agenda - city of fremantle...2014/05/21 · psc1405-94 final adoption of proposed alfresco dining...

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 21 May 2014, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

Elected Members A Planning Services Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on

Wednesday, 21 May 2014 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street,

Fremantle (access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at

6.00 pm.

Philip St John DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 16 May 2014

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 7 May 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1405-82 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, LUNCH BAR/SHOP AND 20 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DA0587/13) 1

PSC1405-83 SOUTH STREET NO. 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIX, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13) 12

PSC1405-84 BELLEVUE STREET, NO. 67 (LOT 462 & 463), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0130/14) 22

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 28

PSC1405-85 COMPLIANCE MATTER - UNAUTHORISED INTERNAL WORKS AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION OF PLANNING APPROVAL – NO 68 HIGH STREET, FREMANTLE (SS DA0591/13) 28

PSC1405-86 SOUTH STREET, NO. 17 (LOT 34), SOUTH FREMANTLE - HOME BUSINESS (COUNSELLING) AND DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDING) – (AD DA0137/14) 35

PSC1405-87 MCCLEERY STREET, NO. 29 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD – THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING – (AD DA0052/14) 43

PSC1405-88 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 27 (LOT 59), FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR A FRONT FENCE, BOUNDARY FENCE AND ENTRY PORTICO TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0027/14) 52

PSC1405-89 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 14 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE – ALTERNATIVE PRIVACY SCREENING VA0031/12 AND FENCE ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (KS DA0131/14) 59

PSC1405-90 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 65

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 66

PSC1405-91 PROPOSED DEDICATION AS PUBLIC ROAD - THE WHOLE OF NEWBOLD STREET, WHITE GUM VALLEY AND LOT 66 PASS CRESCENT, BEACONSFIELD - (KW) 66

PSC1405-92 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGE DEVELOPMENTS - FINAL ADOPTION 70

PSC1405-93 FINAL ADOPTION OF DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITE 78

PSC1405-94 FINAL ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 86

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 97

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1405-82 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, LUNCH BAR/SHOP AND 20 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DA0587/13) 4

PSC1405-83 SOUTH STREET NO. 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIX, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13) 73

PSC1405-84 BELLEVUE STREET, NO. 67 (LOT 462 & 463), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0130/14) 106

PSC1405-85 COMPLIANCE MATTER - UNAUTHORISED INTERNAL WORKS AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION OF PLANNING APPROVAL – NO 68 HIGH STREET, FREMANTLE (SS DA0591/13) 121

PSC1405-86 SOUTH STREET, NO. 17 (LOT 34), SOUTH FREMANTLE - HOME BUSINESS (COUNSELLING) AND DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDING) – (AD DA0137/14) 126

PSC1405-87 MCCLEERY STREET, NO. 29 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD – THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING – (AD DA0052/14) 129

PSC1405-88 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 27 (LOT 59), FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR A FRONT FENCE, BOUNDARY FENCE AND ENTRY PORTICO TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0027/14) 140

PSC1405-89 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 14 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE – ALTERNATIVE PRIVACY SCREENING VA0031/12 AND FENCE ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (KS DA0131/14) 148

PSC1405-90 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 155

PSC1405-91 PROPOSED DEDICATION AS PUBLIC ROAD - THE WHOLE OF NEWBOLD STREET, WHITE GUM VALLEY AND LOT 66 PASS CRESCENT, BEACONSFIELD - (KW) 157

PSC1405-92 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGE DEVELOPMENTS - FINAL ADOPTION 163

PSC1405-93 FINAL ADOPTION OF DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITE 195

PSC1405-94 FINAL ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 206

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 21 May 2014

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1405-82 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, LUNCH BAR/SHOP AND 20 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (AA DA0587/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1404-61 (2 April 2014 PSC and 23 April 2014

Council) Attachments: 1 – Amended Development Plans (12 May 2014)

2 – Agenda Item of OCM on 23 April 2014 3 – Sustainability Consultant Correspondence 4 – Supporting design documentation

Date Received: 3 December 2013 Owner Name: S-Cargot Pty Ltd Submitted by: Motus Architecture Scheme: Neighbourhood Centre (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Office, Lunch Bar & Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: ‘D’ (Office), ‘A’ (Lunch Bar, Shop & Multiple Dwellings)


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of an existing (vacant) building at the subject site and the construction of a three storey mixed use development including offices, a lunch bar and 20 multiple dwellings. The application was considered by the Council at its ordinary council meeting of 23 April 2014 who resolved;

‘That the application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee with delegation in order for amended plans to be submitted that address the following matters:

Reduce plot ratio;

Increase on site parking;

Matters raised by the Design Advisory Committee;

Increase the number of store rooms;

Reduce overshadowing on the southern side of the development; and

Indication of suitability to achieve a 4 star green star energy rating.’ On 12 May 2014 the City received amended plans in response to the above resolution. The following modifications to the proposal have been made;

The residential plot ratio has been reduced by 41m2 to 1,219m2;

The non-residential plot ratio has been reduced by 6m2;

Modifications have been made to the roof elements of the proposal so that the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply criteria relating to overshadowing. This has been achieved through a reduction in floor-to-ceiling heights for certain portions of the development and modification of the roof form of the southernmost unit (apartment 8);

Two addition vehicle bays are provided on-site as a result of the bin storage area being relocated;

The internal layout of dwellings has been modified to improve access to light and ventilation;

14 dedicated storerooms and 6 overhead storage cages are now provided meaning all dwellings are provided with exclusive external storage;

The vehicle access gate on the driveway has been relocated as much as possible away from rooms of the southern adjoining dwelling;

Minor modifications to facade details and internal layout; and,

Sufficient vehicle/pedestrian sightlines are now provided at the boundary of the subject site and eastern adjoining property.

The applicant has also provided correspondence from a sustainability consultant stating that the development is capable of complying with a 4 Star Green Star equivalent rating (see Attachment 3).


Page 3

The modifications are considered to satisfy the Council concerns raised in the resolution above. No further public consultation on the basis of the amended plans has been undertaken as the modifications are considered to improve the proposal and do not significantly alter the design of the building. The proposed development (both originally and as amended) is considered, on-balance, to broadly satisfy the merit based criteria of the R-Codes, local planning policies and LPS4 in relation to the all of the above elements. Moreover the proposal has been presented to the City’s DAC for comment and is supported subject to conditions. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND For earlier background to the proposed application, please refer to the ‘Background’ section of Attachment 2. The application was first considered by the PSC at its meeting of 2 April 2014, however no resolution was reached and the application deferred to the next available ordinary council meeting. The application was considered by the Council at its ordinary council meeting of 23 April 2014 which resolved;

‘That the application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee with delegation in order for amended plans to be submitted that address the following matters:

Reduce plot ratio;

Increase on site parking;

Matters raised by the Design Advisory Committee;

Increase the number of store rooms;

Reduce overshadowing on the southern side of the development; and

Indication of suitability to achieve a 4 star green star energy rating.’ On 12 May 2014 the City received amended plans in response to the above resolution. DETAIL For a detailed summary of the proposed development, please refer to the Details section of Attachment 2. The amended plans submitted 12 May 2014 include the following changes to the previously considered plans;

The residential plot ratio has been reduced by 41m2 to 1,219m2;

The non-residential plot ratio has been reduced by 6m2;

Modifications have been made to the roof elements of the proposal so that the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply criteria relating to overshadowing. This has been achieved through a reduction in floor-to-ceiling heights for certain portions of the development and modification of the roof form of the southernmost unit (apartment 8);

Two addition vehicle bays are provided on-site as a result of the bin storage area being relocated;


Page 4

The internal layout of dwellings has been modified to improve access to light and ventilation;

14 dedicated storerooms and 6 overhead storage cages are now provided meaning all dwellings are provided with exclusive external storage;

The vehicle access gate on the driveway has been relocated as much as possible away from rooms of the southern adjoining dwelling;

Minor modifications to facade details and internal layout; and,

Sufficient vehicle/pedestrian sightlines are now provided at the boundary of the subject site and eastern adjoining property.

The applicant has also provided correspondence from a sustainability consultant stating that the development is capable of complying with a 4 Star Green Star equivalent rating (see Attachment 3). Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. 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. The proposed development includes the following discretions and design principles assessments;

Land use (discretionary land use);

Building size;

Boundary walls;

Lot boundary setbacks;

Visual privacy;

Street setbacks;

Open space;

Vehicle parking;

Vehicle sightlines; and,

Essential facilities.

Further discussion of the above is contained in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2. CONSULTATION Community A summary of community consultation previously undertaken is contained in the Consultation section of Attachment 2. The comments previously made remain relevant and valid to this assessment. The modifications made to the development are considered to improve the proposal and as a result no additional consultation was undertaken. Technical Services A summary of previous advice from the City’s Technical Service department is contained in the Consultation section of Attachment 2. The comments remain relevant and are reflected in the officer’s recommendation.


Page 5

Design Advisory Committee A summary of previous advice from the City’s Design Advisory Committee is contained in the Consultation section of Attachment 2. The DAC has previously recommended approval of the proposal, subject to conditions relating to external appearance, access to light and ventilation and dwelling amenity. The comments remain relevant and the applicant has provided an additional drawing demonstrating the merits of the revised ‘light and ventilation voids’ (Attachment 4). Relevant conditions requiring endorsement of this solution by the DAC is contained in the officer’s recommendation. The amended plans and additional information provided by the applicant is due to be considered by the DAC on 15 May 2014. Minutes of this meeting will not be available at the time this report is finalised. Draft minutes will be circulated to PSC members prior to the meeting on 21 May 2014. PLANNING COMMENT Merit based assessments The application seeks a number of merit based assessment against relevant planning controls. These assessments are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2. The modified plans subject to this consideration result in changes to some of these assessments. These are discussed below but all unaffected elements (including land use, boundary walls, lot boundary setbacks, street setbacks and open space) have been omitted from this report and are contained in Attachment 2 only. All of these unaffected elements still remain relevant to the exercise of discretion sought for the proposal. Building size (plot ratio)

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

0.7 (954.1m2) 0.89 (1219m2) 0.19 (264.9m2)

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

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

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

The proposed development is considered to meet the wall height requirement specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4 and other merit based assessments relating to lot boundary setbacks are otherwise supported. This leads to the interpretation that the building is consistent with the scale of buildings anticipated in the local planning framework;

The zoning of the subject site anticipates dense development and the built form of the proposal is considered broadly sympathetic to what would be reasonably expected at the site, and otherwise of manageable impact on the adjoining streetscape;


Page 6

The additional building size does not result in any merits based assessment relating to solar access;

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

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

Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Merit based assessment

Multiple Dwellings (0.75+0.25 per dwelling)

20 32 (20 at grade bays + 12 stacker bays)

4 Office (1:30m2) 10

Lunch Bar (1:20m2) 6

Total 36

The modified proposal includes a relocation of the existing bin storage area which creates new available space for two additional on-site bays on the eastern boundary. The application now includes the provision of 32 at-grade bays on the subject site and 12 bays serviced by mechanical car-stacking equipment. In submitting the application, the applicant provided the following justification for the shortfall of parking proposed;

‘We have also considered the additional 6 on-street bays as offering reciprocal use between the residential and commercial visitors to the building.’

The application depicts 6 bays located on Hulbert Street and Douro Road. As these bays are not located on the subject site, they are not considered as part of the vehicle parking provision for the proposal. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 in the following ways;

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

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

There are opportunities elsewhere in the locality for off-site vehicle parking, particularly nearby along Chester Street;

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


Page 7

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

To ensure the provision of off-site vehicle bays and the reciprocal use of on-site bays, a condition of approval requiring the submission of a parking management plan, prior to the issue of a building permit is recommended. Solar access to adjoining sites


25% (113.75m2) adjoining site area

24.9% (113.6m2) Nil

The amended plans include changes that reduce the external of shadow cast to the southern adjoining property. The proposal now meets the deemed-to-comply criteria relating to solar access. Essential facilities


Each dwelling provided with an external lockable storeroom of at least 4m2

14 external storerooms and 6 overhead cage stores provided for 20 multiple dwellings

6 store rooms.

The proposal now includes 20 at-grade bays with dedicated external storerooms or overhead cage storage available adjoining or over each bay. This provides a clear indication that 20 bays will be available for the 20 dwellings proposed on-site, each with a storage solution directly and exclusively available for use by residents. The exercise of discretion in this instance is sought on the basis that the 6 overhead cage stores do not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. These provisions require an external, lockable room with 4m2 of dedicated floor area. The City has previously accepted above vehicle bay ‘cage’ storage solutions on other multiple dwelling developments as these spaces can provide sufficient storage space for dwellings by utilising otherwise unutilised space above vehicle bays. Such a solution would is considered suitable in this instance to provide for the shortfall of dwelling storage rooms. Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Building Design Pursuant to LPP2.13, the application is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia rating tool, or an alternative rating tool to the same affect. A condition of approval requiring compliance with LPP2.13 is therefore recommended. The applicant has provided written advice from a suitably qualified consultant advising that the proposal is capable of meeting the 4 star Green Star rating, or an equivalent to the same affect. The applicant has also provided advice demonstrating that the proposal will achieve a higher energy rating than required under the BCA (see Attachment 4).


Page 8

Vehicle sightlines


Walls and buildings not greater than 0.75m above natural ground level where within 1.5m of a vehicle access point

+1.5m truncation provided at eastern boundary.

Nil.

The original proposal did not provide sufficient vehicle sightlines at the junction of the building and an adjoining vehicle access way at No. 23 Douro Road (eastern boundary). The modified plans now depict the ground floor being setback sufficiently to Douro Road to meet the deemed-to-comply requirement. CONCLUSION The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of an existing (vacant) building at the subject site and the construction of a three storey mixed use development including offices, a lunch bar and 20 multiple dwellings. The proposal has previously been considered by the City’s PSC on 2 April 2014 and at its ordinary council meeting of 23 April 2014. At the meeting, the Council deferred the application to seek a number of changes to the proposal. A number of modifications have now been made to the proposal that seek to address the Council’s concerns. The proposed development is considered, on-balance, to satisfy the merit based criteria of the R-Codes, local planning policies and LPS4 in relation to all discretionary elements. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to be of considerable scale compared to existing development in the surrounding locality. As a result, should Council form an alternative opinion to officer regarding development requirements, in particular development height, the following alternative recommendation is provided;

‘That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing building and construction of three storey mixed use development (Office, Lunch Bar and 20 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 19 (Lot 1) Douro Road, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 18 March 2014, for the following reasons;

1. The proposal may have a detrimental impact on amenity by reason that it

is of greater bulk, scale and size compared to the existing character of development in the surrounding locality.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the desired future character and intensity of development in the surrounding locality having regard to such factors as residential density and vehicle parking.’


Page 9

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing building and construction of three storey mixed use development (Office, Lunch Bar and 20 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 19 (Lot 1) Douro Road, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 May 2014, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 12 May 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially comment within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

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

modified and/or additional details being provided prior to the issue of a Building Permit, to address the following issues to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee; i. Modifications to improve access to natural light and ventilation and

acoustic and visual privacy to the internalised mid-level bedrooms next to the internal walkway;

ii. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes;

iii. Further information about the Douro Road entry lobby in terms of its resolution in section;

3. Prior to occupation, the bicycle parking facilities for 7 bicycles depicted on

the plans hereby approved being provided and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit and have endorsed a Parking Management Plan dealing with the following, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle;

i. The design and construction of 6 on-street vehicle bays including the

embayment of these bays; ii. The reciprocal use of vehicle parking bays on the land including the

provision of one of the bays provided for delivery purposes; and, iii. The suitability of the embayment of vehicle bays on Douro Road and

Hulbert Street and the potential impact of peak traffic on the Douro Road and Hulbert Street intersection.

5. The car stacking equipment shown on the plans hereby approved being

designed, installed and maintained thereafter in order to allow for access and egress of stacked vehicles independent of other vehicles, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


Page 10

7. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure by; i. a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees ii. a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management

devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and iii. a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

directional signs. 8. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

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

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

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

10. Prior to occupation, all screening material shown on the plans shall be

installed and either:

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

ii. 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

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

iv. screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,

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

11. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern and western

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

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

star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle;

i. a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia

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


Page 11

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


Page 12

PSC1405-83 SOUTH STREET NO. 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIX, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1311-155 6 November 2013

PSC1402-25 19 and 26 February 2014 Attachments: 1 – Amended Development Plans

2 – 19 February 2014 PSC Item (PSC1402-25) 3 – Alternate layout proposal

Date Received: 31 July 2013 Owner Name: J Townes & Big Moreton Pty Ltd Submitted by: Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential (R15) and unzoned Heritage Listing: Not Heritage Listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Building Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for six, two storey Residential Buildings containing a total of 18 individual residential units. The application was considered at the PSC meeting of 19 February 2014. PSC recommended that the matter be deferred at the meeting and the application was presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 February 2014, where the following resolution was made;

‘MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for the applicant to further address the points raised in the Planning Services Committee resolution dated 6 November 2013.’

The points raised in the 6 November 2013 meeting referred to above are as follows;

Compatibility with existing scale and form;

Compatibility with local character;

Density of occupation;

Parking and access. On 4 April 2014, the applicant submitted amended plans which;

Reduced the number of units on the site from 19 to 18, from an original number of 22;

Reduce the plot ratio of all buildings to 784m2, from an original size of 833.9m2;

An increase in the minimum western setback of buildings from 1.2m to 1.85m and to the southern boundary from 1.8m to 3.13m;

Maintained the same amount of vehicle parking (20 bays);

Further articulated the built-form of the proposal by breaking the former 5 building proposal into 6 buildings;

Included additional details relating landscaping, external finishes and communal outdoor areas.

The amended plans are considered to specifically address concerns raised by the Committee and as required by the planning framework relating to scale, form, character and to some extent, density of occupation. The amended plans also seek to address issues of access to the site, specifically pedestrian access, though the proposed vehicle access point to South Street remains unchanged. It is recognised that the proposal is still of a density greater than the surrounding locality. However the amended plans are considered to sufficiently address the requirements of the planning framework relating to the objectives of the Residential zone, applied design requirements of the R-Codes and the matters previously raised by the PSC. The application is therefore recommended, on-balance, for approval. Should the Committee form a different view, an alternative recommendation for refusal is also provided.


Page 14

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson and is partly zoned ‘Residential’ and partly unzoned (the eastern portion of the lot) pursuant to LPS4. The subject site exists opposite the intersection of South Street and Plane Tree Grove and borders the eastern extent of the City’s municipal boundary with the City of Melville. The subject site contains an existing single storey Single House and is 1,526m2 in size. Additional background information is included in the previous report on this matter contained at Attachment 2. The application was considered at the PSC meeting of 19 February 2104 and Council meeting of 26 February 2014 where the following resolution was made;

‘MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for the applicant to further address the points raised in the Planning Services Committee resolution dated 6 November 2013.’

The points raised in the 6 November 2013 meeting referred to above are as follows;

Compatibility with existing scale and form;

Compatibility with local character;

Density of occupation;

Parking and access. On 4 April 2014, the City received amended plans and justification addressing the above resolution. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of existing building and construction of six, two storey Residential Buildings (18 residential units) including; The plans the subject of this report represented a revised proposal that is different to that consider by the Council at its meeting of 19 February and 26 February 2014. The revised proposal differs from the original proposal in the following ways;

Reduced the number of units on the site from 19 to 18, from an original number of 22;

Reduce the plot ratio of all buildings to 784m2, from an original size of 833.9m2;

An increase in the minimum western setback of buildings from 1.2m to 1.85m and to the southern boundary from 1.8m to 3.13m;

Maintained the same amount of vehicle parking (20 bays);

Further articulated the built-form of the proposal by breaking the former 5 building proposal into 6 buildings;

Included additional details relating landscaping, external finishes and communal outdoor areas.


Page 15

It is also noted that in preparing the amended plans, the applicant also provided the City with a number of concept plans demonstrating how the City’s resolution from the 26 February 2014 meeting could be address. The alternate layout proposals are contained at Attachment 3 of this report. The current proposal was ultimately selected as it is considered to have the most limited impact on adjoining properties. In selecting the current proposal, the applicant provided the following reasoning;

‘The best use of the site is for the carparking to be sited where buildings are not permitted (Western Power easement to the east). Spreading carparking in amongst the residences reduces quality of landscape space for people and reduces solar access where intermediate spaces between buildings are closed. Sitting parking adjacent to other residential development is likely to be less complementary for those neighbours. ESD principle supports minimising/optimising hardstand access and car bays. Decentralising parking reduces the opportunity to optimise boundary setbacks while maintaining a financially workable occupancy level. Decentralising parking and further dispersing building form reduces occupancy level and raises costs of construction and rent.’

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As per the explanation contained in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 2), applications for ‘Residential Buildings’ are to be assessed against the equivalent development form prescribed by the R-Codes. The assessment is to be merits based and the R-Codes used as a guide only. For the purpose of this report, the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the ‘Multiple Dwelling’ provisions of the R-Codes. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R Codes and planning policies. Discretionary decisions and assessment against the relevant design principles are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Land Use (Discretionary Use); and,

Primary Street Setback. These decisions are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Main Roads Western Australia The originally submitted plans (now further amended) for the application were referred to MRWA as the subject site abuts a portion of South Street identified as a ‘Category 2’ primary regional road. A summary of the MRWA referral and the impact their comments have on the assessment of the application are contained at Attachment 2.


Page 16

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. Having regard to the fact that the application had already been advertised as a ‘significant’ application in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals twice before, the following actions were taking in this course of consultation;

Neighbour notification to all properties within 100m radius of the subject site;

Notice of the revised proposal being included on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 7 May 2014, the City had received 9 submissions. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows;

All comments from previous submissions are reiterated and remain relevant;

The modifications made are minor and do not change the relevancy of previous comments made;

The proposal has not changed sufficiently enough to address the issues previously raised by the PSC;

The number of residential units proposed is well above the density of the surrounding locality;

The materials and scale of the proposal is out-of-character with the surrounding locality. The corrugated iron and timber materials selected are inconsistent with the character of surrounding buildings;

The changes made are irrelevant in light of the objection from MRWA;

The proposal will increase traffic flows in the area leading to a loss of community safety and amenity;

The proposal should not increase traffic and vehicle parking on Rushby Way;

The proposal will result in an increase in crime;

The splitting of buildings into six structures is inconsistent with the single residential character of the locality;

The proposed fencing will not deter visitors or residents from parking on Temby Court;

The advertising of the proposal has not complied with Council policy;

Inadequate areas for clothes drying/washing, rubbish storage and external storage area provided;

The proposal will increase noise pollution; and,

There is no indication of how waste will be collected. The City previously advertised the now superseded proposal on two occasions. A summary of the issues raised and the applicants response to these issues is contained in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 2). PLANNING COMMENT

Land use The land use, being ‘Residential building’ is to be considered against the objectives of the Residential zone contained at clause 4.2.1(a). The table below outlines and considers the relevant objectives of the Residential zone;


Page 17

Scheme Objective Current Proposal

4.2.1(a)(i) provide for residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character;

The amended proposal diversifies the type of residential accommodation available on the site and the proposal generally provides a form of accommodation that differs from the surrounding locality. This assists in providing a range of residential density and housing forms, thereby satisfying this objective.

(ii) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area;

The amended plans diversify the external treatment of buildings and also increase the number of buildings on-site from 3 to 6. This allows the proposal to present more as single dwellings as opposed to larger multiple dwelling buildings. In particular, splitting the building form into a number of structures allows the building, when viewed from adjoining residential properties, to present as two or three Grouped Dwellings. The amended form of the buildings proposed is considered more sympathetic to the surrounding locality.

(iii) encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognises the need for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites;

The design of the proposal is considered to be of acceptable quality.

The articulated form of buildings proposed through the amended plans is considered to be more sympathetic to the character of surrounding buildings in terms of scale and bulk; particularly when viewed from the primary street. The buildings are considered to present to South Street as two storey ‘dwellings’ (rather than 6 units) given the well articulated form and layout of openings. The revised proposal also includes the use of high quality timber and aluminium finishes arranged in a way consistent with a contemporary two storey house.

(iv) recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development;

The subject site is the only property in Samson with direct access to South Street. It exists in no clearly defined streetscape.

(vi) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area.

The land use is considered on balance to be compatible with the residential character of the area. The amended plans are considered to address concerns relating to building bulk and scale (see comments above).

On the basis of the above, on balance the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the Residential zone.


Page 18

Density & Intensity

Development Form Dwelling Density Maximum Capacity*

Single House, Grouped or Multiple Dwellings

2 dwellings 12 (6 per dwelling)

Proposed (Residential Building)

18 units +18

* Refers to the maximum unrelated persons permitted in a single dwelling by the R-Codes.

The subject site would be theoretically capable of achieving approval for up to 2 Multiple or 2 Grouped Dwellings, or 2 Single Houses pursuant to the R15 code. In this instance, these dwellings would be limited to a capacity of not more than 6 unrelated persons (see table above). Single House sites are also capable of accommodating an ‘Ancillary Dwellings’, which may further increase the effective density of a site. While the effective density proposed is considered to be greater than that in the surrounding locality, the impact of the proposal is considered to be on balance lessened and otherwise considered to be manageable based on the following factors;

The form of the development, in relation to its building bulk, scale and design are considered to be generally consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone as required pursuant to clause 4.2 of LPS4;

The proposal addresses and gains access from South Street. There are limited activities to the south of the subject site (within the immediate locality) that would attract a significant number of residents to the area. Conversely, there are a number of retail, hospitality and employment activities on the northern side of South Street as well as public transport opportunities. This means there will be a greater degree of interaction between the proposal and that on the northern side of South Street and less interaction with the surrounding residential area on the southern side of South Street;

Access to the proposed site is restricted to South Street only. Moreover the proposed vehicle parking provided on-site is considered sufficient for the proposed number of units. In the opinion of officers, the proposal will have limited interaction with adjoining residential sites;

Council may be of the opinion that the proposed intensity of the ‘Residential Building’ is not manageable and may result in significant detrimental impacts on the existing amenity of the adjoining residential area. An alternative recommendation is provided at the conclusion of this report should the Council form this view. Primary Street Setback

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

6m (reduced to a minimum of 3m where compensating area provided)

2.4m 0.6m


Page 19

As discussed earlier in this report, the application has been assessed against the provisions of a Multiple Dwelling pursuant to the R-Codes. A setback of 6m is required for Multiple Dwellings pursuant to Table 1 of the R-Codes. The R-Codes permits a reduction in the setback up to half the requirement (3m) where a compensating area equal to the incursion is provided behind the 6m setback line. In this instance, the application provides a sufficient compensating area, but goes beyond the maximum reduction of up to 3m. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

There are no other dwellings or buildings within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ as other buildings on adjoining sites gain access from Jose Court and Temby Court. Therefore, there is not considered to be an impact on any established streetscape character or pattern of development;

There are examples, albeit in minor development forms (such as patios, outbuildings etc.) near rear boundaries to South Street of a similar setback distance. In these instances, the setback of these buildings would meets the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes as they adjoin the rear boundaries of the respective sites; and,

The lesser setback does not encroach into the South Street road reserve nor does it contribute adversely to other amenity impacts such as overshadowing or visual privacy.

CONCLUSION

The application seeks planning approval for six, two storey Residential Buildings containing a total of 18 individual residential units. The application was considered at the PSC meeting of 19 February 2014. No determination was made by the PSC and the application was presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 February 2014. The application was then deferred to seek a number of modifications. The applicant submitted amended plans on 4 April 2014. The amended plans are considered to specifically address concerns raised by the Committee and as required by the planning framework relating to scale, form, character and to some extent, density of occupation. The application is therefore recommended, on-balance, for approval. However should the Committee form a different view, an alternative recommendation for refusal is provided as follows; ‘That the application be REFUSED under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Demolition of existing building and construction of six, two storey Residential Buildings (18 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 4 April 2014, subject to the following conditions; 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and Clause 4.2.1(a) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in so far as;


Page 20

a) The proposed density and intensity of the use proposed does not safeguard or enhance the amenity or protect the local character of the surrounding area or pursuant to c4.2.1(a) (i) and (iv).

b) The development does not safeguard and enhance the amenity of Samson as the development form is considered unsympathetic to the surrounding area pursuant to c4.2.1(a)(ii); and,

c) The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered incompatible with adjoining sites in the context of the single house, low density development of adjoining sites pursuant to c4.2.1(a)(iii).’

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Demolition of existing building and construction of six, two storey Residential Buildings (18 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 4 April 2014, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 4 April 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. The residential buildings are limited to a maximum of 18 beds (one in each bedroom) at any one time.

3. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the

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

4. Prior to occupation, any screening device(s) or 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

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 21

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

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

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

Advice to the WAPC

I. In the event that the WAPC supports the proposal however considers that vehicular access should not be gained from South Street, the City would not be supportive of the development if vehicular access was gained via Temby Court which would require rezoning of park land in the City of Fremantle and/or the City of Melville.


Page 22

PSC1405-84 BELLEVUE STREET, NO. 67 (LOT 462 & 463), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0130/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Amended Development Plans

2 – PSC Item (16 April 2014) Date Received: 14 March 2014 Owner Name: RA & J Bassett Submitted by: Summit Projects Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House. The application was presented to the PSC at its meeting of 16 April 2014, where the following resolution was made;

‘defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to consider revised plans that reduce the height of the carport structure as viewed from the south.’

In response to the above, the applicant submitted amended plans on 29 April 2014. The following modifications were made;

A reduction in the external wall height of the carport from a maximum of 3.4m to 3.16m;

Openings to the external wall being enlarged so as to form three vertical pillars when viewed from the southern adjoining site.

The modifications made are considered to address the concerns raised by the PSC in that it reduces, albeit only marginally, the potential impact of the southern boundary wall and further reduces any potential impact on solar access. The modifications made are considered equivalent to the officers recommended 400mm setback contained in the report to the PSC for its meeting of 16 April 2014 in term of reducing building bulk as viewed from the adjoining southern property. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

A summary of the background relating to the application is contained in the Background section of Attachment 2. The application was presented to the PSC at its meeting of 16 April 2014, where the following resolution was made;

‘defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to consider revised plans that reduce the height of the carport structure as viewed from the south.’

On 29 April 2014, the applicant submitted amended plans (see Attachment 1) that seek to address the above resolution. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House. For a summary of the proposed development, refer to Attachment 2 of this report. The applicant has submitted amended plans which make the following modifications to the original proposal;

A reduction in the external wall height of the carport from a maximum of 3.4m to 3.15m; and,


Page 24

Openings to the external wall being enlarged so as to form three vertical pillars when viewed from the southern adjoining site.

Discussion of these modifications is made in the Planning Comment section of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Merit based decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Lot boundary setbacks (side & rear boundaries & boundary walls);

Building height;

Visual privacy; and,

Street walls and fences (primary street fence)

These merit based decisions are discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. CONSULTATION

The proposal was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. The original version of the proposal was advertised and at the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 April 2014, the City had received 2 submissions objecting to the proposal. The following issues were raised;

The southern boundary wall is of too great a scale and will impact on access to light;

The external wall height will impact on access to light; and,

The external wall height will impact on the Bellevue Terrace streetscape. Consideration of relevant matters raised is discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. No further consultation was undertaken on the basis of the amended plans. PLANNING COMMENT

Merit based assessments The proposal seeks the exercise of discretion in relation to a number of elements of the proposal. Discussion of these elements is included in the Planning Comment section of Attachment 2. The amended proposal impacts on only one of these assessments, which is discussed further in this report.


Page 25

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

Carport - South

Walls built up to or within 750mm 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 up to 3.4m

high

See comments.

The previous officer’s report on this matter identified that the proposed boundary wall, as then proposed, would not meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.4 and the R-Codes. This was on the basis that the proposed wall would unreasonably restrict light access to the southern adjoining site. Accordingly a condition of approval was recommending the carport be setback at least 400mm from the southern boundary was recommended. As per the resolution of the PSC, this recommendation was not supported and a reduction in wall height was, instead, recommended prior to approval. In response to the resolution the applicant has reduced the height of the wall by 250mm and removed solid brick sections to reduce the bulk of the proposed structure. These modifications are considered consistent with the merit based assessment of LPP2.4 and the R-Codes in so far as;

The 250mm reduction is considered to have an equivalent improvement to solar access as the previously recommended 400mm setback;

The removal of solid brick portions of the wall reduces the perception of bulk and scale when viewed from the adjoining site;

The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation; and,

The height of the proposed wall is considered comparable to existing shading/screening material on the southern adjoining site at the property boundary.


That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 67 (Lot 462 & 463) Bellevue Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


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

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


Page 26

3. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure by;

i. a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees ii. a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management

devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and iii. a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

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

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

5. Prior to occupation, the north-west facing openings of ‘Living Room’ on the ground floor on the north-west elevation shall be either;

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

floor level, or ii. fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with


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

iv. screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


Advice Note(s)

i. 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.


Page 27

ii. 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.

iii. 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.


Page 28

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

PSC1405-85 COMPLIANCE MATTER - UNAUTHORISED INTERNAL WORKS AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION OF PLANNING APPROVAL – NO 68 HIGH STREET, FREMANTLE (SS DA0591/13)

DataWorks Reference: 122/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Health Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1. Photographs taken July 2013, November 2013 and

January 2014 2. Letter from Manager Statutory Planning dated 19 March 2014 in response to request to reconsider condition 2 of planning approval DA0591/13

Owner Name: Brian Charles Kempthorne & 3 others Lessee: Hush Espresso Pty Ltd Heritage Listing: Heritage List, West End Conservation Area; MHI

(Category 1B)


Page 29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This planning compliance matter is submitted to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for direction in relation to compliance action. The lessee of 68 High Street, Hush Espresso Pty Ltd, undertook internal works on a heritage listed building under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) without planning approval. On 29 July 2013, the day the City became aware of the unauthorised works, a stop work letter was sent to the lessee and the owners, directing the lessee to stop the work until such time as planning approval has been obtained. An inspection on 15 November 2013 revealed that more unauthorised internal works had occurred. Verbal instructions to stop work and obtain planning approval were provided by City officers on-site and in a meeting at the Town Hall Centre on two occasions during the week of 15 November 2013. An e-mail was sent to the lessee on 21 November 2013 reinforcing the City's instruction to stop work and obtain planning approval. A retrospective planning application was lodged on 4 December 2013. An inspection conducted on 29 January 2014 revealed further unauthorised works had been performed. Approval of the retrospective planning application was issued on 30 January 2014 under delegated authority. Retrospective approval was issued with condition 2 requiring the following:

Within 60 days of the date of this approval the lime render shall be reinstated on the north and east walls and painted with lime wash to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle

The due date for compliance with condition 2 expired on 31 March 2014. The lessee did not exercise their appeal right to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against condition 2. A letter dated 4 March 2014 from Hart Architects on behalf of Hush requested the City reconsider condition 2 of the planning approval. The Manager Statutory Planning responded in writing on 19 March 2014 advising the City could not legally reconsider condition 2. Within this letter, reference is made to relevant extracts from the heritage assessment for the retrospective development assessment and the rationale behind the City's imposition of condition 2 as part of the planning approval. A copy of this letter is attached to this report as Attachment 2. In relation to the non-compliance with condition 2, Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5) suggests the City should send a letter to the lessee requesting compliance within 21 days, failing which a $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) and a Direction Notice shall be issued. In relation to the unauthorised works, the City has grounds to commence legal action against the lessee for breaching the provisions of LPS4. The City may commence legal proceedings prior to the 29 July 2014. A relevant consideration in this regard is the retrospective planning approval granted by the City on 30 January 2014. In addition, officers are cognizant of the City's strategic imperative to encourage small business and activation of the CBD.


Page 30

BACKGROUND

In June 2008, City officers identified that unauthorised works had been carried out at 32 Market Street. The works involved unauthorised removal of the shop front and internal works, including removal of plaster to the walls and a new opening. The building is on the Heritage List of LPS4, MHI and within the West End Conservation Area. On 11 July 2008, Mr Daniel Leppard (the applicant), sought retrospective planning approval (DA363/08) for the unauthorized change of land use to Hush Espresso, internal works and signage. Conditional retrospective planning approval was granted by the PSC on 7 January 2009. On 29 August 2012, a planning application (DA0397/12) was lodged to change the land use of a shop in the Atwell Arcade (No. 120 High Street) to a take away coffee outlet (Hush Espresso). 120 High Street is on the Heritage List of LPS4, within the West End Conservation Area and is a Category 1B building on the MHI. The application involved certain internal alterations and there was no proposal to change the existing fabric of the premises. Planning approval was issued on 4 October 2012. The fabric of the rear internal wall of the shop was altered by the removal of a large portion of the plaster. These works were not shown on the plans nor identified in the planning submission. On 29 July 2013, it was established that unauthorised works were being undertaken at 68 High Street. The building is located at the corner of High Street and Pakenham Street, is included on the Heritage List of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and is within the West End Conservation Area. Photographs of the works were taken (Attachment 1 – July 2013). On the same day, the City issued a stop work letter to the owners of the premises and the lessee Daniel Leppard at Hush Espresso. The City’s letter to the lessee (Hush Espresso) advised the following:

Internal renovation work was being carried out and the City had been advised that Hush Espresso had recently taken out a lease on the property;

The property is heritage listed and all development is subject to the City’s planning approval process;

The City’s records indicate no planning approval has been given for the development on the site;

In relation to the works, the following direction was given – “You are now to cease all work at the property until planning approval has been obtained”.

An appointment can be made with the City’s Duty Planner to discuss the City’s requirements;

Information on Planning & Heritage is accessible on the City’s website;

The City’s Heritage Coordinator can be contacted to discuss heritage matters;

Officers from the City will monitor the property to ensure compliance;

The owner of the property has also been advised that all work must cease on the property until planning approvals are in place.

A second site inspection was undertaken by City officers on 15 November 2013 and photographs were taken of additional unauthorised internal works (Attachment 1 – 15 November 2013).


Page 31

On 20 November 2013, the City was advised by Hush Espresso of their intention to perform the following works at the premises:

1) Exposed brick walls to be cleaned and washed with soapy water. Please note

no sealer will be used on these walls. 2) Wooden flooring at down stairs entrance to be sanded and finished using tung

oil in a matt finish. 3) Upper glass windows at entrance to be replaced with clear glass 4) Rendered wall on west side- paint to be stripped from bottom to approx 1

meter high (apparent mould damage), and repainted with lime wash paint. Remaining wall to be repainted. Could you please advise what paint stripper is to be used.

5) Plumbing to coffee machine to be run under edge of flooring where floor boards meet the concrete section.

6) Current lights to be replaced with hanging pendent lights. Please note no new holes will be made in ceiling.

7) Tables to be mounted to walls with mounting brackets On 21 November 2013, an email response was provided by the City to Hush Espresso advising:

… work was being done on the premises yesterday. No work should be done on the site until planning approval is granted … This has already been conveyed to yourself by the Stop Work notices issued in July, and at the meetings held at the City and on site last week.

On 22 November 2013, Daniel Leppard from Hush Espresso advised the City:

… the following works have already been completed on 68 High St Fremantle: 1) Removal of render from right wall and back wall, exposing original brick work 2) Removal of existing glass balustrade and replace with steel rod balustrading 3) Installation of counter in service area, using stainless steel benches 4) Removal of paint from wooden beams used to support mezzanine area 5) Removal of paint around door frame of kitchen entrance 6) Gas box installed at front right of shop. Note, only the box is installed, no gas

lines have been run as yet 7) Old sink in kitchen area removed 8) Bar-bench mounted on wall at rear of shop Please note, no electrical work or plumbing work has been commenced

On 4 December 2013, a planning application (DA0591/13) for retrospective planning approval was submitted by Hush Espresso Pty Ltd. The application was for “cafe – retrospective alts”. A third site inspection was undertaken on 29 January 2014. Photographs were taken identifying further unauthorised works had been performed at the premises (Attachment 1 – 29 January 2014). This included continuation of the kitchen fit-out, installation of new lights, a hand rail attached to the new wall of the building and additional removal of render from the brickwork.


Page 32

Conditional retrospective planning approval was granted under delegated authority on the 30 January 2014 with the following conditions of approval: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 4 December 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot. 2. Within 60 days of the date of this approval the lime render shall be reinstated on the

north and east walls and painted with lime wash to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. The works herby 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.

A letter dated 4 March 2014 from Hart Architects on behalf of Hush requested the City reconsider condition 2 of the planning approval. The Manager Statutory Planning responded in writing on 19 March 2014 advising the City could not legally reconsider condition 2. Within this letter, reference is made to relevant extracts from the heritage assessment for the retrospective development assessment and the rationale behind the City's imposition of condition 2 as part of the planning approval. A copy of this letter is attached to this report as Attachment 2. On 28 March 2014, Mr Ron Leppard requested a meeting to discuss this matter with the Manager Statutory Planning at the Town Hall Centre. A meeting was arranged on the 8 April 2014. The meeting was subsequently cancelled by Mr Leppard. Compliance with condition 2 was required by 31 March 2014. The work is yet to be completed. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Clause 8.1 of LPS4 requires planning approval to be obtained prior to works being carried out. The development site is on the Heritage List of LPS4 and within a heritage area. Internal works are not exempt from the need for planning approval (Clause 8.2(a)(iii))for a commercial property on the Heritage List. Clause 11.4.1(b)(iii) of LPS4 states that a person must not—

(b) use any land or commence or continue to carry out any development within the Scheme area— (iii) otherwise than in accordance with any conditions imposed upon the

grant and the issue of any approval required by the Scheme. Section 218(b) of the Planning and Development Act provides that a person who commences, continues or carries out any development otherwise than in accordance with any condition imposed under the scheme, or otherwise fails to comply with any such condition, commits an offence.


Page 33

Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5) provides guidance on the City's compliance process.

PLANNING COMMENT

This matter involves two compliance issues, which are set out below: Unauthorised works – 68 High Street The operators of Hush have undertaken unauthorised works on a heritage listed building at 68 High Street. The works were not exempt from the need for planning approval. A stop work letter was issued on 29 July 2013, the day the City became aware of the unauthorised works, advising Mr Daniel Leppard “to cease all work at the property until planning approval has been obtained”. At that stage, the lessee had undertaken works including the partial removal of the render within the building – refer to Attachment 1 – photograph of 29 July 2013. Works continued contrary to the direction given in the City’s letter of 29 July 2013 and an e-mail from the City on 21 November 2013 – refer to the advice received from Mr Daniel Leppard on 22 November 2013 in the background section. As this is unauthorised development, part 4.2 of Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance allows a $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) and a Direction Notice to be issued requiring the compliance matter to be resolved within 4 months. This may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the prescribed work. However, the City's officers decided to commence a mediation process with the operators of Hush and issued a letter requiring the lessee to cease all work until planning approval had been obtained. This process was entered in good faith and a $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) and a Direction Notice was not issued. The lessee did not comply with the request and performed additional unauthorised works to the heritage listed property. The time period for issuing a $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) for unauthorised development has now passed. Having regard to the failure of the lessee to comply with the City’s direction and the history of non-compliance by the operator/business with the provisions of LPS4, the City may commence legal proceedings for the breach of LPS4 prior to 29 July 2014. Non-compliance with condition 2 of planning approval DA0591/13 Condition 2 of the retrospective planning approval required the following:

Within 60 days of the date of this approval the lime render shall be reinstated on the north and east walls and painted with lime wash to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The rectification works in condition 2 were required to be undertaken by 31 March 2014. Compliance with this condition has not occurred at the time of the preparation of this report. The non-compliance with the condition of approval is a breach of the provisions of LPS4.


Page 34

Under part 4.1 of Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5), if the compliance matter relates to non-compliance with a condition of planning approval which requires an action within a specified time frame, a letter is to be issued requiring that the matter to be rectified within 21 days. Should the matter not be rectified within 21 days, the City shall issue a $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) and a Direction Notice requiring the compliance matter to be resolved within 4 months. If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action. Condition 2 of the retrospective planning approval seeks to rectify an unacceptable heritage outcome that has occurred on the site as a result of unauthorised works. This outcome could have been prevented had the lessee applied for planning approval prior to the commencement of works. The retrospective planning approval provided the lessee with a 60 day period to resolve the unauthorised works relating to the internal walls of the building. The lessee could have exercised their appeal rights to the State Administrative Tribunal if they were aggrieved with the requirements of condition 2. They did not exercise their appeal rights nor comply with the condition. CONCLUSION In relation to the non-compliance with condition 2, Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5) suggests the City should send a letter to the lessee requesting compliance within 21 days, failing which a $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) and a Direction Notice shall be issued requiring the matter to be resolved within 4 months. If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action. In relation to the unauthorised works, the City has grounds to commence legal action against the lessee for breaching the provisions of LPS4. The City may commence legal proceedings prior to 29 July 2014. A relevant consideration in this regard is the retrospective planning approval granted by the City on 30 January 2014. In addition, officers are cognizant of the City's strategic imperative to encourage small business and activation of the CBD. Legal action for breaching the provisions of LPS4 is not recommended at this time but it is an option that Council may wish to consider. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Council authorise officers of the City to send a Direction Notice to Hush Espresso Pty Ltd at 68 High Street requiring compliance with Condition 2 of planning approval DA0591/13 issued on the 30 January 2014 within a period of 60 days. Non compliance shall result in legal action.


Page 35

PSC1405-86 SOUTH STREET, NO. 17 (LOT 34), SOUTH FREMANTLE - HOME BUSINESS (COUNSELLING) AND DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDING) – (AD DA0137/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Development Plans

2. Google Street View Photos Date Received: 20 March 2014 Owner Name: Peter Jordan & Jillian Horton Submitted by: Peter Jordan Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: MHI management category level 3;

South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Home Business Use Permissibility: A


Page 36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of submissions received that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a Home Business (Counselling) and demolition of existing Outbuilding at No. 17 (Lot 34) South Street, South Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with the exception of the following:

Discretionary land use;

Car parking; Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the discretionary decisions being sought by the applicant should be supported. Accordingly, the application is on balance recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with an applicable density coding of R30 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) – sub area 4.3.3 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is bound by South Terrace to the west, Francisco Street to the east, South Street to the north and Gold Street to the south. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 3 and is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 369m2 and has a north-south orientation. The site is currently improved by a single storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 20 March 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a change of use from Single House to Home Business (Counselling) and demolition of existing Outbuilding at No. 17 (Lot 34) South Street, South Fremantle (refer DA0137/14). Specifically the proposed Home Business (Counselling) would be used by clinical psychologists for the purposes of counselling.


Page 37

It is noted that on 29 April 2014, the applicant advised the City that there had be some changes to the details of the nature of the proposed Home Business (Counselling), detailed below:

“I am now the sole owner and also a resident of the property. The home business has changed its name to Psychological Health Consultants and there will now be no employees. The business will be run by myself with the casual involvement of two individual consultants who will each attend for one day per week (each attending on separate days). I would now expect the number of clients attending to be less than 25 per week.

These are the only changes to the original application.” The table below breaks down the differences between the original proposal, and the changes associated with the amended proposal.

Proposed

Full time psychologists 1

Part time psychologists 2

Administration staff 0

No. clients per week 25

Consultation duration 50 minutes

Operating days Mon-Fri

Operating hours 9:00am-5:30pm

The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is proposing a number of discretions to the prescribed development standards of the City’s LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 May 2014, the City received two (2) submissions pertaining to the proposal. Of these two (2) submissions, raising the following relevant planning concerns:

Parking;

Operating hours The submissions also raised the following concerns not considered relevant to planning:

Nature/type of counselling practice and its clientele;


Page 38

Heritage

The City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal provided the following comments in relation to the proposed demolition of the rear outbuilding:

“Assessment

The proposal is for a change of use and demolition of the rear outbuilding.

Investigation through historical mapping has shown that the timber framed outbuilding is not part of the original development of the house and its setting. The original water closet (WC) is to be retained which is a positive outcome. Conclusion

There are no issues on heritage grounds with the change of use or demolition of the rear outbuilding.”

Accordingly, the proposed demolition of the rear outbuilding is supported. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Land Use

The proposed land use is considered to fall within the land use definition of ‘Home Business’ as prescribed by Schedule 1 of LPS4, which:

“means a business, service, or profession carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which—

(a) does not employ more than 2 people not members of the occupier’s household,

(b) will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood,

(c) does not occupy an area greater than 50 square metres,

(d) does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature,

(e) in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a result of the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood, and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight, and

(f) does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than normally required in the zone.”

A ‘Home Business’ in the ‘Residential zone’ is an ‘A’ use, which:

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


Page 39

Clause 4.2 of LPS4 provides for the objectives of each zone. Clause 4.2.1(a) provides that the objectives for the ‘Residential zone’ are:

“Development within the residential zone shall—

(i) provide for residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character,

(ii) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area,

(iii) encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognise the need for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites,

(iv) recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development,

(v) conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development, and

(vi) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area.”

Should Council be satisfied that the on-site car parking shortfall should be supported, it is considered that the proposed Home Business use is consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone. Parking

Table 3 of LPS4 provides for vehicle parking standards for each land use class. Table 3 states that, in relation to on-site car parking, ‘Home Business’ land use is “as per Council policy”. Council’s DC7 – Home Occupation policy was applicable at the time LPS4 was gazetted in 2007, however it was rescinded by Council in February 2008 and is therefore no longer relevant. Notwithstanding, Clause 5.7.1(c) of LPS4 states that:

“Where vehicle parking provisions are not prescribed for a particular use the requirement will be determined by the Council.”

In this regard, it is considered that given the nature of the proposed use, being for psychology counselling that the most similar land use is ‘Consulting Rooms’. Table 3 of LPS4 requires 5 on-site car parking bays for every 1 practitioner; or 5 on-site car parking bays for every one consulting room, whichever is the greater. As it si proposed to have a maximum of 2 practitioners on site at any one time the on-site car parking requirement is as follows:

Required Proposed Discretion

10 on-site car parking bays 4 on-site car parking bays 6 on-site car parking bays


Page 40

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,

(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, it is noted that there is a significant provision of informal on-street parking available along South Street, to the east of South Terrace. Furthermore, there is a significant provision of both formal and informal on-street parking available on South Terrace, to both the south and north of South Street. In this regard, it is considered that there is sufficient on-street parking in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site (i). There is a bus stop located approximately 25m east of the subject site on South Street which provides bus services for the 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 533, 825 and 920 bus routes. Further, there is a bus stop located approximately 70m south-west of the subject site on Hampton Road which provides bus services for the 532 bus route. In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available (ii). It is considered that the existing provision of on-street parking in the immediate locality and the proximity to public transport, that the proposed on-site car parking discretion of six bays should be supported.


Page 41

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to on balance satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Other issues raised in submissions

Operating hours

One of the submissions raised concerns about operating hours and days of operation. It referred to a desire to restrict hours of operation between 8:00am and 6:00pm/7:00pm. The applicant has indicated that the Home Business (Counselling) shall operate between 9:00am and 5:30pm, Monday to Friday which is considered to reflect typical business hours. Notwithstanding, it will be recommended that the operating hours be limited as a condition of approval to ensure any impact upon the adjoining residential properties is mitigated as far practicable. CONCLUSION

The proposed change of use to Home Business (Counselling) and demolition of Outbuilding at No. 17 (Lot 34) South Street, South Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The discretionary decisions sought in relation to land use and on-site car parking have been assessed against the relevant criteria of LPS4 and is considered to be supportable. Accordingly, the application is on balance recommended for approval. In the instance the Council considers that the proposal should be refused, the following recommendation would apply. That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the change of use to Home Business (Counselling) and demolition of Outbuilding at No. 17 (Lot 34) South Street, South Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area due to the

lack of onsite parking.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone, specifically clause 4.2.1 (a) of LPS4.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the change of use to Home Business (Counselling) and demolition of Outbuilding at No. 17 (Lot 34) South Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 20 March 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this


Page 42

lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. This approval allows the Home Business (Counselling) hereby permitted to be

conducted by Peter Jordan. If Peter Jordan ceases to operate the Home Business (Counselling) hereby permitted or occupy the subject site, this approval will laps and be of no further effect.

3. The Home Business (Counselling) hereby permitted shall be limited to operating between 9:00am and 5:30pm, Monday to Friday.


Page 43

PSC1405-87 MCCLEERY STREET, NO. 29 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD – THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING – (AD DA0052/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 4 February 2014

2 April 2014 (amended plans) Owner Name: Stephen Vigh & Rachel Townes-Vigh Submitted by: Bernard Seeber Architects Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 3;

South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Lot currently vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 29 (Lot 2) McCleery Street, Beaconsfield. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following:

Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fence Policy (LPP2.8) The applicant is also seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles in relation to:

Lot boundary setbacks;

Building height;

Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes and the discretionary criteria of LPP2.8 and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA4) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Martha Street to the north, Hampton Road to the west, McCleery Street to the east and Lefroy Road to the south. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 3, however this relates to the front house (No. 27 (Lot 1) McCleery Street); and it is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 350m2, has an east-west orientation and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site slopes down by approximately 1.80 metres from its eastern boundary down to its western boundary. The southern and western boundaries of the subject site are to the Fremantle-Peel District Education Office (formerly Beaconsfield Primary School), specifically a car park to the south and green space to the west. It is noted that the subject site is encumbered by a sewerage easement which measures approximately 16 metres in length by 5 metres in width and accounts for 80m2 of the 350m2 of the subject sites’ area (or 22.86%). Given its size and location just to the west of the true middle of the site, it is considered that this presents a significant constraint to development upon the site.


Page 45

A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application:

On 1 November 2012, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted conditional approval for a two (2) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 27 (Lot 4070) McCleery Street, Beaconsfield (WAPC758-12);

On 20 August 2013, the WAPC endorsed the two (2) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 27 (Lot 4070) McCleery Street, Beaconsfield (WAPC758-12). This has resulted in the creation of the subject site.

DETAIL

On 4 February 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 29 (Lot 2) McCleery Street, Beaconsfield. On 2 April 2014, the applicant submitted an amended proposal which incorporated a 1.6 metre high screen to the western elevation of the ground floor deck to prevent overlooking. Notwithstanding the above, on 24 April 2014 (after conclusion of advertising period had concluded), the applicant submitted signed development plans from owners of northern adjoining property in relation to the proposed over height boundary fence. A copy of the proposed development plans (as amended) is contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 27 February 2014, the City received one (1) submission pertaining to the proposal, of which did not raise any concerns relevant to planning. Notwithstanding the above, on 24 April 2014 (after conclusion of advertising period had concluded), the applicant submitted signed development plans from owners of northern adjoining property in relation to the proposed over height boundary fence. City’s Heritage Department

The City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and advised that they have no objections with the proposal. State Heritage Office (SHO)

In accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the City was required to refer development applications to the State Heritage Office (SHO) if the proposal may affect a State Registered Heritage Place, being the ‘Beaconsfield Primary School (fmr) (Fremantle-Peel District Education Office)’.


Page 46

The SHO provided the following referral comments to the City in relation to this application:

“Findings

The proposed two storey grouped dwelling is located adjacent to the parking area of the Beaconsfield Primary School and will not impact on the identified landmark or streetscape values as noted in the statement of significance for the place.

Advice The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of (the former) Beaconsfield Primary School.”


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

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks

Required Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Setback to southern boundary, ground floor (entry, laundry, deck 2) required = 3.50m

3.45m 0.05m

Setback to southern boundary, upper floor (bedroom 1, stair landing, linen/storage) required = 4.20m

3.45m 0.75m

Setback to western boundary, ground floor (deck 1, study, deck 2) required = 3.50m

1.45m – 2.30m 2.05m – 1.20m

Setback to southern boundary, upper floor (bedroom 1) required = 4.20m

3.45m 0.75m

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

The proposal is not considered to present significant impact upon the south-western adjoining property by way of building bulk, as the southern and western elevations of the proposed dwelling are broken up by open deck areas, various window openings and a variety of building which serve to break up the bulk;

It is considered that it will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and that of the south-western adjoining property;

It will not result in any visual privacy issues as the south-western adjoining property is the Fremantle-Peel District Education Office and is not used for residential purposes;

The owners of the south-western adjoining property did not raise any objections in relation to visual privacy in their submission received during the advertising period.


Page 47

Building height

Permitted Proposed

Maximum external wall height – 6.00 metres

Maximum external wall height between 6.80m and 8.40 metres

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

It is not considered that the proposed building height will create any adverse impact on the amenity by way of building bulk upon the eastern adjoining property as it generally presents as a two storey dwelling; the northern adjoining property due to it being setback 6.00 metres from the boundary; nor the south-western adjoining properties as this is the Fremantle-Peel District Education Office and is not used for residential purposes;

Further, as it is located on a rear survey strata lot, its distance from the street is considered to ameliorate any impact upon the streetscape;

It is considered that the proposal allows for adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces as the proposal satisfies the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards pertaining to overshadowing;

It is considered that the proposal maintains access to views of significance;

It is not uncommon for skillion roof designs, which often do not incorporate ‘concealed roofs’ to exceed the 6.00 metre external wall height requirement. However, the proposed skillion roof complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standard pertaining to overall building height (roof ridge) which allows up to 9.00 metres;

The sewerage easement which measures approximately 16 metres in length by 5 metres in width and accounts for 80m2 of the 350m2 of the subject sites’ area (or 22.86%) severely constrains the site.

The applicant has advised the City that the Water Corporation requirements that must be met when developing above the sewerage easement include a “minimum of 2.7m clearance between the carport (garage) level and the underside of the floor ... [and] the headroom clearance from street... along the length of the sewer main is to be at least 2.4m.”

The maximum height of 8.40 metres is at the western most portion of the development, and is at a point where the natural ground level of the site is near it lowest. It also directly correlates to western most portion of the sewerage easement (refer blue lines on elevations of development plans). Taking away the height of the minimum clearance height of 2.40 metres required by the Water Corporation for the sewerage easement from the maximum proposed external wall height of 8.40 metres would result in a maximum external wall height of 6.00 metres which would satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards.

It is considered that the design of the proposal, in that it is elevated above the sewerage easement in accordance with the requirements of the Water Corporation to provide for necessary clearances, contributes to the height of the proposal.


Page 48

Visual privacy

Required Proposed Design Principle Assessment

7.50m setback for ground floor ‘deck 1’ to western boundary

4.35m 3.15m

7.50m setback for ground floor ‘deck 2’ to western boundary

1.45m 6.05m

7.50m setback for ground floor ‘deck 2’ to southern boundary

3.45m 4.05m

4.50m setback for ground floor ‘study’ to western boundary

1.70m 2.80m

4.50m setback for upper floor ‘bedroom 1’ to western boundary

1.45m 6.05m

4.50m setback for upper floor ‘bedroom 1’ to southern boundary

3.45m 1.05m

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes and should be supported as the south-western adjoining property is the Fremantle-Peel District Education Office and is not used for residential purposes. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current zoning of the south-western adjoining property allows for residential development to occur, it is reasonable to anticipate that it will remain in the capacity of the Fremantle-Peel Education Office for the foreseeable future. Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy

Permitted Proposed Discretion

Side and/or rear boundary fencing up to 1.80 metres in height

Northern boundary: Side boundary fence between 2.40m to 3.80m in height

0.60m to 2.00m

Southern boundary: Side boundary fence up to 2.06m

0.26m

Eastern boundary: Side boundary fence up to 2.35m

0.55m

Clause 5.1 of Council’s LPP2.8 states:

“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.”


Page 49

In addition to the above, clause 5.2 of Council’s LPP2.8 states:

“Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring owners / occupiers of adjoining properties, and will only consider the criteria in 5.1(a) to be met where it is satisfied that no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.”

It is acknowledged that the height of the fences are considerable, however in considering the discretionary criteria of clauses 5.1 and 5.2 above, Council should have due regard to the following characteristics of the site:

it slopes by approximately 1.80 metres from its eastern boundary down to its western boundary; and

it is encumbered by a sewerage easement which measures approximately 16 metres in length by 5 metres in width and accounts for 80m2 of the 350m2 of the subject sites’ area (or 22.86%). Given its size and location just to the west of the true middle of the site, it is considered that this presents a significant constraint to development upon the site. It is considered that this has resulted in the ‘effective’ ground floor of the development being elevated above natural ground level by between 0.80m and 2.40m.

Northern boundary fence

The northern boundary fence is seeking the most discretion in terms of height. The main outdoor living area of the proposed dwelling is located on the northern side and contained on the ground floor. The R-Codes prescribe that the outdoor living area of a dwelling should optimise use of the northern aspect of the site, and in this regard the proposed location of the outdoor living area is considered to present the most desirable outcome. However, as this is an outdoor living area is elevated greater than 0.5m above natural ground level, it is subject to visual privacy setback requirements. In this regard, the applicant is effectively proposing a fence that is 1.60m above the finished floor level of the outdoor living area on the ground floor which represents the minimum height required by the R-Codes when providing vertical screening devices. It is also noted that the maximum height of the northern boundary fence, being 3.80m does not extend beyond the length of the elevated outdoor living area and drops back down to 1.90m above natural ground level immediately below that point. In this regard, it is considered that the applicant has made a concerted effort in designing the proposal which minimises the impacts of the northern boundary fence by way of bulk as far as practicable. In relation to clause 5.1(a), it is not considered that the proposed northern boundary fence will have any significant impact on adjoining northern property by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views. In relation to clauses 5.1(b) and 5.2 above, on 24 April 2014 (after the advertising period had concluded), the applicant submitted signed development plans from owners of northern adjoining property in relation to the proposed over height boundary fence. Accordingly, the northern boundary fence height discretion is supported.


Page 50

Southern boundary fence

In relation to clause 5.1(a), it is not considered that the proposed southern boundary fence will have any significant impact on adjoining southern property by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views. It is also considered that the use of the southern property as a primary school reduces any impact that the proposed boundary fence may incur on that property. In relation to clauses 5.1(b) and 5.2 above, the owners of the southern adjoining property did not raise any objections to the proposed over height boundary fence in their submission received during the advertising period. Accordingly, the southern boundary fence height discretion is supported. Eastern boundary fence

This boundary fence has similar issues to those discussed for the ‘northern boundary fence’ above in that the outdoor living area is elevated above the natural ground level at the eastern boundary by approximately 0.9m and therefore is subject to visual privacy setback requirements. In this regard, the applicant is effectively proposing a fence that is 1.60m above the finished floor level of the outdoor living area on the ground floor which represents the minimum height required by the R-Codes when providing vertical screening devices. It is also noted that the maximum height of the eastern boundary fence, being 2.35m does not extend beyond the length of the elevated outdoor living area and drops back down to 1.60m above natural ground level immediately below that point. In this regard, it is considered that the applicant has made a concerted effort in designing the proposal which minimises the impacts of the northern boundary fence by way of bulk as far as practicable. In relation to clause 5.1(a), it is not considered that the proposed eastern boundary fence will have any significant impact on adjoining eastern property by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views as the length of the fence is approximately 5.8m and does not extend for the full length of the boundary. In relation to clauses 5.1(b) and 5.2 above, no submission was received from the owner of the eastern adjoining property. Accordingly, the eastern boundary fence height discretion is supported. CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 29 (Lot 2) McCleery Street, Beaconsfield has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; lot boundary setbacks; building height; and visual privacy. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be supportable under the provisions of Council’s LPP2.8. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 51


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 29 (Lot 2) McCleery Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


2. Prior to occupation, screening devices as depicted on the approved plans dated 2 April 2014 shall be installed 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.

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


Page 52

PSC1405-88 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 27 (LOT 59), FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR A FRONT FENCE, BOUNDARY FENCE AND ENTRY PORTICO TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0027/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1402-28 (19 February 2014);

PSC1403-50 (19 March 2014) Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 20 January 2014 Owner Name: Phillip Wilton & Ms Alison Burton Submitted by: Roger Munckton Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

Not within a prescribed Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking retrospective approval for a front fence, boundary fence and entry portico to existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following:

Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8), in relation to the visual permeability of fencing within the primary street setback area

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of clauses 1.2 and/or 1.3 of LPP2.8 and as such it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring that within 60 days of this approval, that the primary street fence be modified so as to comply with the requirement to be visually permeable above 1.20m as per clause 1.1 of LPP2.8. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area 2 (LPA 2) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Knutsford Street to the north, Bellevue Terrace to the west, Forthergill Street to the south and Solomon Street to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 582m2, has an east-west orientation and is currently improved by a two storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 4.00 metre downwards from its eastern (front) boundary to its western (rear) boundary. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application:

On 22 June 2011, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for a two storey addition to an existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0099/11);

On 13 December 2013, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for boundary and primary street fence addition to existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0595/13). It is noted that this fence was located along the southern boundary and the reference to ‘primary street fence addition’ relates to the fact that the proposal included fencing along the southern boundary but within the 5.00 metre primary street setback area;


Page 54

At its meeting held on 19 February 2014, the PSC considered an item for alterations to existing two storey Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0376/13; PSC1402-28) and resolved to “defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow the applicant to be present”;

At its meeting held on 19 March 2014, the PSC considered the deferred item from its previous meeting and resolved to grant conditional Planning Approval for alterations to existing two storey Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0376/13; PSC1403-50).

DETAIL

On 20 January 2014, the City received an application seeking retrospective approval for a front fence, boundary fence and entry portico to existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle (refer DA0027/14). It is noted that during a site inspection undertaken on 18 October 2013 as part of the assessment of DA0376/13, the City observed a number of other elements that have been constructed on-site without obtaining the necessary Planning Approval from the City, including:

Front ‘portico’;

Primary street fencing (eastern boundary and northern boundary within 5.00 metres of the street);

Side (northern) boundary fencing;

Side (northern) boundary retaining above 500mm in height. Accordingly, Condition No. 2 of the Planning Approval for DA0376/13 stated:

“This approval does not relate to the following development as marked up in red on the approved plans, dated 5 August 2013: a) Front ‘portico’; b) Primary street fencing (eastern boundary and northern boundary within

5.00 metres of the street); c) Side (northern) boundary fencing; d) Side (northern) boundary retaining above 500 millimetres in height;”

At the time DA0376/14 was considered and ultimately determined by PSC at its meeting of 19 March 2014, the City had received and was processing a separate application for retrospective approval for the works detailed above. The development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. Photos of the prevailing streetscape are contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report.


Page 55

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 discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 21 March 2014, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal.


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

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy

Required Proposed Discretion

Primary street fencing:

Visually permeable above 1.20m

Solid between 1.20m and 1.747m

Up to 0.547m

Piers not higher than 2.00m

2.083m 0.083m

As the proposal does not satisfy the provisions of LPP2.8, the proposal is to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria, prescribed by clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of LPP2.8: Clause 1.2:

“Council may exercise discretion to vary the height of fences in the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) where:

a) The proposed fence height is consistent with the established pattern of fences within the streetscape; or

b) Minor variations are made necessary by virtue of the sloping topography of the site; or

c) Chain link or mesh fences in non residential areas greater than 1.80 metres in height shall be permitted where in the opinion of Council, it is necessary to provide security to a commercial property, and are consistent with the established pattern of fences within the streetscape.”


Page 56

Clause 1.3:

“Council may permit solid fencing for a portion of the total length of the boundary within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s), where surveillance between a habitable room window of the dwelling and the street and approach to the dwelling is available, and the following criteria are satisfied:

a) Where it is necessary to provide privacy screening where there is no alternative outdoor living area to the front setback; or

b) Where it is consistent with the prevailing streetscape.” The table below details the primary street fencing characteristics of dwellings within the prevailing streetscape in the context of this application:

Prevailing Streetscape

Property Address Primary street fencing characteristics

Northern side 1 of 3 No. 19 (Lot 63) Solomon Street

Primary street fence? Yes

Visually permeable above: 0.50m

Piers up to: 2.60m

2 of 3 No. 21-23 (Lot 902) Solomon Street



Piers up to: 2.25m

3 of 3 No. 25 (Lot 60) Solomon Street



Piers up to: N/A

Southern side

1 of 1 No. 29A (Lot 3) Solomon Street



Piers up to: 2.20m

As detailed in the table above, of the four properties within the prevailing streetscape, all have fencing within the primary street setback area; however they are all visually permeable above 1.20 metres above natural ground level – as per the requirements of LPP2.8. In this regard, it is not considered that the solid element of the primary street fence subject of this application satisfies the discretionary criteria and as such should not be supported. It is therefore recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring that within 60 days of this approval, that the primary street fence be modified so as to comply with the requirement to be visually permeable above 1.20m as per clause 1.1 of LPP2.8.


Page 57

Whilst the solid element is not supported for the reasons outlined above, the height of the piers is something that could be supported. It is noted that of the four properties within the prevailing streetscape, three have piers of fencing within their respective primary street setback areas greater than 2.20 metres, which is greater than both what is subject of this application (2.083 metres) and also what is prescribed by LPP2.8, which is 2.00 metres. In this regard, the height of the piers is considered supportable. The sites’ topography slopes by approximately 1.10 metres for the length of the fence fronting Solomon Street, from the higher side on the north down towards the south. In this regard, Council may be of the opinion that the discretion sought for the solid element of the fence of up to 0.547 metres constitutes a minor variation made necessary by virtue of the sloping topography of the site. Should this be the case, then it would not be recommended that the condition Planning Approval be imposed requiring that within 60 days of this approval, that the primary street fence be modified so as to comply with the requirement to be visually permeable above 1.20m as per Clause 1.11 of LPP2.8 and therefore be deleted from Council’s resolution. Regard the discretionary clause relating to surveillance of the street, the trigger of this clause requires surveillance between a habitable room window of the dwelling and the street. There are two levels of the dwelling that must be considered, being the ‘mid level’ – which serves as the defacto ground level as viewed from the street; and the ‘upper level’ which serves as the second storey as viewed from the street. The ‘mid level’ contains a number of major openings facing the street, however the floor level is significantly lower than that of the ground level of the footpath on the street, and as such does not permit surveillance of the street to occur. Therefore this floor cannot be considered as a trigger for the discretionary criteria. The ‘upper level’ does not contain any major openings to habitable rooms and therefore cannot be considered as a trigger for the discretionary criteria. Accordingly, this discretionary criteria of clause of LPP2.8 is not considered to be satisfied. CONCLUSION

The proposed retrospective approval for a front fence, boundary fence and entry portico to existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the R-Codes. The proposal is not considered to satisfy Council’s LPP2.8 in relation to the visual permeability of the fence. Furthermore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of the discretionary criteria of LPP2.8. As such it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring that within 60 days of this approval, that the primary street fence be modified so as to comply with the requirement to be visually permeable above 1.20m as per clause 1.1 of LPP2.8. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 58


That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the retrospective approval for a front fence, boundary fence and entry portico to existing Single House at No. 27 (Lot 59) Solomon Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 20 January 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. Within sixty (60) days of the date of approval, the primary street fencing

(eastern boundary and northern boundary within 5.00 metres of the street) hereby permitted shall be modified so as to be visually permeable above 1.20 metres to a maximum height of 1.80 metres in accordance with Clause 1.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


Page 59

PSC1405-89 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 14 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE – ALTERNATIVE PRIVACY SCREENING VA0031/12 AND FENCE ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (KS DA0131/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 14 March 2014 Owner Name: Jenny Proctor & Paul Mier Submitted by: As above Scheme: Local Centre R30 Heritage Listing: Level 2 Existing Landuse: Three storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 60

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council as the applicant is seeking approval for alternative privacy screening to what was required by a visual privacy condition associated with a previous planning approval. A submission was received which supported the alternative screening subject to several conditions. Some of these conditions fall outside the scope of the planning application The applicant is also seeking an additional portion of fencing between the dwelling at the subject site and its north eastern boundary as requested by the adjoining neighbour The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies and requires Council’s discretion in regard to the following design principle assessment:

Visual privacy. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and on this basis it is recommended that Council consider Condition 11 of planning approval VA0031/14 satisfied. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 14 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (subject site) is zoned Local Centre with a density coding of R30 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area – Sub Area 4.3.3 and the Wray Avenue Precinct. The subject site currently comprises a three storey Single House which is identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 2 listing. The subject site is not located within a heritage area designated by the LPS4. The property is located within the street block bound by Wray Avenue, South Terrace, Little Howard Street and Brennan Street. On 4 October 2010 the City granted conditional planning approval for a three storey mixed use addition to the existing Single House at No. 14 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (refer DA0123/10). On 24 September 2012 the City granted an extension to the term of planning approval for DA0123/10 (three storey mixed use addition to existing Single House) for a period of 4 years from the date of 4 October 2012.


Page 61

On 5 December 2012 the City granted conditional planning approval for variations to previous planning approval DA0123/10 (three storey mixed use addition to existing building) at No. 14 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (VA0031/12). Condition 11 of this planning approval reads as follows:

11. Prior to occupation, the northern elevation of the deck 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




in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

On 23 May 2013 the City granted conditional planning approval for a change of use from Office to Single House and alterations to the existing building at No. 14 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (refer DA0168/13). On 31 March 2014 the City granted conditional planning approval for additional height to the existing boundary fence at No. 10-12 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (refer DA0121/14). This additional fence has been constructed onsite as confirmed upon a site inspection conducted by a City officer on 11 April 2014. It is this recently constructed fence that both neighbours agreed to, where the applicant effectively seeks to modify condition 11 by a less level of screening. DETAIL

The applicant is seeking planning approval for alternative privacy screening to what was required by Condition 11 of planning approval VA0031/12 at No. 14 Wray Avenue, Fremantle. Condition 11 requires the applicant to screen the northern elevation of the deck associated with the existing three storey Single House in accordance with the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes. The applicant is seeking to vary this condition in the provision of an additional 900mm of fencing above the existing boundary fence between the subject site and No. 10-12 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (along the north eastern boundary). The additional fence height results in the deck being screened to a height of 1.45m above its finished floor level. The additional fence height proposed in the plans has already been constructed onsite as the identical proposal was approved in planning approval DA0121/14 granted for the north eastern adjoining property at No. 10-12 Wray Avenue, Fremantle.


Page 62

In response to a request received from the adjoining property owner the applicant provided additional detail seeking planning approval for a 1260mm portion of fencing located between the existing dwelling on the subject site and its north western boundary on 2 May 2014. This portion of fencing is proposed to be consistent with the height of the north eastern boundary fence at 1.75m from natural ground level. For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for development plans. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 April 2014, the City had received one (1) submission which is summarised as follows:

The proposal is supported as a means of meeting the privacy condition for the deck associated with VA0031/14 on the following basis:

o Installation of the additional fence height be at the sole expense of the

owner of No. 14 Wray Avenue, Fremantle;

o Additional slatted aluminium screening be installed between the shared

boundary wall and the western wall of the pool deck;

o The owners of the subject site remove all debris from the northern

adjoining laneway; provide a compacted gravel road base in the right of way; and install a rainwater disposal system to prevent future erosion of the portion of the gravel right of way in front of the western adjoining property at No. 10-12 Wray Avenue, Fremantle.

Visual privacy issues resulting from the proposed deck has been addressed in the planning comment section of this report the other factors raised are not considered to be relevant to the planning assessment of this application. The submitter has been advised that matters pertaining to the adjoining laneway are not relevant to and cannot be dealt with in this planning application. Nevertheless, the submitter did not retract or modify their submission.


The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions sought against policy requirements or assessment against the R Code’s design principles are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 63

PLANNING COMMENT

The applicant is seeking to vary the requirements of Condition 11 of VA0031/12 in the construction of an additional 0.9m of fencing above the existing boundary fence between the subject site and the western adjoining property at No. 10-12 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (this additional fencing has been constructed and is associated with planning approval DA0121/14). Condition 11 is worded as follows:

11. Prior to occupation, the northern elevation of the deck 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




in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Screening requirement of Condition 11 (based on Deemed to comply requirements of R-Codes)

Degree of screening resultant from the erection of an additional 0.9m of screening above the existing north eastern boundary fence

Design principle assessment

Northern elevation of the deck to be screened to a minimum height of 1.6m above finished floor level.

Northern elevation of the deck screened to 1.45m above its finished floor level.

0.15m.

The applicant is seeking Council’s discretion in relation to the requirements c of Condition 11through the design principles of the Visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. It is recommended that Council support the alternative screening on the basis of the proposal being in accordance with the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The northern elevation of the deck is considered to be effectively screened by the 0.9m of additional fence height along the north eastern boundary fence (resulting in the deck being screened to a height of 1.45m from its finished floor level) to prevent direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas associated with the north eastern adjoining property at No. 10-12 Wray Avenue, Fremantle; and

The impact of overlooking is further minimised in the ground level of the north eastern adjoining property being significantly lower than the ground level at the subject site.

For further information refer to ‘Attachment 2’ for photos indicating the view from the northern elevation of the deck.


Page 64

CONCLUSION The applicant is seeking Council’s discretion in relation to the requirements of Condition 11 of VA0031/12 which pertains to the screening of the northern elevation of the deck in accordance with the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes. The additional 0.9m of boundary fence height is considered to effectively screen the northern elevation of the deck in accordance with the design principles of the R-Codes to prevent any significant overlooking that may compromise the amenity of the adjoining property and, on this basis; it is recommended that the proposal be supported. Further, the additional portion of fencing provided in between the north eastern boundary and the dwelling is considered to aid in protecting privacy between neighbours and its erection was supported in the submission from the adjoining property owner. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the application seeking compliance with Condition 11 associated with previous planning approval VA0031/12 and fence addition to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 3) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following condition:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 March 2014 and 2 May 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 65

PSC1405-90 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21)

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed.


That the information is noted.


Page 66

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1405-91 PROPOSED DEDICATION AS PUBLIC ROAD - THE WHOLE OF NEWBOLD STREET, WHITE GUM VALLEY AND LOT 66 PASS CRESCENT, BEACONSFIELD - (KW)

DataWorks Reference: 049/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment: 1 Owners application to dedicate private roads. Attachment: 2 2 x Certificate of Titles and Diagram 32399

Figure 1 - Newbold Street, White Gum Valley - privately owned by the Department of Housing

Figure 2 - Lot 66 Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield outlined in red - privately owned by the Department of Housing

Lot 66 Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield

Newbold Street, White Gum Valley


Page 67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the request of the City of Fremantle (CoF), the Department of Housing (DoH) has submitted an application to dedicate as public road reserve, two private roads (owned by the DoH) as shown in Figure 1, Newbold Street, White Gum Valley and Figure 2, Lot 66 Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield ('the subject land'). The subject land is currently held in freehold ownership of the DoH as described on the associated Certificate of titles, Diagram and Plan. The proposed dedication will correctly formalise the subject land as public road and ensure that appropriate traffic legislation can be enforced. Therefore it is recommended that Council approve the proposed dedication of the subject Land held in Certificates of Title Volume 1128 Folio 769 and Volume 1006 Folio 848 as public roads. BACKGROUND

On 20 February 2014 the City wrote to the DoH noting the private ownership of Newbold Street, White Gum Valley by the DoH. The DoH was asked to consider amending the current tenure by ceding the land to the Crown in order to formalise Newbold Street as public road reserve in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997. On 28 February 2014 the Department for Education (DoE), contacted the CoF in relation to Lot 66 Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield ('Lot 66') which adjoins the eastern side of South Fremantle High School. The DoE requested that Lot 66, currently in the private ownership of the DoH, be formalised as public road reserved. On 04 April 2014 the DoH applied to the City requesting the dedication of both parcels of land as public road reserve in accordance with Section 56 (1) (b) of the Land Administration Act 1997. PRIVATE ROAD LAND DETAILS The subject parcels of land in private ownership (shown in Figures 1 and 2) are described as follows:

The whole of Newbold Street, White Gum Valley (private roadway) - Certificate of Title Volume 1128 Folio 769 being Lot 150 on Plan 6107. Newbold Street was transferred to the State Housing Commission on 01 July 1950.

A portion of the Pass Crescent roadway in Beaconsfield as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1006 Folio 848 being Lot 66 on Plan 226118. Lot 66 Pass Crescent was transferred to the State Housing Commission on 14 December 1949. Landgate has identified Diagram No. 32399 dated 19 October 1965 as a current diagram for dealing on, in relation to Lot 66 Pass Crescent.


Page 68

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The proposed dedication of the subject land is pursuant of Section 56 (1) (b) (i) of the Land Administration Act 1997 which states that; "(1) If in the district of a local government - …

(a).... (b) in the case of land comprising a private road constructed and

maintained to the satisfaction of the local government -

(i) the holder of the freehold in that land applies to the local government, requesting it to do so; or

(ii) …;or

(c) land comprises a private road of which the public has had

uninterrupted use for a period of not less than 10 years, and that land is described in a plan of survey, sketch plan or document, the local government may request the Minister to dedicate that land as a road." Section 56 (1) (c) of the Land Administration Act 1997 also applies as the public have had uninterrupted use of the private road for over ten (10) years. COMMENTS The subject land is utilised as through roads linking the public roadway sections as detailed below, providing access to the adjoining properties.

The whole of Newbold Street is privately owned and provides a link to the public roadway of Watkins Road to the north and Samson Street to the south.

Lot 66 Pass Crescent is a privately owned lot located in the centre of dedicated portions of Pass Crescent to the east and west. Lot 66 also provides a link to Deering Street to the south. The western portion of Pass Crescent provides access to the South Fremantle Senior High School.

The City of Fremantle Infrastructure Services has confirmed that both private roads have been continuously maintained by the City and utilised by the public for a period in excess of twenty (20) years. The sections of private road appear consistent with other public roads within the City. Therefore Infrastructure Services has no objections to the proposed dedication of the whole of Newbold Street, White Gum Valley and the undedicated portion (Lot 66) of Pass Crescent, Beaconsfield. Both private roads have infrastructure located within the subject areas. The following assets are located within the roads: Western Power overhead power lines and distribution cables, Gas lines, Water Corporation sewer pipes, connections and access chambers together with a water hydrant. The dedication of the private roads to public roads will provide the associated public utility services with legal and unrestricted access to maintain their respective assets.


Page 69

CONCLUSION

The City's Infrastructure Services has reported that the subject private roads are currently maintained by the City and are considered to be in an acceptable order to approve the proposed dedication as public road.

The City has received an application from the owner of the private roads being the Department of Housing, asking that the subject land be dedicated as public roadway.

The public have received in excess of twenty (20) years uninterrupted use of the private roads.

The proposed dedication will correctly formalise the land as public road and ensure that appropriate traffic legislation can be enforced.

The subject private roads are currently maintained by the City of Fremantle - therefore to formalise the roads as public roadway will not result in increased costs for the City to budget.

It is therefore recommended that Council apply to the Department of Lands and request the dedication of the subject portions of private roadway. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. APPROVE the proposed dedication of two (2) parcels of privately owned road as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1128 Folio 769 being Lot 150 on Plan 6107 and Certificate of Title Volume 1006 Folio 848 being Lot 66 on Plan 226118 and Diagram 32399, as public roads.

2. APPLY to the Department of Lands requesting the dedication of the land

described in point 1 in accordance with Section 56 (1) (b) (i) of the Land Administration Act 1997 including compliance with Section 56 (1) (c) of the Land Administration Act 1997


Page 70

PSC1405-92 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGE DEVELOPMENTS - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: 22 May 2013 PSC1305-73 and 27 November 2013

PSC1311-169 Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on amendment No. 42 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’ or ‘Scheme’) during the consultation period and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment without modification. The purpose of the Scheme amendment is to introduce into LPS4 the requirement for a registered architect to design large developments over 11 metres in height and in all zones other than the Residential and Industrial zone. It is considered the amendment will strengthen the City of Fremantle’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form in large developments. Scheme amendment No. 42 was initiated by Council in November 2013 for public consultation and advertised for public comment from 28 January 2014 to 14 March 2014 (46 days). 66 submissions were received during the public advertising period. 30 of the submissions support the amendment and 34 submissions object to the amendment, with submissions making neutral comment. The submissions in support of the amendment generally commend the City for the design initiative. The majority of the submissions that object to the amendment state that the amendment is a restriction on trade and alternative options to improve design would be preferred. BACKGROUND

To further strengthen the City’s approach and commitment to quality design and improve the level of building design provided in development applications viewed by the Design Advisory Committee (DAC), Council considered principles on which to base an amendment to LPS4 that would require large new developments to be designed by a registered architect, similar to a requirement in New South Wales’ (NSW) State Planning Policy State Environment Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). Council supported the following principles at its Ordinary Meeting 22 May 2013 (refer PSC1305-73): 1. Require a registered architect to design “large developments”;


Page 71

2. “Large developments” are the same developments as those required to be assessed by the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) e.g.11 metres of height or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones; and

3. The amendment is to include a sunset clause to ensure trial and monitoring of the provisions.

Following Council support for the above principles of a scheme amendment, Officers from the City of Fremantle and the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia met with officers from the Department of Planning (DoP). A briefing paper on the principles of the amendment was presented and DoP indicated preliminary support. Consequently, the City’s officers progressed with the drafting of the amendment in consultation with the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia and Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting meeting on the 27 November 2013, to adopt Scheme amendment No. 42 for public comment. For more information on the background of this Scheme amendment please see the 22 May and 27 November 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council minutes (PSC1305-73 and PSC1311-169). CONSULTATION

The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Following this confirmation from the EPA the proposed Scheme amendment was advertised in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals and Town Planning Regulations 1967 for public comment from 28 January 2014 to 14 March 2014 (46 days), with an advertisement placed in the Fremantle Gazette for two consecutive weeks. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, interested parties and key agencies were also specifically notified and copies of the amendment documents were made available for viewing at the customer service counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. A total of 66 submissions were received. The following table provides an overview of the levels of support, objection or otherwise to the amendment:

Level of support for amendment Number of submissions

Support 30

Object 34

No objection/neutral comment 2

Total 66

For the most part the submissions in support of the amendment were received from registered architects, related industry bodies or similar and the submissions objecting to the amendment were received from building designers, related industry bodies or similar. See attachment 1 for a full summary of submissions.


Page 72

Summary of Submissions General comments in support The submissions in support of the amendment commend and congratulate Council on the initiative and some also express a hope that more local governments follow the City of Fremantle’s lead. Several of the submissions mention the success of similar provisions in New South Wales’ SEPP65, stating that this policy has improved the quality of residential development in NSW and resulted in a significant positive effect on the quality of life for residents without detrimentally affecting housing affordability or choice. Scope of the amendment 1. Several submissions in support suggest further modification to the amendment including:

broadening the amendment to require a registered architect to design development of two or more storeys in all zones and/or

expanding the amendment to include developments in residential zones. 2. One submission suggests rewording the amendment to require a “registered architectural practice to design” instead of “Registered Architect”. 3. Many of the submissions in objection to the amendment support the need for considering improved and greater design control, but suggest better quality of design could be achieved by increased competition and design scrutiny within the approval process, not through restricting trade to registered architects. Requirement for a registered architect The general response presented in the submissions in support of the amendment is that the profession’s required registration under the Architects Act of Western Australia which includes the requirements of a tertiary qualification, continued professional development and public indemnity insurance, provides an assured high level of design skill that other building design professions do not. Several of the submissions in objection to the amendment raise the point that being a registered architect does not guarantee a high level of design skill. These submissions question the assumption that architects have a superior education and provide a superior service and better outcome. Alternatively, these submissions stress that building designers are as good as architects at designing buildings that look and feel good, work well and are constructed on time and budget. Other submissions against the amendment note that education is only one factor that ensures good design; the individual’s experience and the client’s expectations are key factors in influencing good design outcomes.


Page 73

Restriction on trade The submissions objecting to the amendment state that the amendment would be a restriction of trade to building designers and denigrate the many award winning Building Designers that currently undertake this type of work. One submission included examples of larger developments in WA undertaken by building designers including:

Bon Ton Resort

Zeebar Wine Bar

Beaches resort

Eco Resort

BP refinery laboratory, administration building, medical centre, security building and cafeteria

One submission states that the amendment contravenes the Trade Practices Act and does not comply with the Fair Trading Laws of WA. Selection of comments from the submissions Comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

The City of Fremantle will be bypassed by investors due, in part, to inflexible and impractical approaches to planning regulation miss out on significant investment in office, retail, and tourism infrastructure.

The amendment would push up costs for developments in Fremantle.

This would establish a requirement that does not exist elsewhere in WA, making it less attractive for construction companies who engage in-house design teams to be active in Fremantle.

The amendment adds to bureaucratic “red tape” requirements with flimsy evidence from NSW as the basis for the unwarranted change.

The client is generally responsible for a badly designed building and just as many bad buildings are designed by architects.

Quality of design is up to the individual and council, not qualifications. Comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

We live in a society where professional requirement are standard and accepted. Doctors, lawyers, require minimum certification requirements, and almost every professional discipline requires formal certification – from plumbers, carpenters and all trades, to mechanics, to engineers, to accountants to air-conditioner installers. Yet in the context of designing a 20 million dollar building, integrated into a highly historic and cultural community context such as Fremantle, with all of the skills and risk associated - we are seemingly comfortable with the notion that literally anyone has can submit their ‘architectural’ proposals.

This is timely and will most certainly improve the urban environment. Giving those most qualified and interested in built form and design, the legitimate ability to affect those outcomes.

The amendment will improve built form outcomes, bring a greater level of creative expression and improve the ‘quality of life’ of people choosing to live in a higher density format.


Page 74

PLANNING COMMENT

The City of Fremantle is committed to strengthening its planning framework to enhance the quality and amenity of new development and the built environment. The provisions of this proposed amendment are based on New South Wales’ Department of Planning and Infrastructure state planning design policy SEPP 65 that requires a qualified designer (registered architect) to design large residential flat developments. The policy has been demonstrated to improve the quality and amenity of such buildings in NSW. Accordingly Scheme amendment No. 42 proposes inserting the following clauses after 9.2 ‘Accompanying Material’ into LPS4. 9.3 Additional material - Registered Architect Requirements. 9.3.1 Where a development application would require referral to the City’s Design

Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 the application must additionally be accompanied by:

a) a statutory declaration, made by a Registered Architect (as defined in the Architects Act 2004) that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development; and

b) a design statement addressing the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3.

9.3.2 The provisions of clause 9.3.1 shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

The introduction of clause 9.3.1 into LPS4 will result in additional material being required to be submitted as part of a planning application when the proposal also requires referral to the City’s Design Advisory Committee as per clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 (i.e. any proposed development 11 metres in height or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones). The additional material includes a statutory declaration that a Registered Architect designed or directed the design of the development, and a design statement explaining how the proposal addresses principles of good design set out in clause 11.8.6.3. The amendment also includes a ‘sunset clause’, which means the provisions, once gazetted, would cease after five years in recognition that at this stage the initiative is proposed on a trial basis. Addressing the main submission points The scope of the amendment 1. Several of the submissions suggest broadening the scope of the proposed amendment provisions to include smaller developments (e.g. two storey) or developments in the Residential zone. Including smaller developments or developments in the Residential zone into the scope of this amendment would not be in keeping with the intent of the amendment and could unduly restrict practitioners involved in designing smaller developments in Fremantle. Similar to SEPP 65, the underlying intent of the proposed amendment is to improve the design of large developments in the City of Fremantle on the basis that the majority of these large developments will be located in key redevelopment areas (e.g. the city centre zone and ‘east end’) and the buildings will be dominant within the public sphere and


Page 75

contribute to the City’s activity centre built fabric. Therefore to ensure good built form, relevant expertise and experience is essential when designing these developments. Comparatively, the same level of expertise and experience, although useful, is not considered necessary for the design of smaller development types in less high profile locations. Smaller residential development is also subject to well defined and specific design criteria in planning policies (e.g. the Residential Design Codes). Accordingly, officers do not support this submission point. 2. One submission suggests rewording the amendment to require a “registered architectural practice to design” instead of “Registered Architect”. The reason for this suggestion is to ensure that developments are being designed by a company led by registered architects and not by a drafting company or building design company employing an architect. The purpose of the amendment, however, is not to restrict building companies from employing registered architects either for individual projects or as part of their staff. On the contrary, if this approach provides better design and built form outcomes the City would encourage such initiatives. Therefore, this submission point is not supported as it is considered unduly restrictive and outside of the intent of the proposed amendment. Additionally, building designers can become registered architects, where they prove they have sufficient experience (see discussion below on registered architects). 3. The majority of the submissions against the amendment advocate for greater design control as an alternative to requiring a registered architect to design large developments. Adding an additional layer of design control is not considered a suitable approach to the design of large developments in the city. The City already uses a bundle of design initiatives to promote good building design in large developments including design requirements in the City’s LPS4 and applicable Local Planning Policies and State Planning Policies. The City also has a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) which advises on matters associated with the design quality of any proposed building development 11 metres or greater in height in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones (refer to clause11.8 of LPS4). The proposed amendment is considered to complement these existing design initiatives while providing flexibility and allowing for innovation and design creativity. Further prescribed design controls would not allow for this same flexibility or innovation and for this reason officers do not support this alternative approach. It is also relevant to note that a sunset clause is included in the proposed scheme amendment that would ensure review of the provisions after five years. As the provisions would be a first for the planning system in Western Australia, this clause would give the City an opportunity to review and assess real data and situations that arise from working with the provisions after they have been in force for five years. Potential modification to the scope of the provisions, or their withdrawal, would be more appropriately considered at this stage once it is certain whether the provisions are working as intended and if they are achieving their objectives of facilitating good design. Requirement for a registered architect Many of the submissions in objection to the proposed amendment object to the requirement that only registered architects would be able to design large developments in the City of Fremantle.


Page 76

The percentage of all applications for large scale development received by the City that are designed by building designers is not significant (estimated at 5-10%) and therefore the impact of the amendment provisions upon the design work available to non-registered architects would be minimal. Officers acknowledge that there are some highly competent building designers who are not registered architects, and that the design of a development by a registered architect does not necessarily guarantee a high quality of design from the outset and input from the DAC to improve the design of the development may well still be required. Nevertheless officers consider that registered architects are inherently more likely to possess the required experience and expertise to design large and complex developments as a result of the requirements that must be met in order to become a registered architect (these include at least 5 years of design oriented tertiary education or a minimum of seven years relevant work experience in architecture or related fields with three of these years in an architect’s office, 3000 hours work under the supervision of a registered architect, and ongoing continuing professional development requirements). The operation of similar requirements in NSW since 2002 under SEPP 65 does appear to have delivered a demonstrable improvement in the quality, design and amenity of large scale residential buildings in NSW. Restriction on trade A main point of objection to the amendment is that it would restrict the trade of building designers by only allowing registered architects to design large developments. As stated above, officers consider the proposed amendment provisions would not significantly impact on design work available to building designers. Building designers submit few applications for large developments to the City of Fremantle. Instead building designers lodge the majority of “small development” (single house and commercial building) applications received by the City. If the amendment is approved building designers/non registered architects can continue to carry out this type of design work, including all development in the Residential and Industrial zones and all development under 11m in height, which makes up the majority of applications received by the City. Additionally, there is scope for a building designer to become a registered architect where they can demonstrate they have had sufficient experience in the field. Therefore officers consider the amendment requirements would not have an unreasonably restrictive impact upon the trade undertaken by building designers. In light of the suggestion in some submissions that the proposed requirements may contravene legislation dealing with restrictive trade practices and fair trading, officers have obtained legal advice on this matter. The relevant legislation is the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2001 (the CCA) and the State of Western Australia’s Fair Trading Act 2010 (the FTA). The advice received unequivocally states that the proposed scheme amendment does not contravene either the CCA or the FTA. The only potentially relevant provisions in the CCA are those in Part IV which deal with cartels. However these provisions apply to the City only to the extent that it carries on a business either directly or by an incorporated company in which it has a controlling interest. The advice states that the undertaking of an inherent function of government, such as regulatory functions, is not considered to be a trading activity or the carrying on of a business. The making of planning regulations by the City is an inherent function of government and therefore is not considered to constitute the carrying out of a business. On this basis the restrictive trade provisions in Part IV of the CCA do not apply and are therefore not contravened. The FTA does not contain any equivalent provisions (either in its express terms or by reference) and therefore the City has been advised that the proposed amendment does not in any way contravene the FTA.


Page 77

CONCLUSION This proposed amendment is a design initiative to increase the quality of building design in major developments within Fremantle. It seeks to strengthen the City’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form. The submissions received raise issues around the scope of the amendment, the registered architect requirement and the potential of the amendment to restrict trade. In the view of officers the points made in the submissions do not warrant any modifications to the amendment. Therefore it is recommended that Council resolve to adopt Scheme Amendment No. 42 to LPS4 without modification. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 considers the submissions in Attachment 1 – Schedule of Submissions; and

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

Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolves to adopt without modification Amendment No. 42 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

A. Inserting the following clauses after 9.2 accompanying material. 9.3 Additional material - Registered Architect Requirements. 9.3.1 Where a development application would require referral to the City’s Design

Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 the application must additionally be accompanied by: a) a statutory declaration, made by a Registered Architect (as defined in

the Architects Act 2004) that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development; and

b) a design statement addressing the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3.

9.3.2 The provisions of clause 9.3.1 shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

B. Renumbering the existing clauses 9.3 Additional Material for Heritage Matters

through to 9.5 Public Inspection of Applications accordingly. 3. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the

relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.

4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 42 as referred to in (2) above.


Page 78

PSC1405-93 FINAL ADOPTION OF DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITE

DataWorks Reference: 117/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 May 2014 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1311-171 Attachments: Officer’s initial report (PSC1311-171) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of Local Planning Policy 1.10– Construction Sites. The draft policy which was adopted for advertising by Council on 27 November 2014 was advertised in accordance with the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3. One submission was received in response to the draft policy, however no changes are recommended as a result of the submission. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt Local Planning Policy 1.10 in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. BACKGROUND At its ordinary meeting on 27 November 2014, Council resolved to adopt for the purpose of public advertising the City’s draft Local Planning Policy 1.10 – Construction Sites. For more information please refer to Ordinary meeting of Council minutes 27 November 2014 - PSC 1311-171 (attached to this report) CONSULTATION The draft policy was advertised in accordance with clause 2.4 of LPS4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The City’s precinct groups were also notified and copies of the policy made available for viewing at the customer service counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. One submission was received in response to the draft policy during the advertising period (transcript attached). COMMENT The submission raises a number of points regarding the need for prioritisation of pedestrian and cyclist facilities in developments, both in terms of reinstatement of temporary facilities after development/road works and the initial planning and design of facilities by developers and the City. The City supports the overall sentiment of the submission and considers that LPP 1.10 adequately addresses the concerns raised in the submission with regard to construction sites.


Page 79

LPP 1.10 was developed in response to a greater need for protection of public areas impacted by development, particularly large developments such as those planned for key sites in the eastern part of the CBD (please see original report PSC 1311-171). A key consideration in the development of the policy was the need to minimise disruption to the normal use of pedestrian and cyclist facilities as well as the protection of vulnerable road users around construction sites. Prior to the development of the policy, the City noted a number of instances where inner CBD development unduly impacted upon the normal use and safety of pedestrian facilities due to the failure of developers/builders to provide suitable temporary facilities for pedestrians. LPP 1.10 includes a number of requirements specifically targeted at improving the harmony between development sites and pedestrian/cyclist facilities including – footpaths are not permitted for construction related activities (3.6); footpaths affected by works are to be protected via overhead protective structures (7.1); hoardings/fences must not encroach onto footpaths more than 500mm (6.2); infrastructure must be protected and reinstated if damaged (4.1&4.4); the city may charge a bond against damage to a footpath (4.2); footpaths are to be maintained in a safe condition at all times (16.1); safe pedestrian access is to be maintained over temporary crossings (16.2); and where footpaths are required to be disrupted for construction related activities AS 1742.3 must be complied with(16.3). Unlike current road reserve requirements for development sites administered by the City under the Local Government Act 1995, LPP 1.10 requirements will form a planning condition of approval for significant construction sites and will be required to be implemented from the outset of development and not merely as an afterthought. It must be noted that when considering the content of the submission that the scope of LPP1.10 is limited to pedestrian/cyclist facilities affected by ‘construction sites’ (as defined under the policy). It does not extend to facilities affected by other works (i.e. road works), the design or development of new facilities or any needs assessment in relation to new facilities or current facilities. With regard to facilities not associated with construction sites and temporary pedestrian facilities associated with road works or similar works, these are regulated under the Local Government Act 1995, subsidiary legislation made under the Act, Main Roads WA legislation and the City’s thoroughfares local law which is currently under review. CONCLUSION The submission raises a number of relevant points regarding the importance of maintaining safe and adequate pedestrian/cyclist facilities and the prioritisation of such facilities. The City supports the overall sentiment of the submission; however the scope of LPP 1.10 extends only to pedestrian/cyclist facilities affected by construction sites (as defined under the policy). The City considers that LPP 1.10 adequately addresses the impact of construction sites on pedestrian and cyclist facilities and enables the City to take appropriate action where requirements are not met by developers/builders. On this basis, the City does not recommend changes to the draft policy originally adopted for advertising by Council.


Page 80

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That Council:

1. Adopts Local Planning Policy 1.10 – Construction Sites (as below) in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

CITY OF FREMANTLE

DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 1.10

CONSTRUCTION SITES INTRODUCTION Construction sites can impact upon the amenity of the surrounding locality and must be properly managed to preserve a safe and healthy environment for residents, workers and visitors to Fremantle. This policy recognises the need to balance the interests of the Fremantle public with that of the property development industry. SCOPE This policy applies to construction sites where there is limited capacity to contain construction related activities on site. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are:-

To reduce the impacts of construction sites on the occupants of adjacent sites and nearby sensitive land uses;

To maintain and safe and pleasant inner City environment for the public;

To assist developers of large scale residential and commercial buildings understand the City's expectations with regard to construction site management;

To protect road reserve infrastructure that could be damaged as a result of construction related activities;

DEFINITIONS “AS” means Australian standard “Builder” means the builder whose name appears on a building permit issued by the City under the Building Act 2011. “Construction and demolition waste” means waste resulting from the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of a building and includes liquid wastes. “Construction related activities” means activities within the road reserve relating to the construction, demolition, alteration or repair of a building. “Construction site” means the lot or land on which construction or demolition works or earthworks are being carried out. “Construction work” has the same meaning given to it in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997


Page 81

“Gantry” means an overhead structure used in conjunction with scaffolds and elevated work platforms to provide over head and side protection to a walkway. “Hoarding” means a temporary structure erected around a construction site to separate the site from adjoining land. “Infrastructure” means all structures, kerbs, signs, furniture, surfaces, soil and vegetation within the road reserves and includes underground and overhead services. “Street tree” means a tree within the road reserve and includes shrubs exceeding one metre in height. “Waste receptacle” includes a skip bin, commercial bulk rubbish container, and household waste or recycling bin of capacity 240L or greater or other suitable receptacle designed to receive and contain wastes. POLICY 1.0 Legal implications 1.1 The requirements of this policy are the minimum standards for construction

sites (may also be referred to as “site or “sites”) captured within the scope of this policy. Permits traditionally issued by the City in relation to the use of the road reserve are not required for construction sites captured under this policy provided the requirements of this policy are met.

1.2 Where an applicant is able to demonstrate that a requirement of this policy cannot be reasonably met, i.e. due to special circumstances, the City may approve a variation to any requirement of this policy. Any departure from the requirements of this policy without express written permission from the City may result in prosecution against liable parties.

1.3 Compliance with this policy is not a substitute for compliance with other laws. A person carrying out building work is responsible for obtaining all necessary consents or permits.

2.0 Documentation required

2.1 All gantries and hoardings are to be structurally certified by a “Professional

Engineer” as defined by part A1 (INTERPRETATION) of volume one of the current National Construction Code with written certification being forwarded to the City prior to any overhead work being commenced on the site.

2.2 Any changes to gantries and hoardings during the construction period of the site are to be approved by a "Professional Engineer".

2.3 Before commencing work within or above the road reserve; including but not limited to excavations, erection of structures and signs, storage of materials and dewatering operations, the builder or responsible contractor must obtain a public liability insurance policy noting the City of Fremantle as an interested party, with cover of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) and indemnifying the City against any claim for damages.

General requirements for construction sites 3.0 Parking bays for construction related activities

3.1 The City will allocate all parking bays within the limits of the street frontage of

the site, for the term of construction for construction related activities


Page 82

including deliveries and storage of materials, skip bins, site offices and contractor parking.

3.2 Where there are no parking bays adjacent to a site, an application may be made to the City to use a part of the road or a loading zone for construction related activities.

3.3 The perimeter of the allocated area is to be fenced to height of minimum 1.8m with visually permeable fencing (e.g. temporary fencing) which should not encroach more than 500mm onto a footpath and in any case a minimum effective footpath width of 1.2m is to be maintained.

3.4 The fencing must not impede pedestrian/traffic sightlines and must be illuminated so as to be clearly visible from the hours between sunset and sunrise.

3.5 Parking bay hire fees will apply at commercial rates in accordance with the City's Fees and Charges Schedule in fee paying locations.

3.6 No storage of materials or equipment is permitted outside of the allocated area.

3.7 Use of the area must not impede the movement of pedestrians or road users.

4.0 Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve

4.1 All reasonable care must be taken during the term of construction to protect infrastructure (see definition) within the road reserve.

4.2 A bond shall be paid to the City in accordance with the City's Fees and Charges Schedule in respect to the protection of infrastructure within the road reserve prior to the commencement of works.

4.3 Where it is essential to relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the City may remove or relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve at the builder’s cost to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site.

4.4 Any damage to infrastructure within the road reserve as a result of construction related activities shall be made good by the builder within a time specified by the City. In the event, that the builder fails make good any damage, the City may carry out such repairs as necessary and recover all appropriate costs from the builder.

5.0 Street trees

5.1 Street trees are considered assets to the City that contribute to the wellbeing

of the community and the natural environment. Street trees shall be protected during all phases of development in accordance with AS4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

5.2 Where a tree or part of a tree is required to be removed to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the removal or pruning of trees shall not be undertaken except by the City’s staff or City contractor.

5.3 Street tree removal shall be assessed by the City in accordance with the City’s street tree policy.

5.4 If a tree is damaged during development works then any pruning, removal and/or replacement costs shall be at the expense of the land owner.

5.5 Where trees are authorised for removal as part of a development application, the land owner shall fund the full cost of the tree removal and pay for the cost


Page 83

of two replacement trees on the verge of the property the following planting season.

6.0 Security fencing around construction sites

6.1 All construction sites are required to be secured and fenced to a height of 2.1m

-2.4m. In some instances, the City may require a solid barrier such as a hoarding around a construction site in the interests of preserving the amenity of the surrounding area.

6.2 A fence or hoarding must not encroach more than 500mm onto the road reserve.

6.3 A fence or hoarding must not obstruct pedestrian and motorist sightlines and must be clearly visible during the hours between sunset and sunrise.

6.4 All fencing and hoardings are to be maintained to a high standard at all times. 7.0 Gantries

7.1 Where scaffolding is erected upon or above a footpath, a suitably designed

overheard gantry and protective barrier (scaffold side) shall be provided along the length of the scaffold to protect pedestrians from falling objects.

7.2 A minimum width of 1.2 metres and a headroom clearance of at least 2.40 metres are required for pedestrian access.

7.3 Gantries shall be setback a minimum of 750mm from the kerb and designed so as not to collapse or cause injury to any person when subjected to vehicular impact.

7.4 Gantries shall incorporate a continuous guardrail fixed between columns 800mm above the footpath and incorporate adequate overhead lighting for pedestrians.

7.5 On narrow footpaths where a gantry setback and 1.2 metre footpath width cannot be achieved, the City may approve an alternative arrangement.

8.0 Access to site by construction vehicles

8.1 All vehicle crossings to a construction site are required to be separated from

any infrastructure within the road reserve by (a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of street trees; (b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management

devices, parking embayments or street furniture), and (c) a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

directional signs. 8.2 Upon application, the City may consider approval to a lesser distance in cases

where: (a) no practical alternative location is available for the crossover, and (b) the infrastructure/tree is not damaged by the proposal, and (c) safe and adequate traffic sight distances are maintained.

9.0 Contact Details

9.1 In addition to the requirements of the Building Services (Registration)

Regulations 2011, the following details shall be displayed prominently on the site:


Page 84

(a) The name of the main contractor or builder; (b) Name of company responsible for structures over the street; (c) Contact telephone numbers; (d) Site address; and, (e) Expected completion date of construction

10.0 Site offices

10.1 Where it is not possible to situate a site office on a construction site, a site

office may be situated within the allocated parking area or on a suitably designed gantry structure.

10.2 Upon application, the City may approve a site office in an alternative location. Environmental Management 11.0 Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries 11.1 Construction work is limited to the following hours:

Monday to Saturday: 7:00am – 7:00pm;

Sundays and Public Holidays: no work permitted. 11.2 Deliveries to the site shall occur without disruption to the surrounding

locality. Any deliveries to the site outside of these hours shall comply with the neighbourhood noise limits imposed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

11.3 The City cannot permit construction work outside of permitted hours unless an application is made in writing to the CEO in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Construction work outside of permitted hours shall not unreasonably impact upon the surrounding locality.

12.0 Sand drift and dust management

12.1 Any activities likely to generate sand drift or dust; including but not limited to

demolition, earthworks and the cutting or sawing of materials, shall be conducted in a manner that minimises the generation and movement of sand or dust off the site.

12.2 Sand and dust shall not be permitted to accumulate in excessive amounts on the road reserve adjoining the site.

13.0 Waste management

13.1 Except for allocated parking bays (see 3.0), the road reserve adjoining

construction sites is to be maintained free from rubbish and construction and demolition wastes including liquid wastes at all times.

13.2 All wastes generated on site are to be contained in waste receptacles which are to be emptied as required.

13.3 Suitable measures are required to prevent waste blowing out of receptacles during windy conditions, e.g. the use of lids or relocation of bins to protected areas of the site.

14.0 Dewatering


Page 85

14.1 Dewatering of a site shall not occur without approval from the City. 15.0 Traffic management

15.1 Any disruption to traffic movement involving lane closures, deviation of

vehicles from their normal progress or path, or other complex traffic arrangements requires a traffic management plan to be prepared by a person accredited by Main Roads WA in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia’s Traffic Management for Events and or Works on Roads Code of Practice and AS1742.3.

15.2 A traffic management plan shall be submitted to the City's Technical Services section at least 21 days prior to the date of the traffic disruption to allow advertising to occur.

16.0 Works affecting pedestrian areas 16.1 Whether a footpath is present or not, portions of the road reserve adjacent to

construction sites are to be maintained in a safe condition at all times. 16.2 Temporary crossings to building sites shall be constructed in a manner that

enables the safe passage of pedestrians over the crossing. 16.3 Where interference or obstruction to the normal use of a footpath occurs or is

planned to occur, appropriate traffic control devices/signs complying with the requirements of AS 1742.3 are to be provided in appropriate locations to inform and guide users of the footpath safely through, around or past such works.


Page 86

PSC1405-94 FINAL ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014

DataWorks Reference: 010/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 May 2014 Previous Item: PSC1312-188 Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Authority: Planning Services Committee Agenda Attachments: Schedule of submissions

Original report (‘proposed alfresco dining local law 2014 – PSC1312-188)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of the City’s Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014. The draft local law which was endorsed by Council on 18 December 2013 was advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. One submission was received. No modifications to the City’s original version are recommended as a result of this submission. It is therefore recommended that Council note the submission received and adopt the City’s Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 unmodified in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. BACKGROUND

Following a review of the City’s Local Laws relating to outdoor eating areas, Council resolved to adopt for the purpose of public advertising the City’s draft Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 at its Ordinary Meeting on 18 December 2013. For more information on the review please see ordinary meeting of Council minutes 18 December 2013 (PSC 1312-188). CONSULTATION

One submission was received during the advertising period. Please refer to attachment 1 for the full transcript of the submission. The submission agreed with the local law in principle however raised a number of points which are summarised below.

1. The Local Law does not create an offence for the use of alfresco areas without a license.

City’s response: The proposed local law clearly creates an offence for the set up or conduct of an alfresco area without a valid license. Please refer to clause 2.1. This remains unchanged from the previous local law.


Page 87

2. It is necessary to maintain a GRV or location based fee structure in the interests of fairness.

City’s response: This comment does not relate to the content of the advertised local law itself which simply enables the City to charge a fee, but rather the way in which alfresco dining fees are determined by the City. The City considers it unreasonable for adjacent businesses to pay substantially different fees for alfresco dining based on poorly administered GRV rates. A greater level of fairness and uniformity has been introduced by charging businesses a location based fee for their annual licence, calculated per square metre of alfresco dining space. The City charges $94.00 per square metre for inner CBD locations, $62.50 for outer CBD locations and $31.50 for non CBD locations. The City's alfresco dining licence fee structure can be reviewed annually as part of the City's budget process because the fee structure is listed in the Fees and Charges Schedule.

3. There is a need to state in no uncertain terms that the public are entitled to access to public alfresco dining areas.

City’s response: Clause 4.5 of the Local law was specifically included at the request of Council to ensure that the public are afforded unrestricted access to alfresco dining areas (other than those located on private land). The City considers the current wording to be appropriate.

4. Chairs and tables are frequently situated outside of licensed areas and that penalties should exist for the conduct of alfresco areas outside of demarcated areas.

City’s response: Under the proposed local law it is an offence to conduct an alfresco area other than within the licensed area. Infringement provisions also apply to this. The City will continue to monitor for compliance with this requirement and respond to any complaints or concerns accordingly.

COMMENT

As noted in the original Council item PSC 1312-188 – ‘Proposed alfresco dining local law 2014’, the key changes proposed for the City’s revised local law are as follows:

- Definition of ‘eating house’ replaced with ‘food business’. This now encompasses licensed premises which were not previously captured under the previous Health Act 1911 definition;

- The complicated GRV fee structure has been removed from the local laws and replaced with a simple fee structure in the City's annual fees and charges schedule calculated per m2 of alfresco floor area;

- Infringement notice provisions for prescribed offences (rather than having to pursue non compliances solely though the court process);

- Appeal provisions for applicants as per the Local Government Act; and - Removal of unnecessarily onerous procedural content from the local laws.

The City considers that the revised local law will markedly improve the administration of alfresco dining requirements and will enable simpler enforcement pathways with respect to compliance of alfresco dining areas.


Page 88

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial Nil. Legal The City must follow the local law adoption procedure as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995. Operational The proposed local law will improve and simplify the current application, assessment and licensing process for outdoor eating areas as well as providing improved enforcement pathways for City officers. Organisational The proposed local laws will serve as a standalone law to manage the use of City land for alfresco dining. The City has a number of other policies and local laws that relate to activities in the road reserve and these will continue to be enforced by relevant business units. CONCLUSION

The City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014 is a significant improvement to the current local laws and will serve to support the City’s strategic vision and simplify management of alfresco dining areas. The City has prepared a modern and relevant local law that seeks to achieve greater flexibility for business proprietors as well as simplifying the approvals and compliance procedures for City officers. The City considers the proposed local law to represent best practice for the management of City owned/managed space for dining and other compatible uses. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015

Strategic Imperative 1 – Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity Strategic Imperative 2 - Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The City has advertised the local law in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required


Page 89


1. That Council agree to adopt the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014

for publication in the Government Gazette.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

CITY OF FREMANTLE

ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 Under the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1995 and under all other powers enabling it, the Council of the City of Fremantle resolved on 18 December 2013 to make the following Local Law. PART 1 – PRELIMINARY 1.1 Citation This local law may be cited as the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014. 1.2 Commencement

(1) This local law comes into operation 14 days after the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.

1.3 Purpose and effect

(1) The purpose of the local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of alfresco dining areas in any public place within the district.

(2) The effect of this local law is to control alfresco areas so that they do not interfere with the safe and reasonable movement of pedestrians and vehicles as well as to encourage high quality alfresco dining to enhance amenity, vitality and ambience of the city.

1.4 Repeal The following local laws are repealed on the day that this local law comes into operation –

(1) City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas as published in the Government Gazette on 6 May 1998.

1.5 Transitional A licence issued in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas -

(a) is to be taken to be a licence granted under this local law; (b) is to be valid for the period specified in the license; and (c) may be earlier cancelled or suspended under this local law.

1.6 Application This local law applies throughout the district. 1.7 Interpretations In this local law, unless the context otherwise requires –


Page 90

“Act” means the Local Government Act 1995; “alfresco dining area” means an area in which tables, chairs and other structures are provided for the purpose of the supply of food or beverages or both to the public or the consumption of food or beverages or both by the public; “alfresco dining” means outdoor dining or drinking or both in a public place; “authorised person” means the CEO or any other person authorised by the City under section 9.10 of the Act to be an authorised person for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this local law; “CEO” means the Chief Executive Officer of the City; “City” means the City of Fremantle; “City property” means anything except a thoroughfare –

(a) which belongs to the City; (b) of which the City is the management body under the Land Administration

Act 1997; or (c) which is an “otherwise unvested facility” within section 3.53 of the Act;

“Council” means the Council of the City of Fremantle; “district” means the district of the City of Fremantle; “food business” has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; “fee” means a fee or charge imposed under sections 6.16 to 6.19 of the Act; “furniture” means chairs, tables, waiter’s stations, planter boxes, umbrellas, screens, barriers, awnings, portable gas heaters and any other structure set up in the alfresco dining area; “Health Act” means the Health Act 1911; “licence” means a licence issued by the City under this local law to set up and conduct an alfresco dining area; “licence period” means the period referred to in clause 2.9; “licence plan” means a plan attached to and forming part of a licence depicting the parts of a street or public place within which an alfresco dining area may be set up and conducted; “licensee” means a proprietor of a food business who holds a valid licence; “Liquor Control Act” means the Liquor Control Act 1988; “local public notice” has the meaning given to it in section 1.7 of the Act; “month” means calendar month; “public place” means any thoroughfare, pedestrian mall or City property; “proprietor” has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; “Regulations” means the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; “utility” means any public or private body which provides an essential service, such as electricity, gas, water, drainage, sewerage, telecommunications or traffic control, and has equipment on, in or under a public place for that purpose; “valid”, in relation to a licence issues under this local law, means current and for which all the associated fees have been paid in full; and “vehicle crossing” means a crossing used by vehicles to allow access from a thoroughfare to private land or a private thoroughfare. PART 2 - LICENCE 2.1 Licence required Unless exempt under clause 2.2, a person shall not set up or conduct an alfresco dining area in any public place –

(a) other than in a portion of a public place adjoining a food business;


Page 91

(b) unless the person is the proprietor of a food business or is acting on behalf of the proprietor of a food business referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) unless the person is the holder of a valid licence issued under this local law; and

(d) other than in accordance with the licence plan and any terms and conditions set out in, or applying in respect of, the licence.

2.2 Exemptions

(1) The city may exempt a person or class of persons in writing from the requirement to have a licence.

(2) Any exemption in subclause (1) may be exercised- (a) on the application of a person; or (b) at the City’s discretion.

(3) An exemption in subclause (1) may be given subject to any conditions the

City sees fit. (4) An exemption may apply to, or in respect of –

(a) a particular event, street festival, carnival or activity approved by the City;

(b) particular goods or services; or (c) a period of time.

2.3 Application for a licence

(1) A person who is required to obtain a licence under this local law shall apply for the licence in accordance with subclause (2).

(2) An application for a licence under this local law shall- (a) be in the form determined by the City; (b) be signed by the proprietor of a food business adjacent to the portion

of the public place to which the application relates; (c) provide the information required by the form; and (d) be forwarded to the CEO together with any fee imposed and

determined by the City. (3) The City may require an applicant to provide additional information

reasonably related to an application before determining the application. (4) The City may require an applicant to give local public notice of the

application for a licence. (5) The City may refuse to consider an application for a licence which is not in

accordance with subclause (2) or where the applicant has not complied with subclauses (3) or (4).

2.4 Relevant considerations in determining application for licence In determining an application for a licence, the City is to have regard to –

(a) relevant policies of the City; and (b) any other matters that it considers to be relevant.

2.5 Decision on application for licence (1) The City may, in respect of an application for a licence-

(a) approve the application unconditionally or subject to any conditions; or

(b) refuse to approve the application. (2) Without limiting the scope of the City’s discretion under subclause 1(b), the

City may refuse an application for a licence if, in its opinion-


Page 92

(a) the proposed alfresco dining does not conform with the requirements of the Health Act or any other written law;

(b) the proposed alfresco area is undesirable; (c) the proposed furniture is unsuitable, in any respect, to the location in

which the licence is to operate; (d) the proposed licensee has been convicted during the preceding five

years of an offence against – (i) this local law; (ii) the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating

Areas; (iii) the Health Act; (iv) the Liquor Control Act; or (v) any other written law which affects alfresco dining; or

(e) the proposed licensee is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. (3) If the City approves an application for a licence, it is to issue to the applicant

a licence in the form determined by the City. (4) If the City refuses to approve an application for a licence, it is, as soon as

practicable after the decision is made – (a) to give the applicant written notice of, and written reasons for, the

refusal; and (b) inform the applicant of his or her rights, under Part 9, Division 1 of the

Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision. (5) Where a clause of this local law refers to conditions which may be imposed

on a licence of which are to be taken to be imposed on a licence, the clause does not limit the power of the City to impose other conditions on the licence under subclause (1)(a).

(6) Where a clause of this local law refers to the grounds on which an application for a licence may be refused, the clause does not limit the power of the City to refuse, the application for a licence on other grounds under subclause (1)(b).

2.6 Conditions which may be imposed on a licence The City may approve an application for a licence subject to conditions relating to –

(a) the area or location to which the licence applies; (b) the number, type, form and construction, as the case may be, of any

furniture which may be used in the alfresco dining area; (c) the care, maintenance and cleaning of any furniture used in the

alfresco dining area; (d) The removal and storage of furniture used in the alfresco dining area

prior to the closure of the adjacent food business; (e) The requirement to maintain pedestrian access between the alfresco

dining area and the adjacent food business; (f) The alfresco dining area not impeding or obstructing a public place

used by either pedestrians or vehicles; (g) The requirement to maintain clear sight lines for vehicles entering or

leaving a thoroughfare or a vehicle crossing; (h) The obtaining of public risk insurance in an amount and on the terms

reasonably required by the City; (i) The grant of another approval, permit, licence or authorisation which

may be required under any written law; (j) The duration and commencement of the licence;


Page 93

(k) The placement of advertising on furniture within the alfresco dining area;

(l) The payment of all fees, charges, rates and taxes levied or incurred as a result of the establishment and operation of the alfresco dining area;

(m) The payment of costs associated with the City preparing the public place for the use as an alfresco dining area including but not limited to the reshaping of footpaths and marking the boundaries of the alfresco dining area.

2.7 Compliance with conditions Where –

(a) an application for a licence has been approved subject to conditions; or (b) a licence is to be taken to be subject to conditions under this local law,

the licensee shall comply with each of those conditions. 2.8 Amendment of licence conditions

(1) A licensee may apply in writing to the City to amend any of the terms of conditions of the licence.

(2) The City may, in respect of an application under subclause (1) – (i) amend the licence, either in accordance with the application or

otherwise as it sees fit; or (ii) decline to amend the licence.

(3) The City may, at any time, amend any of the terms and conditions of the license.

(4) If the City amends a licence under this clause, it is to notify the licensee in writing of the amendment as soon as practicable after the amendment is made and , unless otherwise specified in the amendment, the amended term or condition, or both, of the licence apply from the date of the notification

(5) If the City amends a licence otherwise than in accordance with an application from the licensee, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision to amend is made –

(i) to give the licensee written notice of, and written reasons for, its decision to amend; and

(ii) inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision.

2.9 Duration of licence A licence is valid for twelve months from the date on which it is issued, unless it is –

(a) otherwise stated in this local law or in the licence; or (b) cancelled under clause 2.12

2.10 Renewal of licence

(1) A licensee may renew the licence by paying the fee imposed and determined by the City.

(2) The provisions of the local law relevant to the license which is to be renewed shall apply, with such modifications as are required, to an application for the renewal of a licence.

2.11 Transfer of licence

(1) An application for the transfer of a valid licence is to –


Page 94

(a) be in the form determined by the City; (b) provide the information required by the form or by any other clause of

this local law; (c) be signed by the licensee and the proposed transferee of the licence:

and (d) be forwarded to the City together with any transfer fee imposed and

determined by the City. (2) The City may refuse to consider or determine an application for the transfer

of a licence, which is not in accordance with subclause (1). (3) The City may approve an application for the transfer of a licence, refuse to

approve it or approve it subject to such terms and conditions as it sees fit, and if it is approved, the proposed transferee shall become the licensee from the date of the approval.

2.12 Cancellation of suspension of licence

(1) A licence may be cancelled by the City on any one or more of the following grounds – (a) the licensee has not complied with –

(i) a condition of the licence; or (ii) a provision of this local law or any other written law which may relate

to the activity regulated by the licence; (b) if it is relevant to the activity regulated by the licence –

(i) the licensee is an undischarged bankrupt, or is in liquidation; (ii) the licensee has entered into a composition arrangement with

creditors; or (iii)a manager, administrator, trustee, receiver, or receiver and manager,

is appointed in relation to any part of the licensee’s undertakings or property;

(c) the proprietor of the food business changes; (d) the setting up or conduct of the alfresco dining area, or the behaviour

of customers within the alfresco dining area, is causing a nuisance. (2) The City may cancel or suspend a licence if the City or a utility requires

access to or near the place to which a licence applies, for the purposes of the carrying out of works in or near the vicinity of that place;

(3) If the City cancels or suspends a license under this clause, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision is made – (a) to give the licensee written notice of, and reasons for, the decision;

and (b) inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the

Act, to object to, and apply for review of, the decision; and (c) the cancellation or suspension takes effect from the date on which the

licensee is served with the cancellation or suspension notice. (4) On the cancellation of a licence, the licensee shall return the licence as

soon as practicable to the City. (5) On the cancellation or suspension of a licence, the licensee is, subject to

subclause (6), to be taken to have forfeited any fees paid in respect of the licence.

(6) Where a licence is cancelled or suspended through no fault of the licensee, the City may refund to the licensee all or part of the license fee in respect of what would otherwise have been the balance of the terms of the licence.

2.13 Display and production of licence


Page 95

(1) A licensee shall produce to an authorised person his or her valid licence immediately on being required to do so by an authorised person.

(2) A licensee shall display his or her valid licence in accordance with the conditions set out in the licence.

PART 3 – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS 3.1 Application of Part 9 Division 1 of the Act

(1) Where the City makes a decision as to whether it will – (a) grant an application for a licence; (b) vary cancel or suspend a licence; or (c) impose or amend a condition to which a licence is subject,

the provisions of Division 1 of Part 9 of the Act and regulation 33 of the Regulations apply to that decision. (2) Under these provisions, an affected person may have the right to object to, or to appeal against, a decision of the City. PART 4 – ENFORCEMENT 4.1 Direction of authorised person to be obeyed

(1) A licensee who is given a lawful direction by an authorised person or a member of the W.A. Police shall comply with that direction.

(2) A licensee shall not obstruct or hinder an authorised person in the performance of that person’s duties.

4.2 Notice to repair damage to public place Where any portion of a public place has been damaged as a result of the use of that public place as an alfresco dining area, the City may, by notice to the licensee, order the licensee to repair or replace that portion of the public place to the satisfaction of the City. 4.3 City may undertake requirements of notice If a person fails to comply with a notice under clause 4.2, the City may do the thing specified in the notice and recover from that person, as a debt, the costs incurred in so doing. 4.4 Removal and impounding of goods Where an alfresco dining area is conducted without a licence or in contravention of a condition of a licence, any furniture may be removed and impounded by an authorised person under regulation 29 of the Regulations. 4.5 Public access No person shall set up or conduct an alfresco dining area that prohibits public access to that area unless that area is located on private land. 4.6 Offences

(1) A person who fails to do anything required or directed to be done under this local law, or who does anything which under this local law that person is prohibited from doing, commits an offence.

(2) An offence against a clause specified in the First schedule of this local law is a prescribed offence for the purposes of section 9.16(1) of the Act.


Page 96

(3) A person who commits an offence under this local law shall be liable, on

conviction – (a) to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 and if the offence is of a continuing

nature, to an additional penalty not exceeding $500 for each day of part of a day during which the offence has continued.

4.7 Infringement and infringement withdrawal notice For the purposes of this local law –

(a) the form of the infringement notice referred to in section 9.17 of the Act is that of Form 2 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations; and

(b) the form of the infringement withdrawal notice referred to in section 9.20 of the Act is that of Form 3 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

4.8 Offence description and Modified Penalty The amount appearing in the final column of the First Schedule directly opposite an offence described in that schedule is the modified penalty for that offence. 4.9 Authorised persons Unless expressly state otherwise by the City, a person appointed by the City to be an authorised person for the purposes of this local law is taken to have also been appointed by the city to be an authorised person for the purposes of sections 9.13 and 9.16 of the Act in relation to offences against this local law. First Schedule City of Fremantle ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 OFFENCES AND MODIFIED PENALTIES

Item No.

Clause No.

Nature of Offence Modified Penalty $

1 2.1 Set up or conduct an alfresco dining area without a valid licence

300

2 2.7 Failure to comply with a condition of licence 100

3 2.13 (1)

Failure to produce to an authorised person a valid licence when requested to do so

100

4 Other offences not specified 100


Page 97

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 98

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6.

No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.


Page 99


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.

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.


Page 100


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.

agenda - city of fremantle...2014/05/21 · psc1405-94 final adoption of proposed alfresco dining...

Documents