application was presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting with a Committee Decision to defer the application to the next available meeting to allow the applicant to provide further information regarding overshadowing to the southern property on Newbold Street. The applicant has provided additional information regarding overshadowing, which meets the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The application is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The application was previously presented to PSC, with the following Committee Decision: That the item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that indicate in section how the openings and outdoor living area of the adjoining southern property are affected by overshadowing from the proposed development. Refer to the previous item for information regarding further background to the site. DETAIL

The application is for two single storey Single Houses on No. 87 Watkins St and No. 1/1 Newbold Street, White Gum Valley. For further information regarding the detail of the application, please refer to the previous item. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Please refer to the previous item. CONSULTATION

The application was previously advertised with two submissions received. No amendments have been made to the plans presented to the previous PSC, and as such, further neighbour notification was not required. Community The application was advertised to neighbouring landowners with two submissions received. For further information see the previous item which is included as attachment 1 of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Solar access for adjoining sites


Page 6

Deemed-to-Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

19% (180m2) 11% (103m2) Not required At the PSC meeting on 4 March 2015, Council moved to defer the application to enable further information to be provided regarding overshadowing of the lot to the south (see motion in Background section of the report above). The applicant has provided additional diagrams as requested and these are included in Attachment 2. The proposed overshadowing impacts the side setback area and driveway of the adjoining property, and while it does reach the wall of the additions at the rear, it does not appear to reach the windows as shown on approved elevations (DA665/99) of the rear addition as illustrated below–

Council has expressed concerns regarding overshadowing. As well as 5.4.2 of the R-Codes (Solar access for adjoining sites), LPP 2.4 requires that Council consider a neighbouring property’s access to direct sun restricted by Boundary Walls as one of the discretionary criteria listed in the policy. The Garage Boundary Wall abuts a vehicle access driveway and carport, with the shadow not affecting major openings. It is considered that the existing house is setback sufficiently to allow sun to reach openings further back in the lot.


Page 7

The remainder of this elevation’s lot boundary setbacks meet Deemed-to-Comply requirements, as do Building Height. Therefore shadow cannot be used as a relevant reason for refusal under 5.4.2 and 5.1.3 of the R-Codes as per clause 2.5.4 – The decision-maker shall not refuse to grant approval to an application where the application satisfies the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and the relevant provisions of the scheme and any relevant local planning policy. As stated above, there is no ability for Council to refuse an application on the basis of the overshadowing design element of the R-Codes, as it meets the Deemed-to-Comply requirements. Any decision made to the contrary of this would be difficult to defend should the applicant lodge an appeal with the State Administrative Tribunal. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS For discussion regarding the strategic implications of the application, please refer to the previous item, included in this report as attachment 1. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two single storey Single House’s at No. 87 (Lot 1) Watkins Street and No. 1/1 (Lot 2) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 16 December 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0683/14, on plans

dated 16 December 2014 the Alfresco area of Unit 1 on the west elevation and Bedroom (1) window of Unit 2 on the southern elevation shall be either:

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

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

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

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

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


Page 8

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

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary Street setback

area shall be visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level, with the exception of the screen wall on Unit 2 to the Alfresco area, as per clause 5.2.4 C4 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern elevation shall be of

a clean finish in either;

• coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

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

from verge trees. Advice notes:

i. The applicant is advised in relation to condition 4, that this requirement may be met by provision of a 1.8m high boundary fence, pursuant to part (d) of the condition.

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

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

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

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

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


Page 9

iv. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

v. In regards to condition 5 visually permeable is defined by LPP 2.8 Fences Policy as: Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has: • Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width occupying not

less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or

• A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: Any fill on site shall not exceed a maximum of 700mm above natural ground level. LOST: 1/5 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

Cr R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to liaise with the owner of the affected neighbouring property to address relevant concerns. LOST: 2/4 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two single storey Single House’s at No. 87 (Lot 1) Watkins Street and No. 1/1 (Lot 2) Newbold Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):


Page 10

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 16 December 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0683/14, on

plans dated 16 December 2014 the Alfresco area of Unit 1 on the west elevation and Bedroom (1) window of Unit 2 on the southern elevation shall be either:

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

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





4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary Street

setback area shall be visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level, with the exception of the screen wall on Unit 2 to the Alfresco area, as per clause 5.2.4 C4 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern elevation shall

be of a clean finish in either;


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

metres from verge trees. Advice notes:


Page 11

i. The applicant is advised in relation to condition 4, that this requirement may be met by provision of a 1.8m high boundary fence, pursuant to part (d) of the condition.

ii. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based

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

• submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or • submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the

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

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

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

iv. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

v. In regards to condition 5 visually permeable is defined by LPP 2.8 Fences Policy as: Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has: • Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width

occupying not less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or

• A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.


Page 12

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 13

PSC1504-2 DEFERRED ITEM - MARTHA STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 150),

BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND TWO STOREY (WITH LOFT) ADDITIONS AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0470/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1502-6 (4 February 2015) Attachments: 1 – Amended development plans (13 March 2015)

2 – Previous officers report (4 February 2015) Date Received: 22 September 2014 Owner Name: ED Ormsby & PD Ormsby Submitted by: ED Ormsby & PD Ormsby Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a partial demolition of an existing single storey Single House and construction of a two storey, with loft, Single House at the subject site. The application was considered by the Planning Services Committee (PSC) at its meeting of 4 February 2015, where the application was deferred to address concerns relating to streetscape (front setbacks) elements of the proposal. On 13 March 2015 the applicant submitted amended plans which increased the setback of all streetscape elements, notably the garage (by 3.0m to 5.5mm) and upper floor (by 1.5m to 7.0m) of the proposal. The proposal is considered to address the substantive issues raised in the previous officer’s report. It is noted that the PSC also raised concerns relating to the ground floor element of the proposal, in particular the proposed garage structure. The proposal now achieves a setback that is considered broadly consistent with the surrounding streetscape and is positioned so as to not represent a projecting element into the established streetscape pattern. The application is, on-balance, supported subject to conditions. However should the Council consider that the previous resolution made has not been sufficiently addressed, an alternative recommendation for refusal is provided. BACKGROUND

A detailed background to the subject site and application is included in the ‘Background’ section of Attachment 2. The City received the current application on 22 September 2014. Following a first series of community consultation, amended plans were provided on 26 November 2014. At its meeting of 4 February 2015, the PSC made the following resolution;

‘defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow the applicant to address streetscape concerns raised in the officers report and matters raised by the Planning Services Committee.’

On 13 March 2015 the applicant submitted further amended plans (see Attachment 1) which sought to address concerns raised through community consultation as well as those identified by the PSC and officers. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for two storey (with loft) additions and alteration to existing Single House. Details regarding the proposal and the changes that occurred as a result of the first amendments to the proposal are contained in the ‘Details’ section of Attachment 2. The amended plans submitted 13 March 2015 further differ from the previous plans (received 26 November 2014) in the following ways;


Page 15

• The street setback of the ground floor has been modified in the following

ways; o The setback of the garage increasing from 2.5m to 5.5m; and, o The setback of ‘Bed 1’ being reduced from 3.7m to 3.0m.

• As a result of the increased garage setback, the position of the boundary wall to the eastern elevation has changed as a result of the increased setback. The length of this wall has been reduced by 0.8m to 6.0m overall;

• The upper floor setback has been increased from 5.5m to 7.0m (additional 1.5m); and,

• As a result of the increased upper floor setback, the upper floor loft area has been reduced in size;

• Screening material has been provided to the entire upper floor balcony at the rear of the development.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

• Building height; • Lot boundary setbacks; and, • Visual privacy.

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

• Street setback; and, • Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls).

These assessments are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The original application and first amended application were originally advertised (i.e. 2 advertising periods) to surrounding landowners as policy discretions and design principles assessments were sought. A summary of the comments received

1. Street setback; The proposed street setback, particularly on the ground floor, is well forward of adjoining development and is imposing;


Page 16

2. Height; The proposed building height is significantly above development in the rest of the street;

3. Side setbacks; The limited side setbacks result in a significant impact of bulk and scale to adjoining properties;

4. Screening; Screening material should be provided to forward balconies to protect views;

5. Privacy; The setback of windows on the upper floor is insufficient to protect visual privacy, particularly to the east;

6. Bulk and scale; The proposed building scale is not in keeping with the existing house and development in the rest of the street;

7. Storage area; The loft storage area will likely be used as a living room. This space has views over all surrounding properties;

8. Solar access; The proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of light to western adjoining properties;

9. Level difference; The difference in ground level between the site and western adjoining properties means the building will appear significantly higher from these locations;

10. Ground levels; The plans indicate the ground level of the site is proposed to be increased.

The above comments received during the 2 previous consultations raise a number of concerns that are considered to remain valid in the amended proposal. The first 6 matters are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment” section below. The remaining matters meet planning requirements and are therefore not discussed further. The current (3rd) proposal was not re-advertised on the basis that additional comments are unlikely to reveal concerns with the proposal not already identified. PLANNING COMMENT

Street setback

Element Required Provided Discretion Ground floor 7m 3.0m-5.5m 1.5m-4.0m Upper floor 10m 7.0m 3.0m

The amended application continues to allow for the exercise of discretion under the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes (LPP2.9). Clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 specifies the following merit based criteria;

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

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

(iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or


Page 17

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or,

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

The amended proposal includes significantly increased street setbacks compared to the originally submitted and first amended proposals. Notably the garage setback has been increased by 3.0m to 5.5m and upper floor by 1.5m to 7.0m compared to the original proposal. Garage setback: The previous officer’s report (see Attachment 2) acknowledged that the ground floor setback was consistent with part (i) above. The increased garage and ground floor setbacks under the current proposal are considered to result in a more positive streetscape outcome. Upper floor setback: The previous officer’s report (see Attachment 2) identified the upper floor setback as an area of concern. The modifications to the upper floor setback are now considered to satisfy (ii) and (v) above in the following ways; • The impression of the upper floor of the proposal is diminished due to the fall of

topography along Martha Street. The frontage of the subject site falls (from east to west) approximately 800mm and this fall is carried along Martha Street and over Solomon Street. The fall in topography will reduce the visual impression of the upper floor when viewed from the east of the subject site This forms part of the response of the proposal to part (ii);

• The upper floor setback of 7.0m sits up to 2.0m behind the line of the single storey

building to the east (No. 15 Martha Street) and is located at least 5.0m between the single storey (with loft) building to the west (No. 150 Solomon Street). The upper floor is also considered to be of a greater setback to Martha Street than the loft at No. 150 Solomon Street. The proposal is not considered to project forward of this established streetscape line pursuant to part (ii) above; and

• The proposal directly adjoins a corner lot at No. 150 Solomon Street. Part (v) above

considers setbacks that may be less than that prescribed could be applied in this instance. The proposed 7.0m setback, in lieu of a 10.0m criteria, is considered to represent a median setback between the stated criteria and the ~6.0m setback of loft features at No. 150 Solomon Street.

This element of the proposal is, on-balance, supported for the above reasons. However it is recognised that the proposal exists in a portion of Martha Street with a mix of streetscape character and a limited amount of two storey development. Council may consider the proposal to project into the streetscape and be inconsistent with the height of surrounding buildings. On that basis, an alternative recommendation for refusal is included in the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.

Building height

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment


Page 18

Wall height 6.0m 6.5m-6.7m 0.5m-0.7m The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways; • The proposal presents as a two storey building, which is the clear intent of this

design element of the R-Codes; • The proposed ground floor level matches the existing ground floor plinth level on

which the existing dwelling sits. The apparent height of the proposal from this level is 6.0-6.1m. The proposal includes an upper floor ceiling height of 2.6m, which is considered a typical interior height. The resulting external wall height, while above the deemed-to-comply criteria, is considered to reflect the site characteristics and typical two storey development; and,

• The height of the proposal does not result in any design principle assessments

relating to solar access or visual privacy not otherwise dealt with via conditions.

Lot boundary setbacks


Upper floor - east 1.8m 1.5m 0.3m Ground floor - west 1.9m 1.3m 0.6m

These elements are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2. These elements have not changed and the reasons to support these elements of the proposal are considered to remain valid.

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall - garage)

Element Requirement Provided Discretion East Walls built up to or within 600mm of a

boundary behind the front setback line within the following limits;

(b) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed

boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

6.0m long x 3.1m high on the

eastern boundary

See comments

This element of the proposal was previously support (see the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2). The amended plans depict a similarly scaled boundary wall, in a position further south on the eastern boundary. It is noted that the length of the boundary wall has been reduced by 0.8m to 6.0m and reduced in overall height by 0.3m to 3.0m. Despite the relocation of the wall, the reasons for supporting the wall contained in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2 are consider to remain valid.

Visual privacy


Page 19


Bed 2 – ground floor - west

4.5m 1.2m 3.3m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the R-Codes for the reasons set out in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2.


Balcony – Upper floor - East

7.5m Nil 7.5m

The upper floor balcony accessed via the ‘retreat’ room will be afforded views over the eastern adjoining property. A portion of the balcony will be capable of views back towards to the outdoor living area on 15 Martha Street. The proposal does not meet the design principles of the R-Codes as a result. A condition of approval requiring modification of the balcony structure, so that it is removed from the eastern boundary, is recommended. Screening of this elevation to protect visual privacy is not recommended, given the potential impact on the appearance of building bulk (given screening material would be added to the proposed 3.0m boundary wall) from No. 15 Martha Street. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS There are not considered to be any strategic implications arising from the proposal. CONCLUSION

On the basis of modifications made to the proposal, the application is recommended on-balance, for approval. The proposed cubby house is proposed to be deleted from any approval as no elevations have been included in the plans submitted. However should the PSC maintain concerns relating to streetscape elements of the proposal an alternative recommendation for refusal is provided as follows; ‘That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey (with loft) additions and alteration to existing Single House at No. 13A (Lot 150) Martha Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 13A Martha Street, for the following reasons: 1. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of

development within the prevailing streetscape and represents a projecting element into the streetscape pattern. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with clause 1.2 (i) and (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes.

2. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(f), (i), (o), (s) and (w) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.’


Page 20

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey (with loft) additions and alteration to existing Single House at No. 13A (Lot 150) Martha Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 13 March 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this approval, the plans hereby approved

being modified prior to the issue of a Building Permit in the following ways;

i. The upper floor balcony on the street elevation being modified so that the floor of the balcony and any associated balustrades being located at least 1.5m from the eastern boundary;

ii. The ‘cubby house’ shall be deleted from the plans. And the modification being reflected on the Building Permit, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

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

4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0470/14, on

plans dated 13 March 2015 all screening material shown on the plans hereby approved shall be either:

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

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

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




5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall

be of a clean finish in either;

• coloured sand render; • face brick;


Page 21

• painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.



Page 22

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PSC1504-3 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 118 (LOT 101), NORTH FREMANTLE -

TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE & 4 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AD DA0690/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Attachment 3: Site photos Date Received: 17 December 2014; 9 January 2015 (amended plans) Owner Name: Peter Froud Submitted by: Gary Keen Design Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 3; North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: ‘Office’, ‘Single House’, ‘Multiple Dwelling’ Use Permissibility: ‘P’, ‘A’, ‘A’


Page 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development and submissions received that cannot be addressed by the imposition of planning approval conditions. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for the partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House and rear three storey mixed use development (Office & 4 Multiple Dwellings). The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Council’s Local Planning Policies and R Codes with exception of the following: • Land use • Demolition • Density • Building height • Car parking • Bicycle racks • Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy • Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development • Building size (plot ratio) • Street setback • Lot boundary setback • Site works • Retaining walls • Visual privacy • Overshadowing Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is supportable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions bringing specific aspects of the development into compliance. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25 (potential density bonus up to R60) and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA 3) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Christina Parade to the north, Lime Street to the east, Craig Street to the south and Stirling Highway to the west. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 3, and is also located within the North Fremantle Heritage area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 1,032m2 and is located on the eastern side of Stirling Highway and western side of Lime Street. The subject site is currently improved by an asbestos, stone and iron single storey building and in terms of its topography, slopes 3.50m downwards


Page 24

from its north-western corner (Stirling Highway frontage) down to the south-east corner (Lime Street frontage). A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 17 December 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for the partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House and three storey mixed use development (Office & 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 118 (Lot 101) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The proposal can be viewed and read as two distinct and separate development sites, notwithstanding the subject site is currently one lot. The City has already provided comment to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for a two lot subdivision of the site, which is consistent with the lot layout as proposed by the development application. The proposed development comprises of the following: Stirling Highway frontage:Two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House:

• Partial demolition of the rear of the existing building; • Retention and conservation of existing heritage listed dwelling including two storey

rear additions and alterations; • 2 parking bays

Three storey mixed use development: Lime Street frontage:

• 4 x two bedroom Multiple Dwellings • 166m2 of commercial (office) tenancies; • 7 parking bays; • Incidental development (bin store, residential store rooms) The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 28 days. The advertising within this period included: • Sign on site was erected to the both streets frontages (Stirling Highway and Lime

Street); • Letter to owners and occupiers within 100 metres of the site; • Advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website; • All of the precinct groups were informed of the proposal;


Page 25

• Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 3 and 10 February 2015.

A Community Information session was held on the 19 February 2015. Land owners /occupiers within a 100 metre radius of the site and elected members were invited to attend. The session was attended by approximately 4 members of the public as well as two Councillors. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 26 February 2015, the City had received seven (7) submissions, four (4) of which supported the proposal. The main planning issues that were raised related to: 1. Height 2. Density 3. Land use 4. Car parking 5. Building bulk 6. Streetscape Accordingly, the relevant planning concerns outlined above will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Main Roads Western Australia The City referred the application to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) as the proposal relates to a land that abuts Stirling Highway, which is a Primary Regional Road (PRR) reservation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The MRWA provided the following referral comments to the City in relation to this application:

“Main roads has recently met with the applicant’s representative GKD and advise after lengthy discussion and taking into account the applicant’s personal circumstances Main Road will support the development application subject to the following conditions being imposed: 1. An access easement for the benefit of the proposed Lot 350 to be shown on

the subdivision and development plans and registered on the Certificate of Title for the proposed Lot 351 at the applicant’s expense. The easement shall be no less than 3 metres in width and connect Lot 350 with Lime Street.

2. Access to Lot 350 from Stirling Highway shall only be permitted whilst the site is accompanied by a single residential dwelling. Should this situation change in the future, alternate access arrangements will be required and Main Roads reserves the right to review access approval.

3. The noise sensitive development adjacent to an existing major transport corridor must implement measures to ameliorate the impact of transport noise. The development is to comply with WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and implement Noise Insulation “Deemed to Comply” packages for this residential development.

4. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Stirling Highway reserve.


Page 26

5. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Stirling Highway reserve.

6. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the Stirling Highway reservation.

Advice to applicant 1. In the event that the proposed Lot 350 is redeveloped at some stage in the

future and/or Stirling Highway is widened, Main Roads reserves the right to close the existing crossover on Stirling Highway with all access being achieved off Lime Street via the access easement.

2. MRS Major Amendment 1210/41 proposes to increase the land requirement as shown on the amendment Plan No. Plan 1.7143. However this is still subject to the completion of the amendment process.

3. The project for Stirling Highway is not in Main Roads current 4 year estimated construction program and is therefore considered long term. Please be aware project timing is subject to change and Main Roads assumes no liability for any change to the timing information period.

4. In the event that further development of this site proceeds and until such time as it is required for road purposes, Main Roads advises that the land will be acquired in the future by the Western Australian Planning Commission at a value equivalent to the current unimproved value, adjusted for inflation.”

It is recommended that the above conditions and advice notes be imposed. Public Transport Authority (PTA) Whilst the application did not require formal external referral to the PTA, as a nearby landowner they provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“The PTA has no objections to the proposed house extension, however it should be noted that the house is about 40 m from an operating passenger railway, in addition to being in close proximity to Stirling Highway. Noise and vibration from the railway also have the potential to impact on the residents’ current or future amenity. The owners/developers may wish to engage an acoustic consultant to advise on ways to minimise the impacts of road and rail noise and vibration (and thereby meet the requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 on Road and Rail Transport Noise). They may also find it useful to refer to the noise reduction ratings of various common construction types outlined in Chapter 6 of the State Planning Policy 5.4 Implementation Guidelines, which can be found at: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/guidelines_SPP_5_4.pdf .”

Given its close proximity to both the Perth-Fremantle suburban rail line, as well as Stirling Highway, it is considered that the above requirement be imposed as a condition of planning approval. City’s Heritage Officer The proposal was referred to the City’s heritage officer in order to assess the proposed demolition as well as the impact of the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the subject site. The heritage comments were generally supportive of the

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/guidelines_SPP_5_4.pdf�


Page 27

proposal, particularly in relation to the proposed additions and alterations to the existing heritage listed building. Given the separation of the proposed three storey mixed use development from the heritage listed building itself, it was determined that it would have limited to no impact on the heritage significance of the existing building. The heritage comments are contained as Attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy and scheme discretions: • Land use • Demolition • Density • Building height • Car parking • Bicycle racks • Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy • Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development • Building size (plot ratio) • Street setback • Lot boundary setback • Site works • Retaining walls • Visual privacy • Overshadowing A more detailed discussion of the above is provided in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 sets out the objectives for each zone within the City. Clause 4.2.1(e) sets out the following objectives for development within the ‘Mixed Use’ zone:

Land use

“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 (i.e. showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation,


Page 28

(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.”

The proposal for ‘Office’ is a ‘P’ use within the ‘Mixed Use’ zone, or a use that is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme. The proposal for a ‘Single House’ and ‘Multiple Dwellings’ are both an ‘A’ use within the ‘Mixed Use’ zone, or a use that is not permitted unless Council has exercised discretion in granting approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4 of LPS4. In relation to (i), the proposed Office space is considered to offer and provide opportunities for office based businesses to serve the local community. Any future change of land use to another commercial based land use, such as Shop would be subject of future planning approvals. The proposed Multiple Dwellings above the ground floor are also consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone. As detailed above, and in relation to (ii), the proposed Office, Single House and Multiple Dwelling land uses are considered to be consistent with, and sympathetic to existing and likely future character of the area. In relation to (iii), the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality. In relation to (iv), the development includes the restoration of the existing heritage listed building fronting Stirling Highway.

Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

Demolition

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.” The Heritage Assessment prepared for this subdivision application concluded that:

“It seems that the need for these items of demolition is due in part to the limited space available for the additions after the subdivision of Lot 101. Although the preferred option would be the complete retention of the exterior of the original part of the house, it is considered that because the demolition is away from the front of the house it is unlikely to have an impact on the contribution made by the house to the heritage of Fremantle, and /or its contribution to the streetscape.”


Page 29

In this regard, the proposed partial demolition of the existing building should be supported as the Heritage Assessment findings satisfy Clause 5.8.1 (a) and (b).

The applicable density coding of the subject site is R25. Clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 provides that:

Density bonus

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

Schedule 1 of LPS4 defines the term ‘mixed use’ as follows:

“means, when used in relation to a Planning Application, a combination of one or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 2 - Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development.”

The table below breaks down the gross lettable area of the proposed development (rear lot fronting Lime Street only) and each of the proportionate shares of the total gross lettable area.

Land Use Gross Lettable Area (GLA) Proportionate share of total GLA Office 166m2 25.38% Residential 488m2 74.62% Total 654m2 100% Accordingly, as each of the two proposed use classes exceeds the minimum 25% gross lettable area of the development, Council may grant the density bonus of up to R60 where it is of the opinion that the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area. The amenity impacts of the proposed development are discussed further below. In the instance that the land is not subdivided in accordance with the subdivision application that has been submitted, the commercial component would be less than 25% required by clause 5.2.3. This scheme requirement can be varied via clause 5.8.2.1 that states:

“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.”

In relation to (a), it is not considered that the proposal will be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, for the reasons outlined throughout this report in relation to discretions sought to LPS4, Councils Local Planning Policies and/or


Page 30

‘design principle’ assessments of the R-Codes. In relation to (b), the proposal has been supported on heritage grounds. In relation to (c), the proposal either complies with, or discretionary decisions sought in relation to Council’s Local Planning Policies have been supported.

Permitted

Height

Proposed Discretion 7.50 metres external wall

height 8.60 - 8.75m (two storey residential rear

additions only) 1.10m to

1.25m As a portion of the proposal exceeds the prescribed height requirements for development within the Mixed Use zone of the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA 3), clause 7.5 of LPS4 states that:

“Where desirable to— (a) facilitate the conservation of a heritage place entered in the Register of Places

under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the Heritage List under clause 7.1.1; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area designated under clause 7.2.1;

the Council may vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme or the Residential Design Codes by following the procedures set out in clause 9.4.”

The proposed second storey additions to the rear of the existing heritage listed building have been assessed by the City’s heritage officer, who provided the following comments specifically in relation to the over-height portion of this element of the proposal, stating:

“Heritage comment: The proposed development of 118 Stirling Highway involves the subdivision of the Lot 101 to form two lots: Lot 1 (118 Stirling Highway) and Lot 2 (Lime Street). The following heritage comments are limited to the height of the proposed extension to the retained house on Lot 1. The proposed finished floor level of the upper floor of the rear extension is determined by the ceiling height of the ground floor, which in turn is based on a design decision to set the ceiling height of the proposed rear addition at the same height as the ceiling in the existing heritage building. It is considered that this decision contributes to creating a clear and coherent relationship of the old and the new parts to the whole, as well as to the setting into which the new work is to be introduced. It is considered that the additional building height required to achieve this relationship will not have an adverse impact on the cultural significance of the retained house. Recommendations: The proposed new works are supported”

It is therefore considered, that based on advice from the City’s heritage officer that the proposed additional height results in a more optimal heritage outcome than if the proposed height complies with scheme requirements which facilitate the conservation of the heritage listed building. As such, the proposed building height discretion is supported as it is considered to satisfy clause 7.5(a).


Page 31

Use

Car parking

Car Bay Delivery Bay Visitor Bay Residential 5 0 1 Office 6 1 0 Total Required 11 1 1 Proposed 11* 0 0 Shortfall/surplus Nil (0) -1 -1 *Note

: Only 7 on-site bays shown on plans for mixed use development. On 11 March 2015, the applicant advised the City in writing that it would propose an additional 4 on-site bays, likely in the form of a car stacker. The assessment of the proposal has been based on this information, and has been conditioned accordingly.

The following assessment is separated into residential and office land uses. Residential Visitor Bay-

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • It is considered that there is sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the type,

number and size of dwellings; • Whilst there is limited provision of the availability of formalised on-street parking in the

immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site, this is not considered a reason alone to not support the proposal;

• Notwithstanding the above, there are 4 bus stops located within 250m radius of the

subject site, located on Stirling Highway which provides bus services for the 98, 99, 103 and 107 bus routes. The site is also within 400m of the North Fremantle train station, providing services to Fremantle, Perth CBD and the broader metropolitan region. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available.

Office -

In relation to the discretion sought for the office land use, pertaining to the provision of an on-site delivery bay, Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

(a) Subject to the requirements of Schedule 12*, waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3 subject to the applicant satisfactorily justifying a reduction due to one or more of the following—

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, (iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car

spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,


Page 32

(iv) any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land,

(v) legal arrangements have been made in accordance with clause 5.7.5 for the parking or shared use of parking areas which are in the opinion of the Council satisfactory,

(vi) any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use that existed before the change of parking requirement,

(vii) the proposal involves the restoration of a heritage building or retention of a tree or trees worthy of preservation,

(viii) any other relevant considerations. Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is

not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause. (b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably

qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above. Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon

alternative transport opportunities.” In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3(i), it is noted that there is limited availability of formalised on-street parking in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site, however this is not considered a reason alone to not support the proposal. Regarding (ii) above, there are 4 bus stops located within 250m radius of the subject site, located on Stirling Highway which provides bus services for the 98, 99, 103 and 107 bus routes. The site is also within 400m of the North Fremantle train station, providing services to Fremantle, Perth CBD and the broader metropolitan region. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available. In relation to (iii), due to the mixed use nature of the proposed development, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that some of the car parking bays associated with the residential component of the development may be available during business hours, which may provide for opportunity for any excess parking requirement for the office to utilise. Whilst there is limited provision of the availability of formalised on-street parking in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site, given the proximity to a significant level of public transport, it is considered that the proposed on-site delivery bay and visitor bay shortfall should be supported. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4.

Bicycle racks

Required Proposed

Land use Class 1 No class Office 2 - Not specified


Page 33

Multiple Dwellings - 1 Not specified

Total 2 3 Not specified Given the proposed shortfall of on-site car parking, it will be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that the required number of bicycle racks be provided for the commercial and residential land uses proposed, in accordance with the above table.

Deemed-to-comply

Building size (plot ratio)

Proposed Design principle assessment

0.7 (317.8m2)* 1.053 (478.06m2) 0.353 (160.26m2) *Based on proposed rear lot fronting Lime Street site area of 454m2 The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The proposed three storey mixed use development fronting Lime Street is fully

compliant with the maximum external wall height permitted by Schedule 12 of LPS4. This is due to the significant level of excavation proposed on-site and external wall height being measured from existing natural ground level, not as it is proposed. The height discretion sought and discussed above, relates to the two storey additions to the existing Single House only;

• Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to be at a bulk and scale

indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the height of the mixed use development across the road which is currently under construction at No. 14 (Lot 217) Lime Street, North Fremantle. Further, the zoning of the surrounding properties fronting both Stirling Highway and Lime Street are permitted to have an external wall height of 7.50m under LPS4, of which is possible as part of future redevelopment of those lots.

Deemed-to-comply

Street setback


2.00m 1.00m – 1.75m Up to 1.00m The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The 1.00m setback is to the external face of the architectural ‘nibs’ protruding

eastwards of the balconies. The setback of the balconies themselves is 1.65m from Lime Street, with the physical front wall of the dwellings setback 2.80m from Lime Street. The ground floor office is setback 1.75m. The proposal is therefore considered to provide articulation of the building to the street. Furthermore, the architectural nibs are considered to provide minor projections that add articulation and interest and reflect the character of the street. This, combined with the relative openness of the balconies themselves ensures that the predominant impact of the bulk of the development (ie physical front wall of dwellings) are located behind the prescribed primary street setback line;


Page 34

• The mixed use development across the road which is currently under construction at No. 14 (Lot 217) Lime Street, North Fremantle has a setback of 1.50m to its balconies from Lime Street. Based on this precedent, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired streetscape;

• The proposal is therefore considered to be appropriate to its location, respecting

adjoining development and existing streetscape characteristics.


Element Deemed-to-comply


1 Northern boundary, upper floor (Single House)

4.00m 1.00m 3.00m

2 Northern boundary, upper floors (mixed use development)

2.30m 1.00m 1.30m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The proposal ensures adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and

the open space associated with them as well as to adjoining properties; • The proposal moderates impacts of building bulk by use of varying materials and

finishes to those elevations, and incorporation of a combination of major and minor openings.

• The proposal satisfies the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements for visual privacy as the

property to the north is not a residential property.

Element Lot boundary walls (LPP2.4)

Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion Northern boundary

(ground floor only)

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

within the following limits; (ii) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed

boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

Nil See comments.

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways; • The boundary wall will abut a property that is not used for residential purposes; • The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or

building bulk; • The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant

vegetation. Site works


Page 35

Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

All excavation and filling behind a street setback line and within 1m of a boundary shall not exceed 0.50m

• Fill up to 1.00m (southern boundary – Single House)

• 0.5m

• Excavation up to 5.8m (northern boundary – mixed use development)

• 5.3m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The proposed development is considered to respond to the natural features of the

site and optimises use of excavation so as to limit the developments impact upon adjoining properties by way of height, scale and building bulk;

• The proposed new levels are considered to respect the natural ground level at the

boundary of the site and the adjoining properties and as viewed from the street.

Deemed-to-comply

Retaining walls


Retaining walls less than 0.5m high may be located

up to the boundary

Retaining walls up to 1.00m (southern boundary – Single House)

0.5m with nil setback

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • It is considered that the retaining walls result in land which can be effectively used for

the benefits of residents and do not detrimentally affect the southern adjoining property.

• In terms of its design and engineering specification, this will have to be addressed as

part of the building permit stage.

Deemed-to-comply

Visual privacy


Major openings to habitable rooms (bedrooms and

studies) setback of 4.5m from lot boundary

Western elevation, upper floor – master bed (single house) setback 3.0m from southern boundary

1.5m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The southern adjoining property is currently vacant and as such there will be no

overlooking of any major openings to habitable rooms and/or outdoor living areas. • It is noted that visual privacy was not required to be assessed in relation to the

northern adjoining property as this is not considered a residential property for the purposes of a ‘deemed-to-comply’ assessment., nor does it contain a dwelling for the purposes of a ‘design principle’ assessment.


Page 36

Deemed-to-comply

Overshadowing


Up to 25% of the southern adjoining property can be overshadowed (up to 79m2), comprised of the following proportionate share (based on length of boundaries):

• Single house lot (fronting Stirling Highway) - 13.93% (44.01m2)

• 33.27% (105m2)

• 19.34% (60.99m2)

• Multiple dwelling lot (fronting Lime Street) – 11.065% (34.965m2)

• 25.63% (81m2)

• 14.565% (46.035m2)

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The subject site to the south affected by the shadow is currently vacant. • As there is no dwelling(s) on the southern adjoining property, the proposed

overshadowing is supported as it does not directly impact an outdoor living area and/or major openings to habitable room(s).

Council’s Local Planning Policies

Clause 5.1 of Council’s LPP2.9 policy states: Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

“Where the property is included on the City’s Heritage List and is not subject to specific provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or a local area planning policy: i. Second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling are to be setback

behind the main roof ridge of the existing dwelling a minimum distance of four (4.0) metres; and

ii. Shall be designed and setback so as to retain the impression of a single storey house when viewed from the street.”

The proposed second storey additions to the existing heritage listed Single House is less than the required 4.00m from the roof ridge as the proposal cuts into the original roof line at the rear of the dwelling by approximately 5.00m (i) and it is not designed and setback so as to retain the impression of a single storey house when viewed from the street (ii). As the proposal does not meet clause 5.1(i) and (ii), the proposal is required to be assessed against the provisions of Clause 5.2 which states:

“Variations to the requirements of clause 5.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to an assessment of the proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property.”

The heritage assessment provided that the proposed two storey additions and alterations to the existing heritage listed dwelling are appropriate:


Page 37

“A simply composed two-storey rectangular volume attached to the rear of the original house. Although readily identifiable as new work, its simplicity ensures that the additions will complement the similarly simple and prismatic shape of the heritage house, creating a clear and coherent relationship of the old and new parts to the whole, as well as to the setting into which the new work is introduced. It is considered that the additions respect the cultural significance of the house and that the impact on its significance will be minimal.”

As the proposal is supported on heritage grounds in relation to its compatibility with and impact upon the existing heritage listed dwelling, the proposal is considered to satisfy clause 5.2 of LPP2.9 and should be supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15: the proposed potentially increases the number of residents in the area;

2. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: the proposal could provide for population and economic

growth by planning and promoting development and renewal while also protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

CONCLUSION The proposed partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House and three storey mixed use development (Office & 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 118 (Lot 101) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; building size (plot ratio); street setback; lot boundary setback; site works; retaining walls; visual privacy and overshadowing. In relation to building height, it is considered to satisfy the provisions of clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 and is therefore supported. The discretionary decisions sought in relation to on-site car parking and land use as well as density have been assessed against the relevant criteria of LPS4 and are considered to be supportable. The proposal is also considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4 and LPP2.9 and is considered to be supportable. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House and three storey mixed use


Page 38

development (Office & 4 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 118 (Lot 101) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 9 January 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to issue of a Building Permit, an additional four (4) on-site car parking

bays are to be provided for the mixed use development fronting Lime Street, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, a minimum of:

(a) 1 bicycle racks be provided for the proposed Multiple Dwellings; and (b) 2 class 1 bicycle racks be provided for the proposed Office; are to be provided and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, the works to the external the walls of the original part of

the house are undertaken in accordance with good conservation practice. This includes the need for works to be based on evidence obtained from investigations of the original fabric of the house, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 7. Prior to occupation an access easement for the benefit of the proposed Lot 350

to be shown on the subdivision and development plans and registered on the Certificate of Title for the proposed Lot 351 at the applicant’s expense. The easement shall be no less than 3 metres in width and connect Lot 350 with Lime Street.

8. The noise sensitive development adjacent to an existing major transport

corridor must implement measures to ameliorate the impact of transport noise: • The development is to comply with WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road

and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and implement Noise Insulation “Deemed to Comply” packages for this residential development.

9. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Stirling Highway reserve. 10. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Stirling Highway reserve.


Page 39

11. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the Stirling Highway reservation.

Advice Notes: i. In the event that the proposed Lot 350 is redeveloped at some stage in the

future and/or Stirling Highway is widened, Main Roads reserves the right to close the existing crossover on Stirling Highway with all access being achieved off Lime Street via the access easement.

ii. Access to Lot 350 from Stirling Highway shall only be permitted whilst the site

is accompanied by a single residential dwelling. Should this situation change in the future, alternate access arrangements will be required and Main Roads reserves the right to review access approval.

iii. MRS Major Amendment 1210/41 proposes to increase the land requirement as

shown on the amendment Plan No. Plan 1.7143. However this is still subject to the completion of the amendment process.

iv. The project for Stirling Highway is not in Main Roads current 4 year estimated

construction program and is therefore considered long term. Please be aware project timing is subject to change and Main Roads assumes no liability for any change to the timing information period.

v. In the event that further development of this site proceeds and until such time

as it is required for road purposes, Main Roads advises that the land will be acquired in the future by the Western Australian Planning Commission at a value equivalent to the current unimproved value, adjusted for inflation.



Page 40

PSC1504-4 KWONG ALLEY NO. 16-18 (LOTS 77 & 78), NORTH FREMANTLE -

VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL (DAP80002/14) - (JL DAPV002/15)

Form 2 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 17)

Property Location: No. 16 – 18 (Lots 77 & 78) Kwong Alley,

North Fremantle Application Details: Variation to Previous Planning Approval

DAP80002/14 (Five storey Multiple dwelling (10 dwellings) development)

DAP Name: Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: Aztec Architects Owner: Jacob Malecky, Josephine Malecky &

Malecky Nominees Pty Ltd. LG Reference: DAPV002/15 Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals Department of Planning File No: DAP/14/00510 Report Date: 1 April 2015 Application Receipt Date: 23 February 2015 Application Process Days: 50 Days Attachment(s): 1. Original Determination J-DAP

Notice of Determination and Approved Development Plans DAP80002/14

2. Original RAR Report 3. Amended Development plans

(Survey plan; Local plan; Site Plan; Basement floor plan; Ground Level Floor plan; First Level floor plan; Second level floor plan; third level floor plan; Roof terrace floor plan; Roof plan; Queen Victoria West elevation plan; South elevation plan; East elevation plan; North elevation plan; Section A, Section B ; Section C; Render; and Streetscape); and

4. Site photos


Page 41

Officer Recommendation: That the South-West JDAP resolves to: 1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DP/14/00510 as detailed on the

DAP Form 2, dated 23 February 2015, is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve DAP Application reference DAP/14/00510 (City of Fremantle

reference DAPV8002/15) dated 23 February 2015 and accompanying plans ‘Survey plan; Local plan; Site Plan; Basement floor plan; Ground Level Floor plan; First Level floor plan; Second level floor plan; third level floor plan; Roof terrace floor plan; Roof plan; Queen Victoria West elevation plan; South elevation plan; East elevation plan; North elevation plan; Section A, Section B, Section C; Render; and Streetscape’, subject to the following conditions:

a) Amended Conditions

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

the approved plans, dated 23 February 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

b) Delete Condition 3

Background: Insert Property Address: No. 16-18 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle Insert Zoning MRS: Urban TPS: Commercial (R60) Insert Use Class: Multiple dwelling – ‘A’ use Insert Strategy Policy: N/A Insert Development Scheme: N/A Insert Lot Size: Lot 77: 204m2 & Lot 78: 204m2 Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant Lots Value of Development: $3 040 000.00 At its meeting held 10 July 2014 the South West J-DAP granted planning approval subject to conditions for planning application DP/14/00510 which was for a five storey multiple dwelling development comprising ten dwellings at No. 16-18 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle. The approved development included:

• Basement level - car parking (10 bays) and storage (7 stores); • Ground level - two car parking bays and the vehicle access at street frontage and 2

x single bedroom dwellings and 1 x two bedroom dwelling;


Page 42

• First level – 3 x two bedroom dwellings; • Second and thirds levels - each comprise 1 x two bedroom dwelling and1 x three

bedroom dwelling; and • Roof terrace level comprises a studio and deck (for private use in conjunction with

unit 7) store rooms and a communal deck area. For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1 for development plans. Details: outline of development application The proposed amended development is the same as previously approved by J-DAP except for:

• Additional Multiple Dwelling (Increase from 10 to11 dwellings), • Increase of one storeroom to the rooftop for new Multiple Dwelling, • Increase in onsite car parking form 12 to 17 bays (inclusive of 5 Car Stackers), • Increase in plot ratio from 2.568 to 2.791 (1049m2 to 1142m2, • Increase in boundary wall height (north and south boundary walls) by 1.37m, • Changes to FFL’s of all floors except the basement, and • Increase in overall building height from 17.55m to 18.92m (1.37m).

See Attachment 3 below for copy of amended development plans. Legislation & policy: The legislative framework and policy base providing for the original assessment can be viewed in the original Responsible Authority Report (RAR). See Attachment 2 for copy of original RAR report. Local Planning Scheme Provisions: The following additional Scheme provisions are considered relevant in the consideration of this variation planning application:

• Clause 8.3 – Amending or Revoking a Planning Approval • Clause 5.8.1.1 Variation to height requirements; • Clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Development requirements – North Fremantle Local

Planning Area 2 Fremantle – Sub Area 3.3.3. State Government Policies

• State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes. Local Planning Policies: The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:

• LPP1.1 – Amendment and Extension to the term of planning Approval


Page 43

See the ‘Planning Assessment’ section below for further discussion in relation to this policy’s requirements. Consultation:

Public Consultation

The proposed amendments have introduced two new discretionary matters which required the application to undergo further community consultation in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 policy. The application was advertised for a period of 14 days and consultation occurred by way of letters to owners and occupiers within a 100m radius of the subject site. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 20 March 2015, the City had received 6 submissions with 5 raising objections to the amended proposal. The submissions objected to building height, bulk and scale, car parking and associated traffic problems in the locality. With regards to the above mentioned concerns, the amended proposal has been assessed against and addresses the deemed to comply provisions relating to onsite car parking and the amended development provides a total of 17 onsite bays and the proposal is required to provide a total of 14 onsite bays as required by the R-Codes. With regards to concerns associated with building height matters please see ‘Planning Assessment’ section below for further discussion. Design Advisory Committee (DAC)

(Internal referral)

The amended proposal was referred to the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) at its meeting held on 12 January 2015. DAC provided the following comments:

1. CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

CHARACTER

a. Because of its high visibility on Queen Victoria Street, an important entry road into Fremantle, the proposed street elevation needs to be a higher quality with more compositional consideration. This should include the architectural ordering and hierarchy of elements.

b. The façade design is difficult to evaluate when shown solely in elevation. A 3D perspective is needed to understand better the composition of the façade and its layers, depths and materials.

c. The committee needs to be made confident that quality materials will be used in the design.

d. The Queen Victoria Street façade of the previously submitted plans was considered to be better-formed and more responsive to its surrounding context.

e. The committee requests that the applicant submit a better-defined and more considered façade design taking the above comments into account.

QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM


Page 44

There needs to be design consideration given to the land between the building and Queen Victoria Street. This consideration should include its public realm role and its levels in order to facilitate access for the disabled and privacy and security for the ground floor units. Continuity and Enclosure, Ease Of Movement, Legibility, Adaptability, Diversity The above issues did not arise during the presentation. OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY a. The committee supported reinstating the narrow balconies to the bedrooms fronting

Queen Victoria Street in order to enable a degree of acoustic privacy from the very busy road.

b. While the glass louvres on the QVS facade will provide wind protection, sun protection is also needed. In order to retain clear views, alternative products that allow horizontal as well as vertical pivoting could be explored.

APPROPRIATNESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES This is a strategic location that will be highly visible and quality materials need to be used. GENERAL COMMENTS If air-conditioning units are to be placed on balconies they need to be screened. Details of this screening are required.

2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

a. Internal planning has improved although access to bedrooms through narrow galley kitchens does present some safety concerns.

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

a. A reconsidered façade design that, minimally, reinstates the order and hierarchy of the approved design.

b. A 3D drawing that better describes the façade design proposed, its composition, layers, depths and materials.

c. Additional detailing and information is needed to ensure that quality materials are being used.

d. Reinstating the narrow balconies in front of bedrooms on QVS to enable incorporation of a degree of acoustic privacy from the very busy road.

e. Providing additional sun protection of the QVS façade. f. Details of how air-conditioning units are to be screened on balconies.

3. RECOMMENDATION


Page 45

The plans have not progressed to a stage where they can be recommended for support. Additional information relating to the matters listed above is required before the committee is able to provide a final recommendation. Accordingly, planning condition No.4 of J-DAP original determination requiring specific design modifications is still relevant to this proposal and as such remains as a valid planning condition.

Consultation with Fremantle Port Authority

The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port buffer area. In accordance with LPP2.3, the Fremantle Port Authority was advised of the development proposal. The authority advised the City for the original application stating that there were no objections to the development provided the development was designed and constructed in accordance with the built form requirements for Area 2, as detailed in the City of Fremantle’s ‘Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines’. The amended proposal was also referred to FPA for additional comments with FPA responding on 27 February 2015 reiterating its previous comments raised in the letter dated 7 August 2012. Accordingly, the JDAP planning conditions no.10 & 11 of its notice of determination dated 17 July 2014 is still relevant to this proposal and as such remains as a valid planning condition.

Main Roads WA

The original application was referred to Main Road WA as the subject site abuts a Category 2- primary regional road with comment received on 2 April 2014 supporting the proposal subject to the following conditions:

• No earthworks shall encroach onto the Queen Victoria Street reserve. • No stormwater drainage shall be discharged into the Queen Victoria Street reserve. • The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within

the Queen Victoria Street reservation. • Redundant driveways shall be removed and the verge and its vegetation made

good at the applicant’s cost. • No vehicle access shall be permitted onto the Queen Victoria Street reserve. • The ground levels on the Queen Victoria Street boundary are to be maintained as

existing. • This noise sensitive development adjacent to an existing major transport corridor

must implement measures to ameliorate the impact of transport noise. The development is to comply with WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 "Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and implement Noise Insulation "Deemed to Comply" packages for this residential development. Advice to Applicant

• All enquiries related to Conditions 1 to 6 shall be directed to the Metropolitan Region - Asset Manager (North).


Page 46

The amended plans were again referred to Main Roads on 23 February 2015 for additional comments. No further comment has been received from Main Roads to this date however it is considered unlikely that any comments received would be significantly different to the above, on that basis the Main Roads related conditions and advice notes remain. Planning assessment: In accordance with the provisions of Council’s LPS4 and LPP1.1 policy, no development has commenced on site at the time of writing this report in relation to this application and therefore the variation application is warranted under Clause 8.3 of LPS4. Additionally, there have been no substantial changes to the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes or Council’s relevant local planning policies or to the built form of the immediate locality. However, in stating the above these proposed amendments require further assessment against Design Principle criteria of the R-Codes relating to lot boundary setbacks and plot ratio and discretionary criteria of LPS4 for building height and Council LPP2.4 – Boundary Walls policy. Each of these matters will be individually assessed below:

Plot ratio

Deemed to comply requirement

Approved Proposed Design Principle assessment

Plot ratio area of 0.7 (R60).

2.568(1050m2) 2.791 (1140m2)

2.091 (854m2).

Again, the proposed plot ratio is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

• The plot ratio proposed is consistent with the bulk and scale of existing higher density development in the locality. The development context of the locality comprises higher density multiple dwelling development to the south associated with the Rivershores development (No. 2 Doepel Street) and multiple dwelling and mixed use development to the north (Nos. 12 and 6-10 Kwong Alley);

• Plot ratio has been increased with the modification of the fifth floor studio into an

eleventh dwelling which has a scale that contributes to the graduation of existing building heights/wall heights in the locality as suggested in the height assessment above; and

• It is characteristic of existing development in the locality to present boundary to boundary (comprise full width of the lot) to Kwong Alley which further supports the proposed building bulk and scale.

Building Height

Required Approved Proposed Discretion 7.5m maximum external wall height.

17.55m maximum external wall height.

18.92m maximum external wall height

1.42m.


Page 47

The discretion is supported against clause 5.8.1 of the City’s LPS4 for the following reasons:

• The variation to height requirements of clause 5.8.1 are triggered by the following adjacent buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4:

o No. 12 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle comprises a building with a maximum external wall height at 15.4m (refer DA0490/10); and

o No. 6 – 10 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle comprises a building with a maximum external wall height of 14m.

• The southern adjoining property at No. 20 Kwong Alley comprises a vacant lot of

which the proposed development will cast significant shadow (71% at winter solstice). Since J-DAP’s determination of this original application, the City has granted planning approval for a five (5) storey Multiple Dwelling development on this adjoining property which if constructed, consists of a maximum building height of 16.5m with boundary walls also to both the northern and southern common boundaries of this site.

• However, given the adjoining site is currently vacant and this application has not

been acted upon to date, the discretionary assessment should be considered on the status of the site today. Given the Commercial zoning and higher density development context of the subject site and the width of the southern adjoining property at No. 20 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle (13m in width) the development potential or future amenity of the southern adjoining property is not considered to be significantly constrained by the proposed development as it is anticipated that the adjoining property will also seek to maximise development potential and comprise boundary walls and heights consistent with this proposal (the impact of the development on the amenity of residential properties in the locality is discussed further in the solar access for adjoining site and lot boundary setback assessments below);

• Again as previously outlined in the original RAR report, the building two lots south

of the subject site at No. 2 Doepel Street (Rivershores development) comprises an external wall height of 20m and the building two lots to the north of the subject site at No. 12 Kwong Alley comprises an external wall height of 15.4m. With the proposed development’s maximum external wall height at 18.92m, in a location effectively between these two buildings, the proposed development is considered to effectively graduate the scale of existing building/wall heights in the immediate locality.

• The stepping down of building heights from the south to the north and the nil

setback of buildings in the general locality is considered to result in an attractive higher density streetscape for the locality. This graduation of height is considered to increase development potential for adjoining properties in relation to height and provides opportunity for the southern adjoining property to be development at a height between that proposed in this application (18.9m) and that existing at No. 2 Doepel Street (20m) which would further reduce any impact of this development upon this adjoining property; and

• The development site and streetscape have no cultural heritage significance of

which the proposed height may have any detrimental impact.


Page 48


Element Approved lot boundary setbacks

Deemed to comply requirement

Proposed Merit based assessment

North (GL – Roof FL)

Nil 5.5m Nil 5.5m

North (Studio, Stairwell, Store)

4.35m 4.5m 3.43m 1.07m

South (GL – Roof FL)

Nil 5.5m Nil 5.5m

South (Store) 2m 2.8m 2m 0.8m West (GL – Roof FL)

Ni 8.8m Nil 8.8m

West (Studio) 4.45m 9.8m 2.75m 7.05m The lot boundary setbacks are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

• The proposed dwellings are designed to have adequate access to sunlight and ventilation upon the building’s eastern and western elevations;

• Again as stated above, Council has recently granted planning approval or a five

storey (8 unit) Multiple Dwelling development on this southern adjoining site, which also incorporates boundary walls to this common boundary and an overall building height of 16.5m. Regardless of this approval being acted upon or not, as suggested in the height assessment above, in accordance with the variation to height requirements of clause 5.8.1 of LPS4, the southern adjoining property also has the potential to exceed the height of that proposed by this development in graduating wall heights between the existing development at No. 2 Doepel Street and that proposed in this application which further ensures the amenity of the southern adjoining property. Therefore whilst the southern adjoining lot is currently vacant this proposal isn’t considered to be significantly impact the amenity of future development on this adjoining site as any future development on this impacted site is anticipated to utilise existing boundary walls of adjoining properties whilst replicating an overall building height compatible with these adjoining properties and the overall immediate locality.

• The northern adjoining property also comprises a vacant lot which is narrow in

width and, similarly, is anticipated to be developed to abut the proposed northern boundary wall given these influences. On this basis and given its northern location, the proposed northern lot boundary wall is not considered to significantly impact upon the northern adjoining property by means of restriction of sunlight or building bulk and may be considered to provide development opportunity for the future development of the site; and

• The development complies with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes and

the proposed nil lot boundary setbacks are considered to be consistent with the character of development in Kwong Alley.

LPP2.19 - Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works


Page 49

In addition to the above, it’s been identified that Planning Condition no.3 for J-DAP’s original determination of DAP80002/14 which reads as follows:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner is required to contribute a monetary amount of 1% of the estimated total cost of development as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval for DAP0002/14, for the development of public art works and/or heritage works to the enhance to the public realm to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

This condition was erroneously imposed in the original application’s determination, and as the subject site is not affected by the provisions of Council’s LPP2.19 policy and accordingly, as part of this determination it’s recommended that this condition be deleted. Conclusion: Overall the variation application request is supported as the amendments to the original Planning Approval issued on 17 July 2014 are considered minor and consistent with the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (L.P.P1.1). Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the same terms and conditions on the J-DAP’s Notice of determination dated 17 July 2014 for DP/14/00510, except whereby modified in the recommendation above.


Page 50

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the South-West JDAP resolves to: 1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DP/14/00510 as detailed on the

DAP Form 2, dated 23 February 2015, is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve DAP Application reference DAP/14/00510 (City of Fremantle

reference DAPV8002/15) dated 23 February 2015 and accompanying plans ‘Survey plan; Local plan; Site Plan; Basement floor plan; Ground Level Floor plan; First Level floor plan; Second level floor plan; third level floor plan; Roof terrace floor plan; Roof plan; Queen Victoria West elevation plan; South elevation plan; East elevation plan; North elevation plan; Section A, Section B, Section C; Render; and Streetscape’, subject to the following conditions:

a) Amended Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 23 February 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

b) Delete Condition 3



Page 51

PSC1504-5 SOUTH STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 34), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY

ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0687/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Attachment 3 – Heritage Comment Date Received: 16 December 2014 Owner Name: David Lucy Submitted by: Sam Payne Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 14 South Street, Fremantle. The application has been assessed against the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires design principles and discretionary assessment against the following design elements:

• Building height; • Carport; • Lot boundary setback and • Visual privacy.

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination as objections have been received from neighbouring landowners that cannot all be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours. The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant statutory planning criteria and is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 14 South Street is located on the northern side of South Street in Fremantle. The street block is bound by South Terrace to the east, Price Street to the north, Marine Terrace to the west and South Street to the south. The property is zoned Residential R35 and is located in Sub Area 4.3.1 of the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The site is on the City’s Heritage List and is listed as Level 3 on the MHI. It is not located in a Heritage Area. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history. DETAIL

On 16 December 2014, the City received an application for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 14 South Street, Fremantle. The application includes partial demolition and internal and external works to the existing Single House and new, two storey additions to the rear of the property, specifically:

• Demolition of a rear portion of the existing house; • Demolition of existing carport; • Bathroom fit out in existing house; • Alterations to existing openings; • Addition of “pergola” in front setback; and • Ground and two storey additions to rear of existing house.

Amended plans were received on 18 February 2015 that provided additional information and altered the proposed works to the existing part of the house. Development plans are included as Attachment 1. Site photographs are included as Attachment 2.


Page 53


The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

• Lot boundary setback and • Visual privacy.

In this application Council has the ability, through its policy and scheme provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

• Building height; • Carport;

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

Internal The City’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the application and has provided the following comments –

• Replacement of asbestos roofing with zincalume is a positive outcome; • Replacement of French doors with a double hung sash is appropriate; • Intention to seal the bricks will have a negative impact on the ongoing conservation

of the walls ....this has the potential to cause rising damp issues; • The demolition of the rear additions...is considered acceptable and will facilitate the

new additions; • The proposal of a carport/pergola addition fronting the single faced house would

have a negative impact on the heritage values of the place. The proposed works are supported on heritage grounds with conditions. Conditions of approval relating to the carport and sealing of brickwork are included in the Officer’s Recommendation. Full comments are included as attachment 3. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 as Design Principle assessments were required for lot boundary setbacks and visual privacy under the R-Codes, as well as the City’s LPS4 and LPP 2.9. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 January 2015, the City had received two (2) submissions. The following issues were raised:


Page 54

1. Two storey additions impact on existing outdoor living area and proposed living area;

2. Building bulk. 3. Removal of “dunny” is concerning; 4. Internal noise; 5. Placement of air conditioners; 6. Boundary fence replacement; 7. Reflected heat from roofing materials; 8. Gate needs a spring lock to reduce noise; 9. Retaining bottlebrush tree is important for native animals and privacy;

The first 2 matters are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment” section below. The 3rd matter is addressed by the City’s internal heritage comments above. The remaining matters are not directly relevant to the assessment of the application and are therefore not discussed further. The applicant was provided with the opportunity to review the submissions and has provided the following comments (summarised):

• Placement of air-conditioning units will be carefully considered with the amenity of neighbours in mind;

• Rooms on ground floor will be largely guest bedrooms, so use will be minimal, reducing the potential for noise transfer between adjoining properties;

• Screening and acoustic panelling fence can be used if required to assist in alleviating noise;

• The existing boundary fence is in a state of disrepair and is located well within boundary – this needs to be rectified;

• Roof will be “wallaby” colorbond, and will not be heat reflective;

• Side gate will be replaced;

• Removal of bottlebrush tree allows sufficient room for the additions. More appropriate native Fremantle vegetation will be replanted;

• Toilet is in dangerous state of repair;

• Have reviewed neighbour’s proposal for additions and factored into design. Upper floor windows facing north are to be frosted and living area is now screened by the additions, improving the current situation;

• Additions have been designed with the streetscape in mind;

• The upper floor will be used infrequently (i.e. not an entertaining space). PLANNING COMMENT

Building Height


Page 55

Required Provided Discretion Single storey with loft Two storeys One storey External wall height – 4.8m 7m 2.2m Building height for No. 14 South Street, Fremantle is prescribed by Schedule 12 (sub area 4.3.1 of Fremantle South LPA) of LPS4 as – With the exception of sites on Marine and South Terrace, building height shall be limited to single storey with loft (maximum external wall height of 4.8 metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plain pitch of 38 degrees) Schedule 12 provides criteria to be applied when considering these maximum height requirements - In granting consent to the maximum heights prescribed Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following –

a) That the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally;

No. 14 South Street is approximately 80m from Marine Terrace, which is characterised by two storey development, and has a potential development height of three storeys. The existing streetscape includes a warehouse that has been converted into two storey apartments and properties with two storey rear additions. Additionally, given the subject site’s proximity to Marine Terrace and the existing two and three storey properties directly across South Street from the proposed development, it is considered that a rear two storey addition is appropriate for No. 14 South Street.

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

The upper floors of adjoining properties are setback between nil and 20m, while the proposed additions are setback 30m from the front setback behind the existing Single House. For this reason, it is considered that the proposed additions will not be detrimental to the amenity of the area.

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

the site and locality generally; and

The proposal includes works to the original Single House that will assist in the longevity of the building, and the additions located to the rear will have a minimal impact on the adjoining heritage listed properties. By locating the additions to the rear of the site, the outcome is significantly better for the heritage streetscape, than if upper floor additions were to be added directly behind the existing house.

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

In addition to the requirements of Schedule 12, the City’s local area policy DGF29 Suffolk to South Streets Local Area, notes that residential development should be predominantly single storey. Only 55m2 of the 291m2 site (19%) is occupied by the two storey portion of the development.


Page 56

Should Council disagree with the above LPS4 states “Council may impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal does not satisfy any one or all of the above requirements.” Should a development seek greater heights than nominated in Schedule 12, clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 provides Council with the opportunity to vary the heights - Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following –

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

As discussed above, the proposed additions are to the rear of the property and are in the vicinity of properties that are two and three storeys. The setback of the additions result in a development that does not impose on the streetscape and has a minimal impact on the amenity of adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, visual privacy and building bulk.

b) Degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduate the

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality

It is considered the proposed rear additions assist in graduating the scale between buildings in the streetscape as follows:

• No. 8 South Street – converted warehouse, that encases two storey

apartments; • No. 10 and 12 South Street – Two storey Single Houses with an external wall

height of 5.9m- 6.2m, roof pitch 8.2- 8.6m; • No. 16 South Street onwards – single storey.

Additionally, the properties across the road are two and three stories. For further detail, see the site photographs in attachment 2.

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

The City’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the application and is supportive of the two storey additions. The original portion of the house at the front of the Single House will not be significantly impacted by the two storey additions. The additions have been designed to reduce any streetscape impacts by being setback 30m from the front boundary. As such the additions do not negatively impact the cultural heritage values of buildings adjoining the site as viewed from the street.

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

The proposed development is consistent with Local Planning Policies.

The proposed building height is supported.


Page 57

Carport While the structure at the front of the property is noted as being a “free standing covered pergola structure”, it is not considered to meet the definition of a pergola (as defined by the R Codes) – An unenclosed open-framed structure covered in a water permeable material or unroofed, which may or may not be attached to a dwelling. The “free standing covered pergola” is shown to be covered with the exception of a 3.2m2 area of the total 17m2. As such, given the structure is in the front setback of the property and covers a “new paved driveway” with an “existing crossover to remain”, the structure is considered to be consistent with the R Codes definition of a carport – A roofed structure designed to accommodate one or more motor vehicles unclosed except to the extent that it abuts a dwelling or a property boundary on one side, and being without a door unless that door is visually permeable. LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy requires that carports not under the main roof of the development are to be located behind or in line with the front wall of the development. Given the existing house occupies the width of the lot; a carport is not able to be constructed to the side or rear of the house. The location of the carport can only be varied for Heritage Listed properties against the following: 2.3 Variations to the requirements of clause 2.1 or 2.2 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

i. The proposed building is consistent with the character of buildings in the prevailing streetscape; or

The prevailing streetscape in this instance is No. 8a, 10, 12, 16, 18 and 20 South Street. None of the properties listed have carports in the front setback area.

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

The proposed carport will project into an existing streetscape which does not include carports or garages.

iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature significant tree deemed by the Council to be worth of retention (Refer also to LPP 2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites); or

The proposed carport is not proposed in its location to retain a mature significant tree.

iv. The carport is lightweight in construction, appears simple in design and is visually subservient in the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is designed in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street.


Page 58

While the carport may be considered to be lightweight in construction, due to the small dimensions of the existing Single House it is not considered to be visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling, as it occupies the entire frontage. In addition to the above, clause 2.4 of LPP 2.9 states:

“Where the property is on the Heritage List, the proposed developments compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property will be considered. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property.”

The City’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposal; and in relation to the proposed carport has the following comments –

“The proposal of a carport/pergola addition fronting the single faced house would have negative impact on the heritage values of the place. The addition of a carport in the front setback would distort the visual qualities of the facade and the streetscape is not supported on heritage grounds.”

A condition of approval is recommended to delete the carport from the plans as it is not supported against LPP 2.9 or by the City’s Heritage Department. Lot boundary setbacks Deemed-to-Comply Provided Design principle

assessment West (GF) – 1.5m 0m 1.5m West (UF) – 1.5m 0m 1.5m North (UF) – 1.2m 1m 0.2m East (GF) – 1.5m 1.03-5.6m nil - 0.47m East (UF) - 1.5m 1.03m 0.47m West The lot boundary setbacks are supported against the LPP 2.4 (Boundary Walls in Residential Development) for the following reasons:

• The existing rear portion of the Single House has single storey boundary wall on western elevation;

• The adjoining property is setback 2m which is considered to be more than sufficient space to allow for ventilation for any openings on this elevation;

• Only 2.5m of the length of the southern portion of the boundary wall abuts an existing upper floor addition and balcony;

• The balcony on the adjoining property is open on the northern side ensuring adequate access to sunlight;

• The major openings for bedrooms on the eastern elevation of the adjoining western building will abut the single storey portion of the development and will not be impacted by the upper floor boundary wall;


Page 59

• The reduced setbacks have been proposed on the narrow 7.2m wide lot to assist in creating a private outdoor living area for the occupants of the development;

• The proposed boundary wall will not restrict access to winter sun from the north as measured by the R Codes;

• The boundary walls are to the rear of existing boundary walls on the retained portion of the dwelling and will therefore not impact on the existing streetscape; and

• The proposed boundary walls will not result in significant adverse impact on the adjoining property.

North The adjacent property to the north is currently setback 21m from the lot boundary. Additions to the existing Single House were approved 11 July 2014 (DA0244/14) that proposed a 10.6m lot boundary setback. At the time of writing this report, construction had not commenced on these additions, nor had a building permit been issued. As such, the proposed 200mm reduction to the required upper floor setback on the upper floor is supported against Design Principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

• The impact of building bulk will not be excessive due to the existing setback of the adjoining property;

• Overshadowing under the R-Codes is calculated to the south for winter sun access, which is not impacted for the adjoining property with the reduced setback;

• The proposed 1m setback will still allow for adequate ventilation for openings on the subject site and;

• The property to the north is not impacted by overlooking. East The eastern lot boundary setbacks are supported for the following reasons:

• Adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the adjoining properties is achieved;

• The proposed additions remove building bulk on the ground floor next to the existing house at No. 16, by demolishing the existing portion of the building. As a result, setbacks for building abutting the existing house have been changed from 3.4m to 5.6m.

• There are no major openings on the upper floor elevation of this portion of the building that would impact on visual privacy.

Visual privacy Deemed-to-Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment Master (UF – east and west elevation) – 4.5m 2-3m 1.5- 2.5m Master The master bedroom will overlook roof to the east, however may impact on upper floor bedroom windows to the west. It is considered that while privacy is not impacted for the


Page 60

property to the east, screening should be provided to the west to protect the privacy of the adjoining landowner. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

• Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage: o The proposed development seeks to improve the condition of a

building listed on the City’s Heritage list by proposing conservation works and modern additions to support the buildings residential land use.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 34) South Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 18 February 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0687/14, on plans dated 18 February 2015 the master bedroom window on the southern elevation (looking west) shall be either:







4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the west elevation shall be of a

clean finish in either;

• coloured sand render;


Page 61

• face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish

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

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


6. Prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit for the development approved as part of

DA0687/14 on plans dated 18 February 2015, the structure indicated as “pergola” in the front setback is to be deleted from the plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Following the removal of renders and paints from the existing Single House, the

application of sealers and/or non permeable finishes is not supported to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Cr R Fittock MOVED an amendment to Condition 3 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0687/14, on plans

dated 18 February 2015 the master bedroom window on the southern elevation (looking west) and upper north facing windows to the study and landing shall be either:








Page 62

COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 34) South Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 18 February 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



plans dated 18 February 2015 the master bedroom window on the southern elevation (looking west) and upper north facing windows to the study and landing shall be either:

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

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





4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the west elevation shall be of a clean finish in either; • coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

5. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should


Page 63

the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit for the development approved as

part of DA0687/14 on plans dated 18 February 2015, the structure indicated as “pergola” in the front setback is to be deleted from the plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Following the removal of renders and paints from the existing Single House,

the application of sealers and/or non permeable finishes is not supported to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 64

PSC1504-6 TRAFFORD STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 29), BEACONSFIELD - TWO

STOREY REAR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0025/15)

DataWorks Reference: DA0025/15 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans Attachment 2 – Site Visit Photos Date Received: 23 January 2015 Owner Name: J Pickering Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single Storey House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 65

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for ground and two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing single house. The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to a number of submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions, as well as the requirement for design principle assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

• Overshadowing; • Streetscape (carport); • Boundary walls (north and east); • Design of parking spaces.

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Trafford Street within the street block bounded by Martha Street to the south, South Street to the north, Edmund Street to the east and Solomon Street to the west. The site measures approximately 523m² and currently has a single storey single house situated on the lot. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provision of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The subject site is adopted under the City’s Heritage list as a level three (3) listed property. The site is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

On 23 January 2015, the City was in receipt of an application for ground and two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing single house and includes:

• One additional bedroom; • Two bathrooms; • Dining room; • Kitchen and Scullery; • Laundry; • Family room; • Theatre; • Lobby; • Outbuilding; and • A carport addition in the front setback area.


Page 66

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

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

• Overshadowing; • Design of car parking spaces.

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

• Streetscape (carport); • Boundary wall (north, east);

The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 25 February 2015, the City had received 3 submissions. The following issues were raised:

1. The proposed second storey rear additions create an excessive overshadowing impact on the southern adjoining properties.

2. The proposed carport is incongruous with the heritage listed house. 3. The proposed development is neither sensitive nor sympathetic to the existing

heritage listed building. The above matters are discussed further in the “Planning Comment” section below. Internal The City’s heritage staff have reviewed the proposal and have no objections.

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion East (outbuilding) Where the wall is 1.8m (outbuilding) Boundary walls do


Page 67

and North (carport)

proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions;

and 2.47m (carport)

not abut existing boundary walls

The proposed eastern and northern boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP 2.4 in the following ways:

• The orientation of the site ensures that direct sun to major openings to the outdoor living area for the eastern adjoining property, as well as the habitable room on the northern adjoining property, is not restricted as measured by the R-Codes.

• The height of the proposed boundary walls are not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Further, the construction of the boundary walls is not considered to have an impact on ventilation to the affected neighbours.

• The outbuilding boundary wall to the east makes more effective use of the space for enhanced privacy for the outdoor living areas on both the subject site and adjoining eastern property.

• The height of the boundary walls, being 1.8 - 2.47 metres, is not considered to contribute towards building bulk for the northern and eastern properties.

Design of parking spaces

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion Carport 5.4m depth 5.25m 0.15m

The proposed car parking design is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

• The car parking bays are designed to be conveniently accessed from the primary street.

• The carport and the proposed car parking design are considered to be consistent with the streetscape, taking into account the carport situated in the front setback area for the adjoining northern property 22 Trafford Street.

• The discretion sought from the deemed-to-comply, being 0.15m, is considered to be a minor discretion, and is not deemed to result in a car parking configuration that is difficult to access and manoeuvre.

Overshadowing

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion Overshadowing onto

southern property 25% (132.5m²) 26% (137.8m²) 1% (5.3m²)

The R Codes require that the overshadowing calculation is determined as a percentage of the total shadow cast onto the southern adjoining lot. For purposes of clarification, a lot is defined in the R-Codes as follows:


Page 68

For single houses, a lot as defined in the Planning and Development Act 2005, as amended. For multiple or grouped dwellings, the parent lot.

The southern adjoining lots in this instance are grouped dwellings, with 26 and 28 Trafford Street being strata units. Therefore, in calculating the overshadowing from the proposed development on 24 Trafford Street, the parent lot is required to be used to determine the percentage; that is, the site area of both 26 and 28 Trafford Street is considered to be the parent lot. If 26 – 28 Trafford Street were not grouped dwellings, overshadowing onto 26 Trafford would be 52% The proposed overshadowing is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

• The overshadowing does not significantly cast onto the outdoor living area for the southern adjoining property. For approximately 10 metres west from the rear eastern boundary on 26 Trafford Street where the outdoor living area is located, there is virtually no overshadowing cast from the proposed rear additions of 24 Trafford Street. The outdoor living area on 26 Trafford Street will therefore not be generally affected by the overshadowing created by the development, and this particular extent of overshadowing is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.

• The overshadowing currently experienced from the existing building onto 24 Trafford Street accounts for more than half (15.5%) of the total anticipated shadowing created through the proposed development. It is also noted that the current overshadowing falls onto the habitable rooms on 26 Trafford Street. As such, the degree of overshadowing cast from the proposed development is not considered to be a significant increase from the current extent of shadow cast.

Streetscape (Carport)

Element Required Provided Discretion Carport – Front

setback Setback in line or

behind the front wall of the dwelling

In the primary street setback area,

positioned in front of the dwelling

In front of the dwelling

The carport is proposed to be located along the western boundary to the primary street and, accordingly, clause 2 of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP 2.9) applies. Clause 2.1 of LPP 2.9 is as follows: 2.1 Garages, carports and outbuildings, except as provided for below, are to be setback in line with or behind the front wall of the dwelling. As the proposed carport is located in front of the existing dwelling, clause 2.3 of LPP 2.9 applies. Clause 2.3 of the policy outlines the considerations to be taken into account when assessing alterations to the required setback. Clause 2.3 is as follows: 2.3. Variations to the requirements of clause 2.1 or 2.2 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:


Page 69

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

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

(iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitated the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP 2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites); or

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or (v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.

Clause 2.4 of LPP 2.9 includes a further consideration for heritage listed properties, which is as follows: 2.4 Additional to clause 2.3 above, where the property is on the Heritage List the proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property will be considered. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property. The proposed setback is considered to meet (i) and (iv) of cl.2.3 as is it considered to be consistent with the established streetscape as well as being lightweight, simple in design and visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling for the following reasons:

• Two properties to the north, being 20 and 22 Trafford Street, have carports within the front setback area.

• The design of the carport allows for the visibility of the dwelling to be maintained and promotes surveillance from the dwelling to the street as the windows from the ‘sleep-out’ room are situated above the roof line of the carport.

• The carport has a narrow and lightweight frame that is neither visually dominating nor obtrusive.

In relation to clause 2.4, the proposed carport is considered to be compatible with the heritage significance of the property, owing to its lightweight design and use of zincalume roofing that is complementary to the existing dwelling. The heritage planner of the City advised that a formal heritage assessment was not required for the proposed development. As such, the proposed carport setback is supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: The proposal will provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city.


Page 70

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 24 (Lot 29)Trafford Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 23 January 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 23 January 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2 All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not


4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be of a

clean finish in either;

• coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish

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


Page 71

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Cr R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans that reduce the overshadowing impacts on the adjoining southern property. CARRIED: 4/2 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Bill Massie Cr Robert Fittock

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 72

PSC1504-7 DOURO ROAD, NO. 5 (LOT 20), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA & JL DA0024/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans (22 January 2015) 2 – Applicants justification 3 – Site photos Date Received: 22 January 2015 Owner Name: J & S Greenwood Submitted by: Nexus Home Improvements Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House. The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) on the basis that the proposal includes the significant exercise of discretion relating to the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy, primarily in regards to the street setback of the upper floor addition. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 relating to the upper floor setback (4.5m proposed in lieu of 10.0m). The proposal exists in a portion of Douro Road characterised by single storey (or equivalent) development. The proposed street setback of the upper floor will result in a projecting element into the established streetscape in this section of Douro Road. It is noted that properties immediately adjoining the subject site are contained on the City’s Heritage List and approval of the proposed street setback may diminish the streetscape qualities associated with these places. The application is recommended for refusal on this basis. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the south-eastern corner of Douro Road and Hickory Street and measures approximately 455m2. The site contains an existing single storey Single House with vehicle access provided to a rear double garage accessed via Hickory Street. The subject site is not contained on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history. On 22 January 2015 the City received the current development application (see Attachment 1). On 25 February 2015 the applicants submitted additional justification supporting the proposal (see Attachment 2). DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for two storey alterations and additions to an existing Single House including;

• Demolition of an existing street facing verandah structure and replacement of larger verandah, as well as alterations to the internal layout and arrangement of external openings to the existing single storey dwelling;

• Addition of an upper floor to the proposal containing additional bedroom,

bathroom, kitchen and living areas as well as an external balcony. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


Page 74

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within, LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy discretions:

• Building height • Lot boundary setbacks • Upper floor front setback

Discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the exercise of discretion under the planning framework of the City (most prominently LPP2.9) is sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 February 2015, the City had not received any submissions. PLANNING COMMENT

Street setback

Element Required Provided Discretion Upper floor (wall height greater than 4m)

10m 4.5-8.15m 1.85m-5.5m

The application continues to include the exercise of discretion against the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes (LPP2.9). Clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 specifies the following merit based criteria;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or (ii)The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or; (iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or (iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or,


Page 75

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

The proposal includes an upper floor addition fronting Douro Road with a balcony element to the street corner. Buildings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ (No. 7 & 9 Douro Road) are both single storey dwellings with limited wall heights. In that respect the proposal does not satisfy part (i) above. It is noted that both sites are contained on the City’s Heritage List. More broadly the subject site is located in a portion of Douro Road which is considered to be characterised by single storey development. The exceptions (see map below) to this include;

• No. 20 Douro Road, which is developed as a three storey dwelling with upper floors setback at least 9.0m from Douro Road;

• No. 12 Douro Road, which is developed as a two storey dwelling with an upper floor setback approximately 9-10m from Douro Road;

• No. 1 Douro Road, which is developed as a three storey Multiple Dwelling building, with walls setback approximately 9-10m from Douro Road.

Given the prevalence of single storey development in the broader context of the subject site, as well as the fact that the buildings that exist outside this character maintain street setbacks broadly consistent with the policy criteria, the proposal is considered to represent a projecting element into the established streetscape pattern. For the above reasons and on the basis that criteria (iii), (iv) and (v) are not considered relevant, the proposed street setback is not supported.



Page 76

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion Upper floor - East 2.1m 1.5-3.3m Nil-0.6m The lesser setback is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

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

• The lesser setback does not result in any new merit based decision relating to

visual privacy; and,

• The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property.

Building height


External wall 6.0m 6.3 - 6.5m 0.5m Roof 9.0m 9.3m 0.3m The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The proposal presents as a two storey building, which is the clear intent of this design element of the R-Codes;

• The height proposed does not result in any design principle assessments in

relation to solar access or setbacks to side and rear boundaries. In this regard, the proposal could be considered of a reasonable bulk and scale;

• The proposal is not considered to impact on any views of significance or

significant vegetation. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS There are not considered to be any strategic implications arising from the proposal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 5 (Lot 20) Douro Road, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 22 January 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of

development within the prevailing streetscape and represents a projecting element


Page 77

into the streetscape pattern. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with clause 1.2 (i) and (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes.

2. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(f), (i), (o), (s) and (w) of

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.

LOST: 0/6 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

COMMITTEE DECISION Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing single house at No. 5 (Lot 20) Douro Road, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 22 January 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this letter.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 78

Cr R Fittock MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1504-8, PSC1504-9, and PSC1504-10. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie


Page 79

The following item number PSC1504-8 was MOVED and carried en bloc. PSC1504-8 MULBERRY FARM LANE, NO.11 (LOT 3), WHITE GUM VALLEY -

TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ANCILLARY DWELLING - (JL DA0695/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: NIL Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Amended Development Plans (Dated 3 March 2015) 2. Streetscape and site photo’s Date Received: 19 December 2014 Owner Name: Samual Hyde Submitted by: Cocoon Design and Construct Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Vacant Land Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 80

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) due to valid planning related submissions being received regarding the proposal raising concerns that cannot all be dealt with appropriately via the imposition of planning conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours. The City of Fremantle (the City) received amended plans early March 2015 and the amended proposal requires Design Principle assessments of the Residential Design Codes 2013 (R-Codes), in relation to the following:

• Lot boundary setbacks (eastern boundary walls and western boundary setback for ground floor eaves),

• Building Height (External wall height middle skillion pitch roof of dwelling),

• Open Space, • Visual privacy of the western and eastern adjoining properties (Bedroom 1

northern elevation balcony), and • Ancillary Dwelling proposed on a lot less than 450m2 in area.

Furthermore, the proposal requires discretionary assessments against relevant provisions of Council’s LPP2.4 – Residential Boundary Walls policy, LPP2.8 Fences policy and LPP2.9 Residential Streetscapes Local Planning Policies for the following matters:

• Boundary Walls (eastern boundary), • Dividing fence heights (Eastern and southern boundary), and • Primary Street setback (carport).

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a split density coding of R20/25. The subject site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List nor is the site located within the prescribed Heritage Area. The subject site is vacant and comprises of approximately 336m2 and is of a north south orintation. The site is located on the southern side of Mulberry Farm Lane, White Gum Valley. The site has a slight slope from the front to the rear of site of approximately 1m.

Synopsis of adjoining properties

The adjoining residential zoned eastern (side) property known as No.13 Mulberry Farm Lane is vacant land which has a similar cross fall and slope topography to the subject site itself. The adjoining residential zoned western (side) property (being No.86 Samson Street) is improved by a single storey dwelling fronting Samson Street, with outbuilding additions located to the southern remote backyard area abutting the development site. The portion


Page 81

of this property which abuts the development site also incorporates a similar sloping and cross fall similar to the subject site. The adjoining northern (rear) residential zoned property also addresses Samson Street (being No.88 Samson Street) which also is improved by a single storey Single House. This site has a higher topographry than the subject site but also slopes from the north (Samson Street) to the south. See ‘Attachment 2’ below for streetscape pictures of these properties. DETAIL

On 19 December 2014, the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for a Two Storey Single House to be constructed at the vacant lot known as No.11 (Lot 3) Mulberry Farm Lane, White Gum Valley (the site). On 3 March 2015, the City received amended plan which proposed the following amendments to the original proposal:

• Changing the garage structure to a carport, and • Changing the upper floor western elevation Office and Media room windows to

comply with the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions of the R-Codes for visual privacy. See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of the development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within, LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles and policy discretions:

1. Primary street setback (carport) 2. Side setbacks 3. Wall height 4. Open space 5. Visual Privacy 6. Ancillary dwelling being proposed on a lot that is less than 450m2 in area 7. Boundary walls 8. Fence height

The above matters are discussed in detail in the “Planning Comment” section below. CONSULTATION

Community


Page 82

The original proposed development was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy as the proposal required several Deisgn Principle Assessments discretions against several of Council’s local planning policies. At the conclusion of the original advertising period, being 6 February 2015, the City had received two submissions. A summary of the relevant planning concerns raised in relation to design principle or discretionary assessment matters are as follows:

• Building height, • Visual Privacy, • Lot boundary setback of buildings to western common boundary, and • Primary Street Setback.

Further discussion of these matters will be included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

External Wall Height

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Top of external wall (Concealed roof) 7.0m

External Wall height up to 7.3m for middle section of dwelling

Up to 300mm

The development proposes a maximum 7.3 metre external wall height for the middle skillion pitch of the dwelling only. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The application proposes a skillion concealed roof. The proposed roof form, while marginally above the external wall limit is considered to be of significantly less bulk and scale to that commonly associated with a typical compliant ridge roof development (6m external wall 9m roof ridge height);

• The orientation of the land means the additional height has limited impact on

access to light to adjoining properties;

• There are no views of significance apparent in the locality; and

• The proposal presents as a two storey building, which is the clear intent of this design element of the R-Codes.

Overall, the proposed 300mm additional wall height for the middle portion of the skillion roof isn’t considered excessive. As such the proposal is supported as the design is considered to address the Design Principle criteria of the R-Codes and the level of impact on adjoining properties amenity or the Mullberry Farm Lane streetscape isn’t considered significant.

Street setback (Carport)


Page 83

Local Planning Policy 2.9 states that carports may be located in front of a dwelling when, the proposed development addresses at least one of the following criteria:

i. The proposed building is consistent with the character of buildings in the prevailing streetscape; or

ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element

into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in

the locality or the topography of the land; or iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a

mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites); or

iv. The carport is lightweight in construction,appears simple in design and is visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is designed in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street.

With regards to the proposal satisfying sub clauses i – iii, none of these are appropriate as at present there isn’t considered to be an existing prevailing streetscape for this portion of Mulberry Farm Lane, as the land abutting this portion of the road reserve, consist of either vacant land fronting Mulberry Farm Lane, or is associated with property fronting Samson Street and is backyard area of these respective properties. Therefore the proposal would result in a projecting element of built form into the prescribed Table 1 setback requirement. However, with regard to sub clause iv, it is considered that the proposed carport addition is generally of lightweight construction and simple in design, therefore subservient to the form and portion of the dwelling proposed. In addition to the above, given the proposed carport incorporates a 75% visually permeable door, sufficient visibility would be maintained to allow and provide an appropriate level of visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street. Accordingly the lesser carport setback is considered to meet the discretionary criteria (iv) of LPP2.9 and is therefore supported.

Lot Boundary Setbacks – (Eastern boundary walls)

Design Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Design Principle assessment

East Wall 1 – Carport – 6.2m long x 9m long x up to 2.78m high

Table 2A 1m setback

Nil setback

1m

East Wall 2 – dwelling 13.98m long x up to 7.3m high

Table 2A 2.1m setback

Nil Setback

2.1m

It is noted that the eastern adjoining neighour has provided a letter of non objection to the proposed boundary wall additons as they are considered to assist in providing adequate privacy between the two sites. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that the eastern adjoining site has recently been issued planning approval also for a two storey


Page 84

dwelling which incorprtaes a boundary wall which will directly abut the proposed two storey boundary wall. The proposed boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

• The proposed boundary walls will not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location of the eastern boundary;

• With regards to loss of ventilation, the adjoining eastern site is currently vacant,

and as such a dwelling on this lot has been designed to secure sufficient cross ventilation in the future;

• The introduction of the boundary walls is also considered to assist in protecting

privacy between the subject dwelling and any future eastern adjoining dwelling and its exclusive outdoor living area; and

• The boundary walls also are not considered to significantly impact any views of

significance which are considered to be neglible from this particular area of White Gum Valley nor is the proposal considered to impact any existing significant vegetation on site.

Lot boundary setback (western boundary –eave setback of ground floor)

Design Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Design Principle assessment

West – Ground floor eave 750mm 708mm 42mm The proposed eave setback is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The exercise of discretion is considered minor and indistinguishable to a proposal that otherwise meets the deemed-to-comply criteria and will not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining western property; and

• The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light

generally or ventilation to major openings.

Open Space

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

50% (168m2) 46.5% (156m2) 3.5% (12m2) The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The lesser amount of open space is offset by the provision of an outdoor living area greater than that specified by the deemed-to-comply criteria which is 60m2


Page 85

in area. This ensures suitable, useable outdoor space is available to residents of the dwelling;

• The locality surrounding the subject site consists of density development with a

character of development with minimal open space;

• The lesser open space provided will not be apparent from the primary street. The scale of development is consistent with other dwellings in the streetscape;

• The exercise of discretion is considered minor and indistinguishable to a

proposal that otherwise meets the deemed-to-comply criteria. Visual Privacy

(upper floor balcony to bedroom 1)

Area and Impacted property Deemed to comply

Proposed Design Principle assessment

East (13 Mullberry Farm Lane property)

7.5m 3.3m 4.2m

West (86 Samson Street) 7.5m 2.6m 4.9m The design principle assessments are supported for the following reasons:

• The cone-of-vision over both impacted properties does not impact on any existing primary outdoor living areas/ active habitable space of the adjoining properties;

• The predominant outlook from this major (balcony) opening is towards the

northern elevation (being Mulberry Farm Lane), and the portions of adjoining sites directly impacted in terms of visual privacy relate to either a remote backyard corner of the western adjoining property or future front setback area of the eastern adjoining property;

• Overall, its considered that the cone-of-vision does not unreasonably impact on

the privacy to any existing major openings associated with the western adjoining dwelling or sensitive active habitable space of either adjoining sites.

Ancillary dwelling

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

The lot is not less than 450m2 in area; 336m2 Not compliant Complies with all other R-Code provisions, only as they apply to single houses, with the exception of clauses:

(a) Site area; (b) Street surveillance (except

where located on a lot with secondary street or right-of-way access); and

(c) Outdoor living areas.

Open space, lot boundary setbacks, buiding height and

visual privacy design principle assessments

required

Not compliant


Page 86

The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons;

• The Ancillary Dwelling has two bedrooms which provide suitable living standards for either independent or semi independents of the existing occupants of the Single House onsite.

• The addition is limited to only 58m2 in floor area, well under the maximum deemed

to comply provision of 70m2 and is equipted with seperate sufficient external open space and outdoor living area.

• The proposal also includes the required onsite car parking bays.

• Ultimately, whilst the addition incorporates several design principle assessments

against various design elements of the R-Codes (as discussed above), the overall proposal is considered appropriate and effectively helps limit the impact on the amenity of surrounding properties, particular in relation to building bulk, preserving access to ventilation, solar access to habitable rooms and adjoining active habitable spaces of respective adjoining properties.

Dividing Fence Heights

Area and Impacted property

Requirement Proposed Setback

Discretionary assessment

Eastern common boundary (13 Mullberry Farm Lane)

1.8m

Up to 2.4m

600mm

Southern common boundary (No.88 Samson Street)

1.8m

Up to 2.6m

800mm

LPP2.8 states that, ‘Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.80 metres in height, or screening material that projects more than 500mm above the top of an approved fence unless the following criteria are satisfied:

a) The proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact on adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views; and

b) Affected neighbours are consulted in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. Neither of the two boundary fences that extend above 1.8m in height are considered to have a significant adverse impact on respective adjoining properties in terms of shadow, loss of solar access or views of significance. Whilst direct shadow will fall from the southern boundary fence, the immediate area impacted consists mainly of garden bed space not forming part of the exclusive outdoor living area of this dwelling. Furthemore, it must be also noted that both adjoining owners have been consulted with and consent has been given to the additional dividing fence height for visual privacy reasons. Accordingly, the additional dividing fence height is supported against the discretionary criteria of cl 5.1 of Council’s LPP2.8 Fences policy. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS


Page 87

The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy: As the proposed will contribute to the provision of housing which is of a diverse and affordable nature to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options for the City of Fremantle. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option would result from the development which would accommodate for a changing and growing population within Fremantle CONCLUSION Based upon the above assessment it is considered that the proposed development adheres to the majority of the relevant R-Codes ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions or discretionary criteria of applicable Council local planning policies. Where the proposed development has been assessed and is not considered to meet these deemed to comply or discretionary criteria of relevant Statutroy legilation, it has been outlined above that it is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘Design Principle’ or discretionary criteria of the applicable statutory legilsation. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 88


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House and Ancillary Dwelling at No.11 (Lot 3) Mulberry Farm Lane, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 3 March 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;




Page 89

The following item number PSC1504-9 was MOVED and carried en bloc. PSC1504-9 PASS CRESCENT, NO. 14A (LOT 88), BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE

STOREY (WITH LOFT) GROUPED DWELLING - (TB DA0027/15) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 April 2015 Responsible Officer: Manage Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1. Development Plans (as amended)

2. Site Photos Date Received: 11 March 2015 (amended plans) Owner Name: Donato La Rosa, Maja Pecirep Submitted by: G2 Building Company Scheme: Residential (R20/R25) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Single storey Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 90

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to a submission being received regarding the proposal raising concerns that cannot be dealt with appropriately via the imposition of planning conditions. The application seeks planning approval for a single storey Grouped Dwelling with loft at No. 14A Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R Codes with the exception of the following:

• Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Wall (south) • Side setback (north)

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria and accordingly the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Pass Crescent. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a split density coding of R20/R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The subject site measures approximately 443m2 inclusive of common property shared with No. 14B and 14C Pass Crescent. The site is currently vacant with relatively flat topography within the site. The property located to the southern boundary of the site is of a higher typography, with a difference of approximately 1m in height variation. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and is not located within a Heritage Area. A review of the property file revealed on 18 June 2014 subdivision clearance was granted by the WAPC (reference WAPC227-13), which created 3 lots and common property at No. 14 Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield. Two (2) lots are currently vacant of any development, with the remaining one (1) lot having substantially commenced development. DETAIL

On 27 January 2015, the City received a Planning Application seeking approval for a single storey Grouped Dwelling with loft at No. 14A (Lot 88) Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield. On 11 March 2015, the City received amended plans incorporating additional overshadowing information on the southern boundary wall and amendments to the orientation shown on original plans. A copy of the development plans (as amended) is contained as Attachment 1 of this report.


Page 91


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

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

• Boundary Wall (south) A more detailed discussion of the above is provided in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretion in Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 February 2015, the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal which raised the following concerns relevant to planning:

• Access to direct sunlight for ground floor living area as a result of overshadowing of proposed boundary wall.

In addition to the above the submission also raised that there may be an inconsistency in the orientation of the north point used as part of the site survey which may impact calculations and location of shadow to the southern adjoining property. The applicant was advised of this inconsistency and they subsequently corrected the location’s orientation and the resulting shadow cast. Similarly the applicant also provided additional overshadowing information that taken into account the site level difference between No. 14A Pass Crescent and 16 Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield. The amended development plans are based on this revised orientation and further detailing of site levels.


Page 92

The matter raised in the submission is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment” section below. PLANNING COMMENT

Side setback

Required Proposed Design principle assessment

Northern setback 1m – 1.5m

1m-1.3m nil - 0.5m

(Boundary Wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion Southern boundary

Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within the following limits; (ii) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

Nil See comments.

Both the side setback and boundary wall are discussed below. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways; • A review of the approved development plans for the dwelling on the southern

adjoining property has revealed that that dwelling has habitable rooms on both the ground floor and upper floor of the dwelling (family room located on the ground floor and lounge and dining area located on the upper floor). The proposed boundary wall will cast shadow over the northern-most habitable living area on the ground floor. The boundary wall will have minimal overshadowing to the living room of the southern property; nevertheless there will be some reduction to solar access. Access to sunlight for the remaining living areas, including outdoor living areas, is unaffected and as such the boundary wall should be supported. Please refer to the diagrams below that illustrate the overshadowing impacts of the proposed boundary wall on the openings of the adjoining southern property.


Page 93

• The impact of the boundary wall to the adjoining property on the southern boundary

is considered to have minimal impact owing to the significantly lower FFL of the subject site. The adjoining southern property is built approximately 1m above the subject site and as such the impact is considered to be of a lesser impact.

• The direct access to sun for the adjoining southern property is to some extent

reduced due to the location and height of the boundary wall. The impact of the boundary wall however, is considered minimal as the retaining wall and solid fencing to the affected portion of the adjoining southern property is of a similar height and impact. The impact the boundary wall will have on the direct sun to the affected habitable room of the southern property will have a marginal impact due to the presence of the existing dividing fence i.e. the overshadowing created by the proposed boundary wall, due to the level difference between the 2 properties, is the same as the existing diving fence.

• The resulting overshadowing meets the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-

Codes and is considered to have minimal impact to only one habitable room. Access to direct sun is still maintained for the majority of the property, including the outdoor living area.

• The length of the boundary wall is not considered to accentuate the impact of

building bulk or confinement as it only adjoins approximately one third of the southern boundary with the remainder of development sufficiently setback beyond that.


Page 94

• Furthermore, the proposed boundary wall is not seeking discretion in respect to

height, and, to this end, the level of confinement is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining property.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15: As the proposal is for a dwelling where no dwelling previously existed, more residents will be introduced into the area.

2. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: the development of a currently vacant lot will improve

the physical presentation of the city’s streetscapes and provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city.


Page 95


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Grouped Dwelling with loft at No. 14A (Lot 88) Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 11 March 2015, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 11 March 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



plans dated 11 March 2015, any new or modified crossover and/or tree removal associated with the hereby approved development must receive separate approval from the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Parks Department.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary

shall be of a clean finish in either;




Page 96

The following item number PSC1504-10 was MOVED and carried en bloc. PSC1504-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

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

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 97

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) Nil. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.58 PM.


Page 98

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 99


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 100


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 101

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 102

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 1 April 2015

Page 2

minutes - city of fremantle · 2018-03-08 · minutes - planning services committee 1 april 2015...

Documents