minutes - home | city of fremantle · peter nelson jessie liddon rick cameron the following members...

MINUTES

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 3

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PC1709 -2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 240 (LOT 30 AND LOT 31), SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH LOFT (8 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND 2 SHOP TENANCIES) - (CJ DA0238/17) 4

PC1709 -3 WRAY AVENUE, NOS. 13 AND 15 (LOTS 3 AND 4), FREMANTLE - UPPER FLOOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, AND CHANGE OF USE TO RESTAURANT AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS TO TWO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSES - (NB DA0210/17) 28

PC1709 -5 CHARLES STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 10), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CARPORT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0319/17) 42

PC1709 -6 SOLOMON STREET, NO.78 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (JL DA0296/17) 47

PC1709 -7 BOSTOCK STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 35), WHITE GUM VALLEY -TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0235/17) 53

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 59

PC1709 -10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 72 - DAVIS PARK - FINAL ADOPTION 59

PC1709 -11 KNUTSFORD STREET EAST LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENTS - APPROVAL 66

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 75

PC1709 -1 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 116 (LOTS 14 AND 15), FREMANTLE - THIRD STOREY ADDITIONS, SIGNAGE AND ADDITIONAL USES OF OFFICE AND LUNCH BAR TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING - (NB DAP003/17) 75

PC1709 -4 REUBEN STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 4), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE- (CJ DA0275/17) 91

PC1709 -8 LIVINGSTONE STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 29), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (SP DA0326/17) 98

PC1709 -9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 105

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 106

PC1709 -12 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8: FENCES POLICY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 106

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 122

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Committee 6 September 2017

Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

on 6 September 2017 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.04 pm.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Cr Jon Strachan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward (arrived 6:07pm) Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Presiding Member / East Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Beaconsfield Ward Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Office Mr Paul Garbett Director Strategic Planning & Projects Ms Julia Kingsbury Manager Development Approvals Ms Sharn Bruere Acting Manager Strategic Planning Ms Charlie Clarke Manager Governance Ms Louise Ainsworth Strategic Projects Officer Mrs Kayla Beall Minute Secretary There were approximately 35 members of the public and 30 Governance for Planning students from Curtin University in attendance

APOLOGIES

Mayor, Brad Pettitt, Cr Bryn Jones

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil


Page 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge declared a impartiality interest in PC1709-3. The submitter is a family member Cr Jon Strachan declared a impartiality interest in item numbers PC1709 - 1, PC1709 - 2, PC1709 - 3 and PC1709 - 5. Cr Strachan visited the above sites and spoke with Applicant and neighbours.

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-2: Trent Durwood Chris Mainstone The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-2: Chris Mitchelle Nicki Mitchelle Peter Nelson Jessie Liddon Rick Cameron The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-3: Sam Martin Santino The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1704-3: Martin Forsey Salvatori Galati Daniella Mrdja Clarke Ryan


Page 3

The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-5: David Barr Ray Kastropil The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-6: Peter Backshall The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-7: Amy Sullivan The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1709-10: Harry Hoareau

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2 August 2017as listed in the Council agenda dated 23 August 2017 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Nil

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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


Page 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr Simon Naber vacated the chamber at 6.55 pm Cr Simon Naber returned to the meeting at 6.57 pm.

PC1709 -2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 240 (LOT 30 AND LOT 31), SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH LOFT (8 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND 2 SHOP TENANCIES) - (CJ DA0238/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development plans

2: Site photos 3: Schedule of submissions 4: Heritage assessment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the demolition of an existing Office, and the construction of a two storey (with loft) mixed use development. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against a number of design elements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), as well as requiring assessment against local planning policy DGS2 South Terrace, South and Attfield Streets and Lefroy Road Local Area. The proposal is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of the above requirements and is recommended for conditional planning approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a two storey building at No. 240 South Terrace, South Fremantle. The development includes the following:

Two storey (with loft) mixed use development containing:

o Eight (8), split level Multiple dwellings

o Two (2), Shop tenancies on the ground floor

o Eight (8), storerooms

o Four (4), bicycle racks

o Undercover parking bays including:

Eight (8) residential Two (2) visitor Five (5) Shop


Page 5

o Bin store

o Awning over road reserve

Revised plans were received from the applicant on 9 August 2017, which provided the following changes and further detail:

Solid roofing material over rear terrace’s reduced in length by 1.59m.

Addition of 23sqm terrace on southern side of Unit 4.

Clarification of usable areas on floor plans.

Sections demonstrating low height mezzanine walls.

Roof plan.

Reduction in wall height of rear portion of buildings from 7m to 6.086m, and reduction of the overall building height of this area of the building.

Addition of one (1) end of trip facility on the ground floor. Revised development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 10 May 2017 Owner name: Lemeg Ventures Submitted by: Megara Scheme: Mixed Use (R30) Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Office Use class: Multiple Dwelling and Shop Use permissibility: ‘A’, ‘A’

Site photographs are included as attachment 2. CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required.


Page 6

Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The planning application was identified as a significant application as set out in Council’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals cl2, as it involves the complete demolition of a building within a Heritage Area, involves a significant exercise of discretion and is considered to be significantly different from the existing street pattern. The application was advertised for a period of 28 days and included the following actions:

A sign notice being placed on the development site.

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

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

The Precinct Groups were informed of the proposal.

Two (2) newspaper notices.

A community information session held on 8 June 2017. The advertising period concluded on 8 June 2017, and eight (8) submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Visual privacy from windows and balconies to existing residential properties.

Building bulk and scale.

Overshadowing of north facing windows, outdoor living areas and solar collector.

Building height.

Building design and impacts on the existing heritage streetscape.

Lack of parking (commercial and residential).

Reduced lot boundary setbacks.

Odour from the proposed bin store.

Lack of open space on the proposed development site.

Excess plot ratio. The report below discusses the above concerns in detail against applicable planning requirements. A detailed schedule of submissions is included as attachment 3. OFFICER COMMENT

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

density

plot ratio

overshadowing

street setback


Page 7

lot boundary setback

open space

land use

parking

design of car parking spaces

bicycle racks

end of trip facilities

demolition

visual privacy

boundary fence

The above matters are assessed below. Background The subject site is located on the eastern side of South Terrace in South Fremantle. The site is 874m2, and includes two lots on a multi lot title. The site is zoned Mixed use R30, with the applicant applying for development at an R60 density in accordance with clause 4.2.5 of LPS4. The site is not heritage listed, however is located within the South Fremantle heritage area. The lot is currently occupied by a single storey Office, which was approved as part of DA95/07. Density Clause 4.2.5 of LPS4 allows Council to vary the density up to a maximum of R60 as follows: Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 4.2.3 residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Firstly, No. 240 South Terrace is zoned Mixed Use, with a density coding of R30. Because the site is zoned as Mixed Use, this allows Council to use this clause.

The clause also notes that Council may allow for a greater density up to R60, meaning that it is not deemed-to-comply. It is not an applicants’ right to receive approval for development at the R60 density.

The residential component of a development that is seeking the additional density, in this case the Multiple dwellings on the upper floor, must be part of a Mixed use development. Mixed use development is defined by LPS4 as –

o Means, when used in relation to a Planning Application, a combination of one

or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 1- Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25% of the gross lettable area of the development.

The proposed development meets this requirement, with the Shop having 25% of the GLA.


Page 8

Finally, in order to grant approval for the higher density, Council must be satisfied that the proposed development is not detrimental to the amenity of the area (i.e. defined by the Regulations to mean all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity). In short, the built form of an R30 development is quite different to that of R60, so the amenity impact on adjoining residential properties must be scrutinised. As noted above, the land use is supported, and as detailed throughout the report, discretions sought on built form requirements are also supported. In summary:

o The ground floor use of Shop is complementary to existing uses in the Mixed

use zone and provides activation at pedestrian level.

o Car parking is screened and provided at the rear of site, reducing the impact

on the streetscape.

o The Multiple dwellings are provided with a compliant level of car parking and

bicycle racks, and the Shop is provided with a discretionary, but appropriate number of car bays.

o Building height is compliant with LPS4.

o The upper floor of the development does not occupy the full length of the lot

and is setback from the southern and eastern boundaries where there are existing residential properties.

o The level of noise and odour expected from a typical Shop tenancy is

considered to be limited by its use definition, and is appropriate for their location.

o The building form has traditional and modern elements and is considered to

appropriately respond to its context. Plot ratio

Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation

Plot ratio 0.7 (611.8m2) 0.75 (646.76m2) 0.05 (43.7m2)

The proposed plot ratio exceeds the deemed to comply requirement for the R60 density by 43.7m2. The proposed variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The size of the building is considered to be appropriate for an R60 density and is not significantly different to the scale of other buildings in the locality.

The two storey building to the south has a wall height of approximately 6.5m and there are also a number of two storey dwellings and commercial buildings along South Terrace in the immediate locality.

The removal of the mezzanine levels in two of the apartments (for example) would reduce the plot ratio, but not the external bulk and scale of the building.

A reduction in 43.7m2 across the development site would not significantly reduce the building bulk as viewed from the street or neighbouring properties.


Page 9

Overshadowing


Overshadowing 35% (155.75m2 ) 60.1% (267.7m2 ) 25.1% (111.95m²)

It is noted that the applicants overshadowing diagram exhibits a calculation of 50%. This is incorrect and the error has occurred by excluding the commercial component of the southern property, which must be included. Notwithstanding this, even at 50%, a design principle assessment is still required to be undertaken, as at R30, the Single house on the southern site, is allocated a deemed-to-comply total of 35% overshadowing. The proposed variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Much of the southern site is currently overshadowed by high boundary fencing (approximately 3.5m high) and existing development (like verandahs and shade sails) on site.

The southern property has an upper floor with windows (bedroom) and a balcony which will remain unaffected by the proposed shadow.

The area of new shadow on site is either roof space or an area indicated by the southern property as a drying court. The existing outdoor living area access to northern, winter sunlight is affected by the existing fencing on the property and the proposed development will not significantly alter the existing access to winter sunlight.

The following diagram has been provided by the applicant demonstrating the impact on the rear of 244 South Terrace including its outdoor living area:

It is acknowledged that the southern development will receive additional shadow

as part of this development. However, the additional shadow falls on areas of open space already covered by solid roofing (i.e. verandahs) or hardstand car parking. In submitting revised plans, the applicant has reduced the solid balcony covers on No. 240 South Terrace, so a small portion of garden space is protected.


Page 10

Street setback


Primary street 2m Nil 2m

The proposed variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The adjoining heritage building has its commercial tenancy built to the street, with an awning for weather protection.

The boat yard to the north also has a nil setback to the street.

The reduced street setback promotes activity on the street by removing the potential of separation by fencing and other structures.

The upper floor is occupied by balconies, which are open on their frontage reducing the building bulk on the street.

The upper floor does not extend for the entire width of the block, ensuring separation from the southern property and providing a break in the streetscape.

The entry to the parking on the ground floor is setback in from the street by 1.5m, providing articulation on the frontage and protecting vehicle sightlines for the safety of pedestrians and other vehicles.

The awning from the Shop frontage provides weather protection over the footpath where there is currently none.

Lot boundary setbacks


South GF (storerooms)

1m 850mm 0.15m

South (first floor terrace)

2.8m 0m 2.8m

South (first floor mid-section)

3m 2.7m 0.3m

South (rear portion of building)

1.6m 1.5m 0.1m

East (bin store) 1m 0m 1m

The reduced lot boundary setbacks to the south are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The southern property is built to its northern boundary for two-thirds of its length, and also has a high boundary fence.

Windows on the southern elevation of the proposed development are fixed and obscured to 1.6m above floor level to protect privacy from the bedrooms.

The rear terraces are screened on the southern elevation to prevent overlooking.

The front terrace on the southern boundary does have some screening to prevent overlooking to courtyards and upper floor spaces on the southern property, and additional screening is recommended to further protect this privacy.

The greatest area of discretion is sought at the front of the property where there is a nil setback for the existing house and roof space affected only by shadow.

Shadow effects from other areas of the proposed development are not significantly greater than the existing boundary fence and structures on the southern site today.

The building is articulated and provides a variety of building heights in an attempt to limit building bulk.


Page 11

The building does not extend for the length of the property boundary.

The upper floor is setback from the boundary allowing ventilation to open spaces on the southern site.

The parking at the rear of the building is open on the ground floor (with pillars rather than solid wall) which contributes to minimising the building bulk for the more sensitive area at the rear of the site to the south.

The development is proposing a compliant nil setback to the north (a commercial property), to maximise the southern setback.

The nil setback from the bin store on the eastern is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The proposed bin store has a height of approximately 2.7m, and will not be significantly greater in height than a typical 1.8m boundary fence ensuring building bulk is not significant.

The wall is approximately 2.6m and the remainder of the development is setback to 6m.

There is an existing building on the neighbouring property setback 700mm, which allows for ventilation to be protected if necessary.

Visual privacy will not be impacted by the proposed boundary wall. Open space


Open space 45% (393.3m2) 15.3% (134m2) 29.7% (259.3m2)

The proposed variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

While not defined as Open Space by the R-Codes, each Multiple dwelling have balconies which are greater in area than the deemed-to-comply amount defined by the R-Codes.

The open space is concentrated at the rear to allow for landscaping which will act as a buffer to help separate the development from adjoining residential properties.

The open space is open to sunlight and ventilation.

The building’s nil setbacks to the front of the site are reflective of the two commercial properties on either side, and encourage activation of the proposed shop tenancies. There is also an awning provided to improve the adjoining public realm by providing weather protection.

Land use The land uses of Multiple dwelling and Shop are both ‘A’ uses under LPS4, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2. In exercising its discretion Council is to have regard to the matters to be considered in clause 67 of the Regulations including the objectives and aims of LPS4. The land uses proposed have been advertised in accordance with Clause 64, and the City’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, and assessed against the following objectives of the Mixed Use zone: Development within the mixed use zone shall:


Page 12

i. provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones;

ii. provide for residential at upper level, and also at ground level providing the residential component is designed to contribute positively to an active public domain;

iii. ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic

with the desired future character of each area, iv. ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or

residential properties in the locality, and v. conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the

development. The proposed land uses are considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Mixed use zone for the following reasons:

In the vicinity of the proposed development site, there is a mix of land uses including Motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales, Restaurant, Single house, Shop and Grouped dwelling. It is considered that the addition of two new Shop tenancies and eight Multiple dwellings will be complementary to the land uses existing in the area. The scale of the Shop tenancies are suitable to service the local area, and are not considered to directly compete with those in the City Centre.

Residential development is provided on the upper floor only.

The land uses proposed are considered to be appropriate, and while provide an additional level of activation at ground level, are also sympathetic to more sensitive uses (i.e. residential) in the vicinity. The impact of the built form on the character of the area is considered to be appropriate as discussed further throughout this report.

The reasonably low intensity of the land uses proposed are not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners of residential properties in the locality. The impact on adjoining owners is discussed further in this report.

The development is not considered to unduly impact on adjoining heritage properties.


Page 13

Parking


Shop 11bays 5 bays 6 bays

Multiple dwelling 8 bays 8 bays Nil

Visitors (dwellings) 2 bays 2 bays Nil

Clause 4.7.3.1 of LPS4 provides the ability to waive car parking requirements subject to criteria. The proposed car-parking allocation is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

There is a free CAT bus running along South Terrace which operates on a 10 minute frequency every day from 7:30am to 6:30pm, in addition to other Transperth services. This would be consistent with typical retail hours.

There is on street parking available within walking distance of the subject site, with on-street vehicle bays along South Terrace, Gold Street and South Street.

The visitor bays have the potential to be capable of use by the commercial tenancies, and are therefore the sharing of bays will assist in accounting for the shortfall in the number of vehicle bays.

Design of car parking spaces


Visitor bays Outside security barrier

Behind security barrier

Required

Visitor bays All spaces except visitor bays fully concealed from the street or public place

Visitor bays concealed from street

Required

The proposed visitor car parking bays are located behind a security barrier on site, and are concealed from the street. The parking arrangement for visitors is supported for the following reasons:

Parking access will be allowed by occupiers and/or owners of the dwellings and Shops only, ensuring they are not used by visitors to surrounding businesses and dwellings, like is possible in bays open to the street.

They are secure and located on site for the use of the dwellings.

They are screened from the street not unlike parking arrangements for single houses and grouped dwellings in the vicinity.

Bicycle racks


Shop 1 Class 1 Nil 1 Class 1

Multiple dwellings 4 4 racks Nil

Bicycle racks are required for the Shop (Table 2 of LPS4) and the Multiple dwellings (6.3.3 C3.2 of R-Codes). While there are a sufficient number of racks provided for the Multiple dwellings, there is not a Class 1 bicycle rack shown on the plans for the Shop tenancies. Clause 4.7.3.3 provides the ability for Council to waive the bicycle rack requirements of Table 2, only in the instance where the application is for a minor change of use. As this is


Page 14

redevelopment of a site, and not simply a change of use, the rack should be provided. A condition of approval is recommended for this to be provided. End of trip facilities


Showers 1 male and 1 female (or 2 unisex)

One (1) One (1)

Locker 1 Nil 1

In order to encourage sustainable transport modes (such as walking and cycling), and considering discretion is being exercised for the number of Shop car bays proposed, it is considered appropriate to enforce the requirement for end of trip facilities on site. A condition requiring the additional shower and lockers be provided is recommended. Demolition The existing Office building on site requires development approval for its demolition. Clause 4.14 of LPS4 allows for demolition of buildings subject to assessment of their heritage value. The existing building on site is considered to have limited or no cultural heritage significance, and does not contribute to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the South Fremantle locality as the building has been extensively changed.

The proposed demolition of the existing buildings is supported. A Heritage assessment is included as attachment 4. Visual privacy


Terrace (Unit 08) – south

6m 3.1 2.9m

Terrace (Unit 04) – south

6m 0m 6m

The terrace for Unit 8 is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Screening is provided on the southern elevation, meaning that any overlooking to the southern property is at an oblique angle rather than direct.

The portion of site that will be overlooked is occupied by a Garage that has a nil setback to the boundary.

No major openings or outdoor living areas will be impacted by the proposed terrace.

The terrace for Unit 4 (southern side of the development) does have some screening proposed to direct overlooking away from an existing courtyard. It is considered that further screening should be provided on the southern elevation of the terrace to further improve the privacy for the southern property. A condition of approval is recommended.


Page 15

Boundary fence


South 1.8m 3m 1.2m

Clause 5 of LPP 2.8 Fences Policy designates a height of 1.8m for a boundary fence. On the southern lot boundary, the applicant is proposing a 3m high, 7.8m long fence toward the rear of the property. It is considered that there are no significant adverse impacts for the following reasons:

The fence abuts an existing boundary wall (single level garage) for a portion of its length.

The fence will also partially abut an existing boundary fence on the adjoining property.

The 3.5m section of wall that does not abut a structure (fence or garage) on the neighbouring property, is in an area of site where an existing boundary wall is located. The eventual impact on this section of garden and drying courtyard will not be significantly different to how the area is impacted today.

There are no major openings that will be impacted by the proposed fence.

Affected neighbours have been consulted with, with no specific comments in relation to this fence provided.

Design guidelines (DGS2 – South Terrace, South and Attfield Streets and Lefroy Road Local Area) In accordance with Cl 4.1.2 of LPS4, due regard must be given to relevant local planning polices applicable to a development site. The site falls within the requirements of DGS2, which includes a number of design guidelines for development. While it is acknowledged that there are requirements within the policy that are superseded by current provisions of LPS4, there are still relevant design objectives that must be given due regard in the assessment of this application. Any development within this local area shall address the following objectives (summarised):

Enhance the architectural or historical character and appearance of existing buildings on site and in the surrounding streetscape.

Provide accommodation consistent with present day standards.

Prevent overdevelopment of sites.

Reduce the impact new development has on existing places.

Respond to the particular characteristics of each place which require a specific design response.

In accordance with the criteria of the policy, the proposed development is considered to achieve the above for the following reasons:

Is built up to the street boundary as per the setbacks of the buildings on either side of the development.

The Shop tenancies and Multiple dwellings directly address the street.

Balconies at the rear are open to northern sunlight.

Building height is consistent with the requirements of LPS4.

Amenity impacts of the proposed development are considered to be acceptable, and are discussed further throughout this report.


Page 16

The proposed building is considered to complement the streetscape and reflect similar heritage features:

o The shop front is proposed to have a nil setback to the street.

o There are suitable floor to ceiling heights for the commercial tenancies.

o There is an awning proposed over the footpath.

The upper floor is setback from the residential property to the south, with only the ground floor Shop tenancy built to the boundary to ensure a continual urban frontage.

The proposed building does not extend for the full length of the block, and is setback from the rear by 6m.

Landscaping is proposed along the south eastern boundaries of the site to assist in creating a buffer between the proposed development and existing buildings.

The building has pitched roof elements, albeit in a more modern design, and do therefore not mimic the heritage properties, but take influence from their design.

The proposal adds Multiple dwellings to an area currently dominated by Single houses or Grouped dwellings and improves the variety of housing forms in the area.

There is sufficient parking for the development. Construction sites LPP 1.10 outlines the requirements for applicants during the construction phase. An advice note is recommended, to remind the applicant of requirements prior to and during the construction phase of the development in order to minimise amenity impacts and verge damage. Landscaping of development and existing vegetation on development sites In accordance with clause 1.1(d), a landscaping plan has been provided. The applicant has shown landscaping in the limited available areas on the Ground Floor Plan (DA-02). A condition of approval is recommended ensuring that the proposed landscaping works be undertaken and maintained for the life of the development. An advice note is also recommended to encourage the applicant to ensure these areas are retained as deep planting zones. In conclusion, consideration of the applicants’ proposal for density at the R60 level requires careful scrutiny of the amenity impacts of the development on existing land uses and streetscapes. The cumulative effect of multiple discretions means the case for approval is in the balance, however it is considered supportable for reasons explained in the assessment of key elements above. It is noted that the proposal includes a similar (or less) extent of variation to the plot ratio and open space requirements of the R-Codes that were supported by the Council or JDAP for similar developments proposing development at the higher R60 density, in Douro Road (No. 19), South Fremantle and South Terrace (No. 284), Fremantle. It is also acknowledged that in developing this site, there will be some impact on adjoining property owners and occupiers; however it is not considered that these impacts are significant and there are sufficient grounds for approval of the application subject to conditions.


Page 17

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle

Increase the net lettable area of retail space

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle

Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. Trees and other vegetation are proposed to be removed from site to accommodate the new development.

2. Development approval is not required for the removal of vegetation on site. 3. A landscaping plan has been provided by the applicant, proposing new vegetation

at the rear of the site. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, demolition of existing Office and construction of two storey mixed use development with loft (8 Multiple dwellings and 2 Shop tenancies) at No. 240 (Lots 30 and 31) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 9 August 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to issue of a Building Permit of the development approved as part of DA0238/17 on plans dated 9 August 2017, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 18

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, Lot 30 and Lot 31 South Terrace are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to issue of a Building Permit, one (1) class 1 bicycle rack shall be provided

on the plans, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The rack shall be installed prior to occupation and maintained for the life of the development.

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, two lockers and an additional shower shall

be provided on the plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The lockers and shower shall be installed prior to occupation and maintained for the life of the development.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0238/17 on

plans dated 9 August 2017, 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.


plans dated 9 August 2017 any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0238/17 on plans

dated 9 August 2017 the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 4.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


dated 9 August 2017, the terrace for Unit 04 located on the south elevation, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer,

City of Fremantle.

The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 19

11. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary wall located on the south, north and east boundary shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

• coloured sand render • face brick • painted surface • other approved finish

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

12. Prior to occupation of the development, all landscaping as shown on the approved

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

13. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if any

condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

Advice notes:

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.

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 20

iv. The applicant shall provide a traffic consultant’s report, in consultation with Public Transport Authority, confirming that the proposed crossover location will not cause conflict with the existing bus stop or its infrastructure.

v. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted addressing the following matters:

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

The approved Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development. The applicant should liaise with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department to discuss specific requirements for this site.

vi. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

vii. A Building permit is required for the proposed Building Works. A certified BA1 application form must be submitted and a Certificate of Design Compliance (issued by a Registered Building Surveyor Contractor in the private sector) must be submitted with the BA1.

viii. No building work is permitted to encroach onto the adjoining properties. All building work must be contained within the lot boundaries

ix. A demolition permit is required to be obtained for the proposed demolition work. The demolition permit must be issued prior to the removal of any structures on site.

x. Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996, requires that an insurance policy, in the joint names of the local government and the person, indemnifying the local government against any claim for damages which may arise in, or out of, the verandahs construction, maintenance or use is


Page 21

required to be obtained by those persons constructing anything within the road reserve.

Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following condition 14:

14. Prior to use of balconies of Units 5, 6, 7 and 8, on plans dated 9 August 2017, the eastern elevation shall be screened by either:

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

floor level 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

c) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


Cr Ingrid Waltham MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the words "and bedroom 2 of Unit 8" to condition 10 as follows:

10. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0238/17 on plans dated 9 August 2017, the terrace for Unit 04 and bedroom 2 of Unit 8 located on the south elevation, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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


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

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 22

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, demolition of existing Office and construction of two storey mixed use development with loft (8 Multiple dwellings and 2 Shop tenancies) at No. 240 (Lots 30 and 31) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 9 August 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter.


approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to issue of a Building Permit of the development approved as part of DA0238/17 on plans dated 9 August 2017, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, Lot 30 and Lot 31 South Terrace are to be

legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to issue of a Building Permit, one (1) class 1 bicycle rack shall be provided

on the plans, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The rack shall be installed prior to occupation and maintained for the life of the development.


Page 23

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, two lockers and an additional shower shall be provided on the plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The lockers and shower shall be installed prior to occupation and maintained for the life of the development.


plans dated 9 August 2017, 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.


plans dated 9 August 2017 any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


dated 9 August 2017 the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 4.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


dated 9 August 2017, the terrace for Unit 04 and bedroom 2 of Unit 8 located on the south elevation, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a


c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer,

City of Fremantle.


11. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary wall

located on the south, north and east boundary shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

• coloured sand render • face brick • painted surface • other approved finish



Page 24

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



14. Prior to use of balconies of Units 5, 6, 7 and 8, on plans dated 9 August 2017, the

eastern elevation shall be screened by either:

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

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



Advice notes:







Page 25

iv. The applicant shall provide a traffic consultant’s report, in consultation with Public Transport Authority, confirming that the proposed crossover location will not cause conflict with the existing bus stop or its infrastructure.

v. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted addressing the following matters:



vi. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

vii. A Building permit is required for the proposed Building Works. A certified BA1 application form must be submitted and a Certificate of Design Compliance (issued by a Registered Building Surveyor Contractor in the private sector) must be submitted with the BA1.

viii. No building work is permitted to encroach onto the adjoining properties. All building work must be contained within the lot boundaries

ix. A demolition permit is required to be obtained for the proposed demolition work. The demolition permit must be issued prior to the removal of any structures on site.

x. Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996, requires that an insurance policy, in the joint names of the local government and the person, indemnifying the local government against any claim for damages which may arise in, or out of, the verandahs construction, maintenance or use is


Page 26

required to be obtained by those persons constructing anything within the road reserve.

Lost: 0/6

For Against


COMMITTEE DECISON

Cr Jon Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That: 1. Council DECIDE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning

Scheme No. 4 that the application for demolition of existing office and construction of two storey mixed use development with loft (8 multiple dwellings and 2 Shop tenancies) at No. 240 (Lots 30 and 31) South Terrace, South Fremantle, is not suitable to be granted approval in its current form for the following reasons:

a) Unacceptable overshadowing impact on the neighbouring property to the

south; b) Loss of light and ventilation to an existing window to a habitable room

located on the boundary of 244 South Terrace. c) Unacceptable impact on the privacy of the properties to the east and south.

2. The applicant be advised that Council is prepared to give further consideration

to the application upon receipt of revised plans to address the following issues:

a) Reduce the amount of overshadowing on neighbouring property to the

south; b) Provide a setback to the southern boundary adjacent to the existing

window to a habitable room located on the boundary of 244 South Terrace in order to maintain access to light and ventilation.

c) Appropriately screen the openings to the south and east to improve privacy to the adjoining properties.


Page 27

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 28

At 7.02 pm Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge declared an impartiality interest in item number PC1709-3 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

PC1709 -3 WRAY AVENUE, NOS. 13 AND 15 (LOTS 3 AND 4), FREMANTLE - UPPER FLOOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, AND CHANGE OF USE TO RESTAURANT AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS TO TWO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSES - (NB DA0210/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Amended Development Plans

2: Applicant’s Justification 3: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for additions and alterations to two existing Single houses, including the addition of a second storey and a rear extension, to create three Multiple dwellings and a ground floor Restaurant. The application is referred to Planning Committee as objections were received that cannot be satisfied through conditions of approval, and the development seeks the following discretions under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes):

wall height

on-site car parking

land use

lot boundary setbacks

plot ratio

open space. Additionally, the proposed development requires the application of Cl. 4.2.5 of LPS4 in order to be considered at a higher density of R60. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the following changes to two existing Single houses:

upper floor additions comprising two Multiple dwellings, each with a balcony overlooking Wray Avenue

internal alterations to create a ground floor Restaurant in No. 15 Wray Avenue

partial demolition of some elements at the rear of the existing houses

rear extension comprising stairs, a lift and two rear balconies

roller gate to a new rear bin storage area. A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1.


Page 29

Site/application information Date received: 1 May 2017 Owner name: Antonina Galati-Rando and Antonino Galati-Rando Submitted by: Sam Martin Scheme: Mixed Use (R30) Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Multiple dwellings, Restaurant Use permissibility: A, A

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), as discretion was sought against the provisions of LPS4 and the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 5 June 2017, and six (6) submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The plot ratio on the lot size and will add to bulk and overcrowding of the area.

Wall heights and reduced setbacks will be detrimental to adjoining properties due to the loss of light and the additional building bulk.

The rear balconies overlook adjoining properties.

The height does not fit into the streetscape of the area and will be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties and the locality.

Overshadowing will negatively impact adjoining properties.


Page 30

The Restaurant will harm privacy, security and result in an increase of noise.

Lack of parking for cars and delivery vehicles will increase congestion and reduce the already diminished parking in the area for residents.

The upper floor alterations are detrimental to the heritage value of the lots.

The proposal is detrimental to the amenity of the area and should not be granted an increase in density.

The additional plot ratio means that the proposal is seeking an additional density increase beyond that granted by the discretional R60 density.

In response to some of the concerns above, the applicant submitted amended plans reducing the Restaurant seating area from 85m2 to 29.7m2 and thereby reducing the number of car bays required for the Restaurant land use from 17 to 6 which is discussed below. It is noted that the screening to the rear balconies will prevent all overlooking to adjoining properties as per the R-Codes. The proposal complies with overshadowing, however, shadow to the rear properties from the extra height along with the remaining issues raised above are discussed below. OFFICER COMMENT

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

wall height

on-site car parking

land use


plot ratio

open space. The above matters are discussed below. Background The proposal encompasses two separate lots, consisting of Nos. 13 and 15 Wray Avenue. Both lots are located within a Mixed use zone and have a residential density of R30. The ground levels of the subject sites slope down approximately 1.7 m from the street towards the rear of the sites. Both lots contain heritage listed Single houses sharing a common internal wall. Both lots also contain rear extensions to the original houses that are not part of the cultural heritage significance of the buildings. The rear extensions have been designed as split levels, resulting in a small (approximately 50m2) ground floor (noted as a ‘basement’ on the plans) and a larger upper floor.


Page 31

No. 13 currently contains no on-site parking and no way to access the rear of the lot except through the building or by utilising the driveway of No. 15. No. 15 contains a rear carport capable of holding one car with access taken down a driveway shared by No. 17. The driveway straddles the cadastral boundaries of No. 15 and No. 17. There is no formal agreement for reciprocal rights of access, however, No. 17 also requires driveway access in order to reach its own car parking in the rear, thus ensuring the driveway remains clear in order to serve both lots. Density of R60 The application seeks to increase the density to R60 in accordance with Cl. 4.4.5 of LPS4, which states:

“Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 4.2.3, residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.”

The proposed development is located within a Mixed use zone and fits the definition of ‘Mixed use development’ in Schedule 1 of LPS4, which is defined as “[development having] a combination of one or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 1 - Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development.” The proposed Restaurant use occupies 31.9 per cent of the gross lettable area with the Residential use comprising the remainder. The proposal is therefore eligible to be considered for the increased R60 density. In order to achieve the density bonus, the development must demonstrate that it is not detrimental to the amenity of the area (i.e. defined by the Regulations to mean all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity). In short, the built form of an R30 development is quite different to that of R60, so the amenity impact on adjoining properties must be scrutinised. How the proposal complies with the above provisions, as well as variations from R-Codes, LPS4 and planning policy requirements, are discussed in the following sections. Overall, the land use and built form are considered to fit into the Mixed use zone, be in keeping with the character and activity of the area, and not be detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Demolition Clause 4.14 of LPS4 allows for demolition of buildings provided they are of limited or no cultural heritage significance, and do not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality. The portions of building proposed to be demolished are at the rear of the existing house and consist of later additions to the house. Some portions of the roof are also proposed to be removed. The later additions are not part of the original heritage fabric of the building and are considered to have no heritage significance. The alterations to the roof are such that the heritage components of the dwellings will retain their original form as viewed from the street and the removal of these portions of the roof is not considered to detrimentally impact the cultural heritage significance of the place. Demolition of these structures is supported. Construction sites


Page 32

LPP 1.10 outlines the requirements for applicants during the construction phase. An advice note is recommended, to remind the applicant of requirements prior to and during the construction phase of the development in order to minimise amenity impacts and verge damage. Building height


Wall height 7m 7.8m 0.8m

Clause 4.8.1.1 of LPS4 permits variations to height requirements as follows:

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following-

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

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

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

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council's local planning policies. The adjacent development at No. 17 Wray Avenue contains a wall height of 10.2 m above natural ground level, therefore “triggering” the above clause for the subject site. The sub-clauses are discussed below: (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally The proposed upper floors are located so as to abut the existing roof of No. 13 Wray Avenue with only a portion of the balcony extending past the existing built form as shown in the figure below.


Page 33

Figure 1: Upper floor layout overlaid onto existing buildings.

The height variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality for the following reasons:

The adjoining western house has an approximately 0.7 m boundary setback and the bulk of the proposed upper floors will therefore have minimal impact on the adjoining lot as they will primarily abut the adjoining roof and a side access-way.

The additional height sought is partially a result of the ground level sloping down approximately 1.7 m from the street towards the rear of the lot.

The balcony extension is set back 1.2 m from the adjoining lot to reduce the impact of bulk and shadow to the outdoor area.

All openings are screened to fully protect adjoining lots from any visual privacy variation.

The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes (10.5% in lieu of 25% permitted) and leaves the majority of the most affected southern lot, being No. 168 South Terrace, with no shadow over the majority of the rear outdoor living area as shown below.

The proposal increases privacy by removing and screening existing windows that overlook the rear of the western adjoining property.

To the east, the additional wall height is against the existing driveway and will have minimal impact on the adjoining property.


Page 34

Figure 2: Proposed overshadowing impact on 168 South Terrace.

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, As shown in the figure below, the proposed development effectively graduates the height of buildings not only within the locality but also immediately along the western end of Wray Avenue.

Figure 3: External wall height compared to adjoining properties.

The City’s records match the applicant’s submission, and the maximum wall heights of developments along the street are provided in the following table:

Address Maximum Height

17 Wray Avenue 10.2 m

Subject Sites 7.8 m

11 Wray Avenue 6 m

1 Wray Avenue 6.7 m

142 South Terrace (corner Wray Ave and South Tce)

8.9 m to 11.6 m


Page 35

The ground levels of all lots in the table above slope down from the street to the rear of each property, where the bulk of the additional height is located. As shown in the above table, the wall height of the subject sites sits between those of the nearby sites, effectively graduating the scale of the development in accordance with the sub-clause requirements. (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and Although the roof of the additions will be visible when the development is viewed from the street, the additions have been designed so as to retain the impression of a single storey house and not overwhelm the place’s contribution to the streetscape. The roof form is generally maintained and the proposal will not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the houses on the subject site or adjoining. Houses of this type typically only had one window in the front room, which faced the street. It is considered that the new window proposed on the eastern wall of the restaurant be deleted as it will have an adverse impact on the heritage values of the house and its contribution to the streetscape. Additionally, the cement render on the eastern wall is to be removed and replaced with a lime render as per the plans in order to allow the wall to “breathe” and reduce corrosion of the brickwork. These matters can be dealt with as conditions of approval. (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council's local planning policies. The proposal is generally consistent with the character and built form requirements of the area (further discussed below). On-site car parking


Restaurant (30m2 seating area)

1:5m2 seating area = 6

Nil 6

Multiple dwelling (units) 3 Nil 3

Multiple dwelling (visitors) 0.75 Nil 1

TOTAL 10 Nil 10

In addition to the above, one (1) loading bay is required for the Restaurant use, however, none are provided. Bicycle racks:


Restaurant (30m2 seating area)

1:100m2 public area = Nil (class 1 or 2)

Nil Nil

Multiple dwelling (units) 1:3 dwellings = 1 (class 3)

8 Nil

The house at No. 13 has an existing shortfall of one car bay, with no car parking bays on-site. This can be counted against the proposed shortfall as per Cl. 4.7.3.1(iv) of LPS4 resulting in a calculated total shortfall of 9 bays.


Page 36

The variations are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and Cl. 4.7.3.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

No. 15 shares a 3.6 m wide driveway with the eastern adjoining shop and dwelling (No. 17 Wray Avenue), with 1.35 m of the driveway belonging to the subject site and the remainder belonging to No. 17. No. 15 currently has no reversing bay for vehicles and must either reverse completely into the property of No. 17 or reverse completely up the driveway, a distance of some 30 m. These impediments deter increased vehicle parking to the rear of the site.

The current 30 m reversing distance, particularly up the existing incline, is considered un-safe in terms of pedestrian and vehicle safety as per the R-Codes. Removal of this bay as proposed to create a bicycle storage and bin area is supported.

Deliveries are proposed to park in the street and wheel goods down the driveway to the rear of the restaurant. Considering the narrowness of the driveway and the lack of a turnaround area, this is seemingly the only viable option. Should the adjoining eastern neighbour fence in the boundary on their side of the driveway at some point in the future, the subject site will still have a clearance of 1.3 m, which is adequate for deliveries and universal access.

Scooter and bicycle parking are provided at the rear of the Restaurant to accommodate alternate modes of transportation. Seven additional bike bays are provided beyond that required by the land uses.

The proposal involves the retention of two level 3 heritage listed houses situated on long, skinny blocks, leaving no room to provide additional on-site parking. Further, No. 13 has no vehicle access to the rear of the site and therefore no capacity to add additional parking.

The development is well served by public transport, being located within a high frequency bus zone and approximately 75 m from a Blue Cat route.

The Restaurant is small and will likely serve primarily local residents, in keeping with the shops and small restaurants within the immediate area.

Land use Multiple dwellings and a Restaurant are both ‘A’ uses under Table 1 of LPS4, which means that the uses are not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2. In exercising its discretion Council is to have regard to the matters to be considered in clause 67 of the Regulations including the objectives and aims of LPS4.

In addition to complying with specific matters of the Regulations, the uses must also be consistent with the zone objectives of Cl. 3.2.1 (e) of LPS4, which states:

“Development within the mixed use zone shall- i. provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and

cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones;



Page 37

iii. ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area;

iv. ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and

v. conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.”

The land uses are supported for the following reasons:

A Restaurant contributes to the mix of compatible land uses and the small scale of the proposal ensures it will not impact the viability of City Centre, Local Centre or Neighbourhood Centre zones.

A Restaurant use is consistent with the existing character of the area, being well served by small cafes and shops.

The Restaurant is directly adjacent to a busy shop and, as the majority of dining is inside, will contribute minimal additional noise to the area.

The small size of the Restaurant will keep the impact to the amenity of surrounding areas in terms of car parking and noise to a minimum.

Multiple dwellings are provided at both upper and ground levels and contribute positively to an active public domain through the provision of entrances directly to the street and balconies facing the primary street.

Lighting to paths and gardens for Multiple dwellings is required by the R-Codes and further lighting details are required prior to commencement to ensure the lighting does not impact adjoining residential lots.

The bulk and scale of the overall proposal is in keeping with adjacent properties and will have minimal impact on residential amenity.

The proposal retains and protects two heritage listed properties.

The uses and built form are consistent with the character of the immediate locality.

Variations from requirements as discussed elsewhere in this report will have minimal impact on adjoining properties.

Lot boundary setbacks Cl. 1.12 of LPP 3.14: Wray Avenue Precinct states that buildings on the subject site “shall have a zero setback from both side boundaries for a minimum building depth of 5 metres from the façade; any remaining part of a building shall have a minimum setback of 1.5 metres”. The proposed setbacks are as follows:


Upper floor (West)

1.5 m 0.815 m – 0.86 m 0.685 m – 0.64 m

Balcony (West) 1.5 m 1.21 m 0.29 m

Variations to the policy must comply with the character of the area as outlined in the ‘Character Appraisal’ section of the policy. However, this section is relatively silent on design principle criteria, describing the area as a “high-quality varied townscape” with all retail/commercial buildings having “zero front and side setbacks” and the overall character being “remarkably consistent”. To this end the proposal is consistent with the policy, being located close to the side boundaries while retaining the general character of the existing heritage development. The upper floors predominantly abut the adjoining western lot, which itself has a ~0.7 m boundary setback. Only a portion of the balcony


Page 38

extends past the footprint of the existing adjoining house. The predominant bulk of the property is to a side access-way and a roof. Plot ratio


Plot Ratio 0.7 (310.1 m2) 0.789 (349.5 m2)

0.089 (39.4 m2)

The variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The bulk and scale is consistent with the existing built form of adjoining mixed use developments, particularly No. 17 Wray Avenue directly to the east.

The scale and land use of the building is consistent with the established character of the area.

The proposal incorporates and retains the existing heritage houses. Open space


Open Space 45% (199.4 m2)

25.5% (113 m2)

19.5% (86.4 m2)

The variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The existing houses have only 33% (146.19 m2) combined open space, resulting in an actual discretion of 13.5% (59.8 m2).

The open space is predominantly to the rear of the site and provides a buffer to southern properties.

The development respects the existing neighbourhood character by building to the side boundaries while leaving an area of open space to the rear.

Individual units have adequate outdoor living areas as per the R-Codes and the further reduction in open space will have minimal impact on useable outdoor area.

In conclusion, the proposal seeks an increased residential density of R60. In order to grant this increase, PC must be satisfied that the development is not detrimental to the amenity of the area. It is acknowledged that the proposed built form and land use will have some impact on adjoining properties, however, these impacts are considered to not be significant, particularly considering the existing built form and use of the immediate locality. The proposed development as a whole is in keeping with the City’s strategic objectives by increasing the diversity of dwellings and increasing the numbers of people living and working in Fremantle. Though the proposal seeks discretion, the variations are not considered detrimental to the amenity of the area and the development is supported with conditions.


Page 39

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, upper floor additions and alterations, and change of use to Restaurant and Multiple dwellings to two existing Single houses at Nos. 13 and 15 (Lots 3 and 4) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 July 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the proposed new window on the eastern

elevation and nearest Wray Avenue does not form part of this approval and is hereby deleted from the plans.


approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, Nos. 13 and 15 (Lots 3 and 4) Wray

Avenue are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan must be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The


Page 40

outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties.

6. The render being applied to the external surface of the heritage building is to be of

Lime or Hydraulic Lime Mortar to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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



ADVICE NOTES:

i. The applicant/owner be advised that any increase to the dining area of the Restaurant may require further planning approval.

ii. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the

premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. The applicant is advised that the subject site is located in close proximity to

commercial and/or industrial development and maybe subject to noise and activity not normally associated with purely a residential use.

iv. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted addressing the following matters:


mailto:[email protected]


Page 41


v. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

Lost: 2/3

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Jeff McDonald

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation. No alternative motion to the lost Officers Recommendation was moved.


Page 42

Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge returned to the meeting at 7.38pm.

Cr Simon Naber vacated the chamber at 7.39 pm

Cr Simon Naber returned to the meeting at 7.40 pm.

PC1709 -5 CHARLES STREET, NO. 8 (LOT 10), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CARPORT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0319/17)


2: Site photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a carport addition to an existing Single house at No. 8 Charles Street, South Fremantle. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretion against the Carport provision of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy and lot boundary setback requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of the above and is recommended for conditional planning approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the addition of a carport to the front of the existing Single house at No. 8 Charles Street, South Fremantle. The carport is double width, and is proposed to be built around an existing mature tree on site. Development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 26 June 2017 Owner name: Raymond and Carlene Kastropil Submitted by: David Barr Architects Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


Page 43

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal was seeking discretion against the R-Codes and local planning policies. The advertising period concluded on 20 July 2017, and two (2) submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Will impact visually on existing heritage streetscape.

Will be visible from neighbouring front yards and be visually obtrusive.

Is inconsistent with adjoining properties. The subject site is not on the City’s Heritage List, however is located within a Heritage area. The visual impact of the Carport on the existing streetscape is assessed against the requirements of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape policy further in this report. OFFICER COMMENT


primary street setback.

lot boundary setback.


Page 44

The above matters are discussed below. Background No. 8 Charles Street, South Fremantle is located in the Fremantle South Local Planning Area on the northern side of Charles Street. The site is not Heritage Listed, however is in the South Fremantle Heritage area under LPS4. A single storey Single house currently occupies the site. Two storey additions and alterations to the rear of the property were recently approved under delegation (DA0262/17) and construction has not yet commenced on these works. Primary street setback Where a proposed carport is located forward of the front wall of a house, the following requirements apply under LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy.


Carport Open on all sides with no door

Open on all sides with no door

Complies

Timber or steel vertical supports no greater than 150mm in any direction

120mm steel columns

Complies

Average of 2.8m in height

2.97m 0.17m

Maintains visibility of the dwelling and surveillance from the dwelling to the street

Maintains visibility of the dwelling and surveillance from the dwelling to the street

Complies

6m width 6.4m width 0.4m

1m setback from side boundary

Nil setback 1m

Clause 2.3 of LPP 2.9, provides Council with the ability to approve Carports that do not adhere to all of the above as follows: 2.3 iv. The carport is lightweight in construction, appears simple in design and is visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is design in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street. The proposed Carport is supported for the following reasons:

It is open on all sides to allow for surveillance to and from the dwelling.

The front area of the lot is currently used for car parking.

The height of the carport is proposed to be consistent with the height of the eaves of the house behind it.

The width of the Carport is a design response to retain an existing mature tree by incorporating a void in the roof with the carport structure being constructed around the existing tree.


Page 45

The flat roof design is simple in form and does not draw attention away from the house behind it.

Lot boundary setback


Carport (east) 1m Nil 1m

The proposed setback is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways: :

Access to winter sun will not be impacted by the proposed setback.

The carport is open on all sides ensuring ventilation is not impacted to neighbouring properties.

The house on the eastern lot is setback from the boundary by about 3m.

The area on the adjoining site is used for car parking.

There are no major openings on the front portion of this elevation of No. 10 Charles Street.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. The carport has been designed to retain a mature tree on site. 2. A verge tree will need to be removed to make alterations to the existing crossover,

however a new tree will be planted further along the verge. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil CONCLUSION

The proposed Carport is considered to meet discretionary criteria where relevant and is recommended for conditional planning approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, carport addition to existing Single house at No. 8 (Lot 10) Charles Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 26 June 2017. 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 46

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

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

Advice notes:






For further queries relating to verge infrastructure modifications please contact the Infrastructure Engineering department via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


mailto:[email protected]


Page 47

PC1709 -6 SOLOMON STREET, NO.78 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (JL DA0296/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Planning Committee Attachments: 1: Revised Development Plans

2: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for rear two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single house. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The applicant seeks the following discretionary assessments against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes):

lot boundary setbacks The proposal is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought to extend the existing single storey with loft Single house by adding a rear two storey addition. The proposed works include:

partial demolition of the rear sleep out area of the dwelling

ground floor addition (dining, kitchen, laundry and bathroom)

upper floor addition (ensuite and walk in robe)

demolition of an existing rear carport and a new carport

alterations to the rear outbuilding The applicant lodged amended plans on 10 August 2017, addressing concerns associated with existing stormwater discharge from the roof of the existing rear outbuilding and screening material required under a previous planning approval for the site for the front northern elevation of the verandah onsite. A copy of the revised development plans is included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 23 June 2017 Owner name: Mr Peter Backshall and Carolyne Bush Submitted by: Mr Peter Backshall and Carolyne Bush Scheme: Residential (R30) Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


Page 48

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions are sought against the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 14 July 2017, and one submission was received. The objection raised the following concerns:

Overlooking from the upper floor loft windows in the northern elevation.

The northern boundary wall is of considerable bulk and will create a sense of confinement and should be visually appealing.

The boundary wall must be wholly located within the subject site and not encroach upon the neighbour’s property.

Retention of the existing dividing fence material is required for future use by neighbour.

Currently stormwater is being discharged from an existing outbuilding (north eastern. located structure) on the development site into the neighbouring northern adjoining property.

In relation to the comments made in submissions, the following response is provided:

No part of the proposed development includes a new major opening which exceeds 0.5 m above natural ground level. The concern raised in relation to the two existing northern loft room windows is noted, but upon review of property file, these windows have been approved and no changes are being proposed to these openings as part of the application. The development complies with the Deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes.


Page 49

With regards to the concern relating to the finish of the wall, City officers acknowledge that the wall will need to be visually appealing, however an appropriate finished face brick wall is considered acceptable. In relation to the building bulk and sense of confinement concerns raised, further discussion is included in the Officers Comment section of the report.

An appropriate condition is to be imposed ensuring that the development is wholly located within the subject site.

With regards to retaining fence materials for future reuse, this is a civil matter between land owners.

The applicant has opted to amend the rear outbuilding roof style to ensure future stormwater is contained wholly onsite. It is also noted that this is a current compliance matter with the City, and this issue will need to be resolved regardless of this application being acted upon.

OFFICER COMMENT

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

lot boundary setbacks The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located within the block on Solomon Street between Stevens Street, Swanbourne Street and Watkins Street in Fremantle. The site is approximately 592 m2 and is zoned Residential R30. The site is heritage listed as a Management Category level 3. Lot boundary setbacks


Outbuilding (north) 1 m Nil 1 m

Laundry and bath (north) 1 m Nil 1 m

For the purpose of this Design Element assessment the proposal abuts the side access area of the northern adjoining site. The existing adjoining dwelling incorporates a window to the southern elevation, which for the purposes of this assessment is considered to be a major opening. The lot boundary setbacks are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The existing outdoor living area of the neighbouring property will not be directly impacted but an existing major opening on the southern elevation of the adjoining dwelling will be. There is already a portion of boundary wall directly abutting this major opening but the proposal will increase the overall length of this boundary wall from 3.6m to 9m.


Page 50

Given the existing adjoining northern dwelling is setback 2.3m from this common boundary and there is an existing boundary wall, ventilation is not considered to be significantly impacted.

Whilst noting the concern associated with sense of confinement due to building bulk impacts, taking into account the proposed boundary wall’s height (ranging from 2.7m to 3.3m) and the existing 2.3m setback of the adjoining northern dwelling, the overall level of impact is considered minimal.

The proposal presents no visual privacy discretion.

Given the orientation of the site and the location of the boundary wall, the reduced setback will also have minimal impact on direct sun to existing outdoor living areas and restricting solar access to major openings of the adjoining lot and the respective dwelling.

DGF24 – Solomon Street Local Area The site is located within the Solomon Street local planning policy area and development is required to be assessed against the following:

1. The single residential character of the street should be maintained. There is no land use change proposed and the building is to remain as a Single house.

2. Demolition of the existing houses may be considered where they do not contribute

to the significance of the street. The demolition of the rear sleep out potion of the dwelling has been assessed against Cl4.14 ofLPS4 and is supported on heritage grounds as it doesn’t positively contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the site of the broader locality.

3. Elements of the natural environment, such as mature trees, cliff, slopes and

vistas, should be maintained. There will be no changes to existing mature vegetation or topography onsite.

4. New houses within Solomon Street should conform with the predominant

streetscape pattern and should address such elements as front setbacks, orientation and screen walls.

The existing house is being retained.

5. On the eastern side of the street, the Council may permit the construction of garages, steps and ramps on the street line where they would form a part of the cliff.

N/A - Not forming part of this application. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle

Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.


Page 51



Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE , under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single house at No. 78 (Lot 3) Solomon Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 10 August 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

3. The development (including any footings) hereby approved, shall be wholly

located within the cadastral boundaries of No.78 (lot 3) Solomon Street, Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary walls

located on the northern shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

coloured sand render

face brick

painted surface

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

5. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if

any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTE:

i. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.


Page 52

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 53

PC1709 -7 BOSTOCK STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 35), WHITE GUM VALLEY -TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0235/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1. Development Plans (as amended)

2. Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single house. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to comments received during the advertising period that cannot be resolved through planning conditions and a discretionary assessment against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in regards to the following:

lot boundary setback (boundary wall) The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single house at No. 4 (Lot 35) Bostock Street, White Gum Valley. On 17 July 2017, in response to concerns raised during the community consultation period, the applicant submitted amended plans that brought the proposal into compliance with the following ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes:

Element Permitted/Required Original Amended Complies

External wall height

Maximum 6.0m 7.254m 5.849m Yes

Overshadowing Maximum 25% of southern adjoining property

29.9% 24.9% Yes

Visual privacy Unscreened balconies setback 7.5m from boundary

<7.5m from boundary

Now screened, setback >7.5m from boundary

Yes

Boundary fence Maximum 1.8m 2.308m 1.8m Yes

It is acknowledged that the applicant has made significant efforts to reduce amenity impacts upon the southern adjoining property, and that reduction to the external wall height and height of the southern boundary fence have considerably reduced the shadow impacts on that property, to the point where overshadowing is now ‘deemed-to-comply’. A copy of the amended plans is contained as Attachment 1 of this report.


Page 54

Site/application information Date received: 9 May 2017 Owner name: Pierce Wayne Starkie-Jardine Submitted by: Pierce Wayne Starkie-Jardine Scheme: Residential R20 / R25 Heritage listing: Not listed; Not within heritage area Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the original proposal sought external wall height, lot boundary wall, visual privacy and overshadowing design principle assessments. The advertising period concluded on 8 June 2017, and two (2) submissions were received. The following issues were raised:

Overshadowing – extent of overshadowing of the neighbouring dwelling habitable rooms and living areas


Page 55

Fence/boundary wall height – the height of the proposed fence/boundary wall to the south restricting solar access to neighbouring dwelling habitable rooms and living areas

Visual privacy –ability of upper level balcony looking eastward to overlook property In response to the above concerns, the applicant submitted amended plans on 17 July 2017 which brought the development into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes relating to overshadowing, external wall height and visual privacy. Furthermore, the applicant amended the side boundary fencing so that the proposed fencing meets the requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy. The only ‘design principle’ assessment being sought relates to the northern and southern lot boundary walls. OFFICER COMMENT


lot boundary setback (boundary wall) The above matter is discussed below. Background The site is located on the eastern side of Bostock Street, White Gum Valley. The site is 470m² in area, has an east-west orientation and is currently improved by a Single house and outbuilding. A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or this application. Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)


South – Bath/Kitchen 1 m Nil 1 m

South – Laundry 1 m Nil 1 m

North - Carport 1 m 0.09m 0.91m

The southern boundary variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways:

The proposed boundary walls do not result in a significant loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight, as the western most wall and eastern most wall range from 1.5m-1.8m and 1.8m-2.0m in height when measured at the lot boundary respectively.

The western most wall is the same height as a boundary fence which is permitted as of right (1.8m). Further, the eastern most wall is partly the same height as a boundary


Page 56

fence which is permitted as of right, and less than a permitted boundary fence and screening device (1.8m + 0.5m = 2.3m total).

The development as a whole complies with overshadowing and as can be seen in Figure 1 below, the shadow of the boundary wall is contained within the shadow cast by the roof of the remainder of the development which is set back sufficiently.

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary, is not directly adjacent to the outdoor living area which is located on the eastern side of the adjoining dwelling and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary. As stated above, it is the same height as a boundary fence which is permitted as of right.

The boundary wall is not considered to impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

Figure 1: Location of proposed southern boundary walls relative to southern adjoining

property’s outdoor living area The northern boundary variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways:

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

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary, is open in design and uses lightweight materials, and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary; and,

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


Page 57

Figure 2: Location of proposed northern boundary wall

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Economic Development Strategy 2011-15

Increase the number of residents in the area. Green Plan 2020 There are a number of trees of varying levels of maturity on-site. The plans do not specify whether they are to be retained or not however the location of the proposed addition is unlikely to impact on these trees. It is noted that planning approval is not required for the removal of trees on private property. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single house at No. 4 (Lot 35) Bostock Street, White Gum Valley, as detailed on plans dated 17 July 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 17 July 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary wall located on the northern and southern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:


face brick


Page 58

painted surface

other approved finish


3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0235/17, on plans dated 17 July 2017 the upper level rear balcony located on northern, southern and eastern elevations portions shown with ‘translucent screening’, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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


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

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 59

Cr Doug Thompson left the meeting at 7.50 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return.

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1709 -10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 72 - DAVIS PARK - FINAL ADOPTION

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions

SUMMARY

Council initiated scheme amendment No. 72 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for public consultation on 23 November 2016. The amendment proposes rezoning the land bounded by South Street, Fifth Avenue, Lefroy Road and Caesar Street in Beaconsfield from Residential R30, Open Space Reserve and Community Facilities Reserve to Development zone. The purpose of the amendment is to clear the planning requirements currently applicable to the area and provide an appropriate zoning to require a separate structure plan process to coordinate the area’s redevelopment and renewal. Community consultation on the amendment (classified as a complex amendment) was undertaken from 20 May – 21 July 2017. During the public comment period 29 submissions were received. The majority of the submissions were made by residents within the scheme amendment area and immediate surroundings. The concerns raised in the submissions were around residents of the area having to move and the amendment not being clear on what redevelopment of the area will look like. Other submissions supported redevelopment of the area. This report recommends that council note the submissions received and adopt the amendment without modification.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 November 2016, council adopted a complex amendment to the City of Fremantle LPS4 (LPS4 or scheme) to rezone the land bounded by South Street, Fifth Avenue, Lefroy Road and Caesar Street in Beaconsfield from Residential R30, Open Space Reserve and Community Facilities Reserve to Development zone (see figure below). This proposed scheme amendment was considered a complex amendment for the reason specified under regulation 34 (c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

an amendment relating to development that is of a scale, or will have an impact, that is significant relative to development in the locality.


Page 60

Amendment No. 72 was requested by the planning consultants Urbis on behalf of the former Housing Authority – now the Department of Communities (DoC). The area is currently developed with low to medium density housing predominantly owned by the DoC and managed as social housing. The area has been identified by the DoC as a priority precinct within which a greater diversity of housing stock, including up to 11 % public housing, can be achieved through redevelopment and urban renewal. To achieve redevelopment and urban renewal of the area a structure plan is required. Prior to a structure plan process being undertaken the area needs the appropriate zoning to trigger the need for a structure plan. Accordingly the amendment proposes the area be rezoned to development zone to allow for a structure plan preparation process. Once rezoned a structure plan process can be commenced. The structure plan would guide subdivision, servicing, land use and development of the area. The structure plan process includes a community engagement stage whereby the community can input and provide comment on the structure plan prior to development of the site. Ultimately, the structure plan would need to be approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, based on a recommendation by the City, prior to any applications for new forms of development in the area.

Concurrent with assessment of this scheme amendment the City is leading the Heart of Beaconsfield master plan project. This is a multi-agency approach to preparation of a high level, non-statutory master plan document covering a broader area including the Beaconsfield TAFE site, Bruce Lee Reserve, Lefroy Road quarry site and South Fremantle High School/Fremantle College as well as the scheme amendment area. The purpose of the master plan is to provide a framework within which future structure plans


Page 61

or other statutory planning documents can be prepared in order to achieve coordinated and well integrated outcomes across individual neighbouring land parcels.


There are no financial implications with the final adoption of this scheme amendment.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications with the final adoption of this scheme amendment.

CONSULTATION

Community consultation was undertaken from 20 May to 21 July 2017 - 62 days in total. The consultation process consisted of:

Public advertising notice in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 20 May 2017.

An information package including frequently asked questions, scheme amendment report, and submission forms made available at the City offices and on the website.

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period.

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to landowners and tenants within at least 100m of the amendment area, and notification to various service agencies and government organisations.

Officers attended a joint White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield Precinct meeting on 4 July to present various projects in the area including this scheme amendment.

Summary of Submissions The City received 29 submissions on the proposed amendment during the public comment period. The submissions were made by 20 owner/occupiers in the immediate Beaconsfield area and nine government and other agencies/organisations. The breakdown of the submissions received is provided in table 1 below. Table 1. Number of submissions and position on Scheme amendment No. 72 Land

owner/occupier Agency/ organisation Total Position

Object 14 14

Support 5 2 7

Neutral - no objection/no comment 7 7

Neutral - comment 1 1

Total 20 9 29

Excerpts from submissions in support of the amendment:

I look forward to hearing more detail of the structure plan... It is a great area in much need of improvement / amendment. The clean slate approach sounds optimistic, hopeful with so much potential.


Page 62

Support the amendment as this has been talked about for over 20 years and the faster the area is redeveloped into houses with a lower State housing component the better for everyone.

Excerpts from submissions that object to the amendment:

After the Housing Authority spent what was a significant amount money to renew the area’s houses they plan to waste this and build new houses. This is wrong and disruptive to my life...This has been my home since 1980 it would be too difficult for me to move.

I don’t wish the nature of my local neighbourhood to change... “Clearing the Slate” of the zoning worries me because it potentially allows developers to dramatically change the use, feel and living conditions of Beaconsfield.

Need more info on what is going to happen to residents and what is going to be erected.

Several submissions included suggestions for the subsequent structure plan process. These suggestions are summarised below and will be passed onto the Heart of Beaconsfield Masterplan and any structure plan process.

The two blocks at Ceasar Street and South Street should be considered for higher density so that there is a considerably larger community within the immediate precinct of the proposed commercial centre to assist with viability.

Reasonably sized, well planned, safe and accessible community space should be incorporated within and alongside areas of increased density.

Future development should include solar power generation, reliable NBN and WiFi hubs and architectural and solar passive design.

Construction of a central fountain and square, the Italian piazza style.

Correct planting of native plants in accordance with local Wadjulup advice. Attachment 1 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a summary of the submissions received with officer comment.

OFFICER COMMENT

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to enable the preparation of a local structure plan to guide future comprehensive redevelopment of the subject land. To enable the preparation of a local structure plan the land first needs to be zoned Development zone. Officer comment on the submissions The majority of the submissions received on the amendment were made by residents within the scheme amendment area and immediate surroundings. 14 of the landowner/occupier submissions objected to the amendment. The concerns raised in these submissions were around residents of the area having to move and the amendment not being clear on what the area is to become (see attachment 1 for further detail). In addition to the City’s communication with residents regarding the scheme amendment, to keep residents informed on what amendment No. 72 and the Heart of Beaconsfield Masterplan project meant for them and their living situation, the DoC distributed an ‘Information for Housing Authority tenants in the Davis Park Precinct’ frequently asked


Page 63

questions (FAQ) document to residents of the area. This included information on such questions as: What is being planned for the Davis Park Precinct and how long will it take before anything happens in the area? What does the Heart of Beaconsfield development mean for Housing Davis Park tenants? When will the Housing Authority seek to relocate tenants? The following is an excerpt from the FAQ document:

Planning for the Davis Park precinct in Beaconsfield will be integrated as part of the masterplan for the revitalisation of the overall The Heart of Beaconsfield project. As a first step, the Housing Authority has requested a change (an amendment) to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme. If approved, the precinct will be labelled a ‘development zone.’ This change will allow for a more comprehensive approach to planning to occur before any development can take place. Once the precinct is re-zoned to ‘development zone’ a Structure Plan will be created to show how the development might look and to allow for more variety of housing types as well as possible other uses. The overall vision and masterplan will help to guide the shape of the Structure Plan. Once all the planning has been completed in the coming years, it is likely that social housing tenants will be required to relocate to enable redevelopment of the Davis Park precinct. The Housing Authority will work closely with all tenants to relocate them into a home that is appropriate to their needs.

The DoC indicated in their documents that relocation of tenants wouldn’t start any earlier than 2019. Acknowledging tenant management is the responsibility of the DoC, copies of the submissions that raised concerns over being moved have been passed onto DoC officers for reference and consideration in their further communications with tenants. Some submissions asked what the rezoning means for the area in terms of redevelopment. Amendment No. 72 to rezone the area to development zone does not provide any density, heights or other planning provisions for how the area is to develop. Instead, the amendment would clear the current planning requirements applicable and apply to the area scheme provisions requiring preparation of a local structure plan to address layout, land use, density, built form, etc. The structure plan process includes a community engagement stage, whereby the community can input and provide comment on the structure plan. A structure plan would be required prior to redevelopment of the area. The term ‘clearing the slate’ was used during the community engagement period to explain the idea that the amendment was clearing the current planning zoning and densities applicable to the area to allow for the structure plan process. Some took this to mean the Davis Park [or wider Heart of Beaconsfield] area was being physically cleared as part of the amendment. This is not the case. Redevelopment of the area would be undertaken by the landowners in due course and following a structure plan process. Submissions in support of the amendment supported the principle of redevelopment of the area.


Page 64

Officer comment on the amendment Officers support scheme amendment No. 72 for the following reasons:

Redevelopment in this location would capitalise on the area’s proximity to South Street, which is a strategically important public transport corridor, and the local centre adjoining the north-east corner of the area.

Redevelopment of the area, including opportunities for increased residential densities close to South Street, would be consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s draft Central Sub-Regional Framework and other key state government strategic planning documents. Rezoning to Development zone in order to require preparation of a structure plan to guide redevelopment would be the most suitable planning mechanism to ensure redevelopment occurs in a comprehensive and properly coordinated manner.

Redevelopment on a comprehensive scale would also provide an opportunity to achieve greater diversity of housing stock in the area in terms of built form and tenure.

Redevelopment of the area can be coordinated with adjoining sites including Bruce Lee Reserve, TAFE site, SFHS/Fremantle College site and the Lefroy Road Quarry structure plan area, through the Heart of Beaconsfield Master Planning project. This is a separate process which the City is leading in collaboration with representatives of relevant State agencies including the DoC.

Accordingly, this report recommends that Council receive and note the submissions made during the consultation period and adopt the amendment without modification.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 1. 2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 41(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 without modification:

(a) Rezone and reclassify the land bounded by South Street to the north, Lefroy

Road to the south, Fifth Avenue to the east and Caesar Street to the west from a Residential ‘R30’ zone, Open Space Local Scheme Reserve and


Page 65

Community Facility – Community Facilities Local Scheme Reserve to a Development zone.

(b) Modifying the Scheme Map accordingly.

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

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

Amendment No. 72 as referred to in (2) above. CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 66

PC1709 -11 KNUTSFORD STREET EAST LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENTS - APPROVAL

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Schedule of submissions

2. Knutsford Street East Structure Plan with amendments

SUMMARY

The Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan was adopted by council in February 2008. While the vision and intent of the Structure Plan are still valid, some of the provisions are worded in such a way as to inadvertently hinder development and due to its age some aspects of the plan are no longer consistent with the current Planning and Development Regulations 2015, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or the Residential Design Codes. In March 2017 Council approved advertising of draft amendments to the structure plan. These include amendments to provisions requiring commercial uses, clarification of public open space requirements and a more uniform application of maximum building heights and densities. 21 submissions were received; about half were in support of the changes, subject to some clarifications, and half against. The key objections referred to building height and density particularly for development on Stack St and Blinco St, traffic, parking, the deletion of a specific neighbourhood centre location and the compatibility of existing business and new development. The amendments to the structure plan are now presented to council for final consideration. Following consideration by council the amended plan will be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval. PROJECT BACKGROUND The area known as Knutsford Street East (bounded by Blinco, Montreal, Amherst and Stack Streets) is zoned ‘Development Zone’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4.) A structure plan is required to coordinate and guide redevelopment of the land. The Knutsford Street East Structure Plan (the structure plan) was originally prepared prior to the gazettal of LPS4 and Council resolved to adopt the plan, subject to certain modifications, in January 2006. After LPS4 was gazetted, the structure plan was formally adopted under the provisions of LPS4 in February 2008. It functions as a guiding document to facilitate future redevelopment within the designated area. The vision of the structure plan is:

To redevelop an aging underutilised industrial area through the introduction of a mix of residential and commercial uses supported by a neighbourhood centre and integrated with the surrounding community via the application of sustainable planning principles which retain the historic character of its former industrial use without compromising the amenity of existing and future residents and workers.


Page 67

The intent of the structure plan vision is still valid. However the plan was written in a time of more conservative development expectations and the pace of development in the area has been slow. It is now evident that some of the structure plan provisions are worded such that they may inadvertently hinder development and/or encourage ‘under development’ (especially on the fringes of the development area). Precinct landowners and stakeholders met at the City on 27 October 2016 to discuss development in the structure plan area, which includes the City’s depot site. Several elected members also attended. The meeting resulted in general support for changes to the structure plan intended to make development both more sustainable and more viable. Subsequently officers prepared a series of draft amendments to the structure plan which were approved by council on 22 March 2017 for use in community consultation.


There are no financial implications for the 2017/18 budget arising from this item.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the P&D Regulations) provide for the amendment of a structure plan by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) at the request of the local government (clause 29). Prior to submitting such a request to the WAPC the local government is required to advertise proposed amendments. This requirement is now complete and subject to council’s approval the amended structure plan will be submitted to the WAPC for approval.

CONSULTATION

The amendments were advertised in accordance with the requirements of the P&D Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. This provides for a period of up to 28 days within which submissions may be made. Submissions closed on 7 July 2017. The proposed amendments were advertised in the press and by individual notification to property owners and occupiers within and surrounding the structure plan area. The local precinct groups were also notified and a community information session was held on 20 June 2017. This was attended by around 30 people, providing a further opportunity to engage with stakeholders. Changes advertised included amendments to the provisions which mandate commercial uses, clarification of public open space requirements and a broader application of maximum heights and densities. 21 submissions were received. 9 submissions were clear objections, 10 submissions were largely in support and 2 were neutral or an equal mix of support and objections. A full schedule of submissions is attached at attachment 1, and a summary of the main issues raised in submissions is provided below. Included in the supporting submissions were suggestions for further clarification on the conditions for bonus height and density and for use of the City’s Design Advisory


Page 68

Committee to help in assessing bonuses and interface design requirements for development on Stack and Blinco Streets. The key issues arising in the objections were as follows:

Height and density – should be limited to 2 or 3 storeys to be compatible with surrounding development.

Traffic and parking – additional height and density (and commercial uses) will add to traffic and exacerbate existing parking problems.

The deletion of the neighbourhood centre – residents would like a convenience store and or fruit and veg shop.

Compatibility of existing business and new development – more provision needs to be made for industrial uses which intend to remain for the foreseeable future.

These matters are discussed in the Officer Comment section of this report.

OFFICER COMMENT

Following advertising, the vision of the Structure Plan remains relevant although the specific reference to a neighbourhood centre has been deleted (see table below). The ‘bones’ of the document are still considered to be sound however and the amendments as advertised were designed to simplify and clarify the provisions and to bring the document up to date in such a way as to better encourage development of the precinct in line with the vision. Further amendments now recommended since advertising serve to further clarify the earlier changes. In response to the submissions received, officers offer the following comments and/or further recommended amendments to the structure plan:

Height and density – the aim of redevelopment is not to replicate what is existing in neighbouring residential streets (i.e. predominantly single storey single houses or grouped dwellings). However the need to graduate the scale of built form on the edges of the structure plan area (especially in Blinco St and Stack St) to achieve an appropriate relationship with existing development is acknowledged. Further changes to the amended structure plan are recommended to address this issue (see item 2.2 in table below).

Traffic and parking – additional yield and density (and commercial uses) will add to traffic and exacerbate existing parking problems. Officers acknowledge that more intensive new development replacing current relatively low intensity light industrial/storage uses in the area are likely to generate additional traffic and parking, although the amendments to the structure plan do not substantially increase the overall development capacity provided for in the original plan. A note is recommended to be added in the amended plan stating that further traffic analysis may be required to confirm the capacity of the current road system before major development occurs. This is already a requirement of part 3 section 5 of the plan.

The deletion of the neighbourhood centre – residents would like a convenience store and or fruit and veg shop. This would still be possible under the amended structure plan as a local convenience store would be a permissible land use anywhere in the structure plan area. The amended plan still suggests a location near the junction of Knutsford St and Montreal St may be appropriate for such a use.


Page 69

Compatibility of existing business and new development – More provision needs to be made for industrial uses which intend to remain for the foreseeable future.

A summary of the advertised amendments and recommended responses is tabled below. Overall the changes proposed simplify the document, encourage optimum development outcomes within the allowable density and height, and allow for discretionary consideration of exceptional development proposals. The full text of the amended Structure Plan is attached (see attachment 2) with the amendments as advertised marked in red and further amendments now recommended post-advertising marked in blue.

Subject section

Existing text/provisions

Outline of changes as advertised

Response to advertising

PART 1 CONTEXT

Refers to early version of Swanbourne St Structure Plan and Network City documents.

Updated to refer to latest version of Swanbourne St Structure Plan, Perth and Peel at 3.5m suite of documents and Design WA.

Minor changes for clarity

PART 2 – STRUCTURE PLAN 1.0 Vision

Refers to Vision Objectives and Principles

Changes to delete reference to Neighbourhood Centre in the vision To redevelop an aging under utilised industrial area through the introduction of a mix of residential and commercial uses including small scale convenience retail to serve the local area supported by a neighbourhood centre and integrated with the existing surrounding community via the application of sustainable planning principles which retain the historic character of its former industrial use without compromising the amenity of existing and future residents and workers and businesses

1.4 Detailed Area Plan (DAP) Precincts

Defines 5 precincts based on land ownership and requirement for Detailed

Removes the separate precincts and the requirement for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs). Landuse and planning requirements for each



Page 70

Subject section




Area Plans (DAPs) to be provided for each.

precinct were almost the same and requirement for DAP’s added an unnecessary approval layer (which was difficult to achieve with diverse land ownership.) The design detail required can still be dealt with at subdivision or development approval stage on a site by site basis.

2.2 Interface considerations

Maximum Heights : 2 Storey facing Blinco and Stack St 4 Storey elsewhere 2 Storey mininum for single residential

Changes to allow 4 storeys across the site as long as development is sensitive to context. Adds a provision to allow consideration of heights above 4 storeys – subject to council approval and if 2 or more (of 5) conditions are met (i.e. building conservation, leading edge sustainability, uses other than residential, significant architectural merit, provision of significant public amenity, affordable housing/space for artists or business incubation).

Changes to Section 2.2 and Table 1 to clarify interface requirements for development on Blinco and Stack Sts : Stack and Blinco Street should be generally 2 storeys at the street interface with any additional storeys set well back from the street. It must also be demonstrated that the development will not impact on the amenity of surrounding areas with respect to overlooking and overshadowing. Height and density bonuses will not be permitted on the sites facing Stack and Blinco Streets

2.3 Residential Density

R60 generally R40 facing Blinco and Stack Streets R100 if a high standard of sustainability offered

Delete R40 minimum R60 new minimum across the whole site. R100 allowed across all sites as long as development is sensitive to context. Above R100 – will be considered (subject to council approval based on meeting at least 2 of the five criteria as above)


2.4 Non- The final Delete requirement for a Minor changes for clarity


Page 71

Subject section




residential land uses

location and configuration of a neighbourhood centre to be identified during preparation of the DAP for precinct 3 (depot site)

neighbourhood centre and note commercial activity and cottage industry is allowed/encouraged across the whole area. A preference for commercial to be focussed on Knutsford St with a possible future hub at the golf course end if the clubhouse and café were to be redeveloped.

Requirement for a minimum 5% component for separately titled, non-residential purposes to council satisfaction (based on site gross development area)

Mandating non-residential uses is making development unviable. Notwithstanding, the area has developed some quirky and interesting uses and flexibility should be given to allow these to continue to pop up ‘organically.’ Change requires all ground floors to be adaptable design, so allowing for future change to non-residential uses more easily.


Table 1 Landuse and development requirements

Table 1 Landuse and development requirements contains 5 sub tables, one for each of the 5 precincts. Table sets out permitted and discretionary land uses, density height and built form requirements.

Apart from interface requirements which have been deleted in changes described above, the tables were largely repetitive. Requirements are now the same across all precincts and so have been consolidated into a single table. Table 1 still sets out permitted and discretionary land uses, density height and built form requirements but

Updated to include interface requirements for Stack and Blinco Streets (as above) and to clarify conditions under which bonuses may be achieved.


Page 72

Subject section




now reflects the draft changes noted above.

2.5 Public open space

This section allows for a variation to the usual requirement for 10% public open space (POS) or cash in lieu due to the large amount of POS already in the vicinity.

Provision remains unchanged although the section has been re written to improve clarity.

No further change

2.7 Built form

Refers to DAPs and design guidelines

Amendments to stress the desired industrial character of the built form. Reference to DAPs deleted, reference to (future) design guidelines changed to design principles.


2.8 Development outcomes and incentives

This section sets out possible variations to Residential Planning Code (R Code) and scheme requirements which could be considered in order to facilitate timely development and achieve mixed use residential outcomes

Formatting changed for clarity. Reference to DAPs, plot ratio and site coverage bonuses delete

Error in previous description – section deleted prior to advertising.

2.9 Staging Refers to likely staging based on service provision.

Section deleted No further change

3.0 Movement systems

Describes existing road, pedestrian,

Minor amendments to correct street names, update bus route

Reference to PFL deleted. Note re High Street upgrade added


Page 73

Subject section




cycle and public transport network and a possible new link between Wood and Montreal St.

numbers and to mention Knutsford St as green link and High Street as a potential for the Perth Freight Link. Deletes possible link from Wood to Montreal St.

Note added re traffic analysis may be required to confirm the capacity of the current road system before major development occurs. This is already a requirement of part 3 section 5

5.0 Population

Table 2 Estimated dwellings and population based on expected densities for each precinct

Table 2 updated to delete precincts and reflect minimum densities as amended above across entire Structure Plan area.

Table 2 updated to show what was deleted under precinct 1 (missing from advertised version)

6.0 Community Infrastructure and Benefits

Sets out the likely benefit of development to the community

First item amended as follows: Build on industrial character while removing inappropriate activities from the area and remediating sites. or upgrading unattractive but compatible industrial activities

PART 3 IMPLEMENTATION 3.0 Stage 2 - Infrastructure contribution Agreement

Requires a cost sharing agreement

Section amended to reflect subsequent Council decision not to pursue a contribution agreement.

No further change

4.0 Stage 3 Detailed Area Plans & 5.0 Stage 4 Subdivision and/or development

Sets out requirements for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs)

Sections amended to delete DAPs and require subdivision and development plans to address the requirements previously to be addressed by DAPs.

No further change

In conclusion, the intent of the vision of the structure plan is still considered valid, however the structure plan was written over 10 years ago. The recommended amendments are intended to simplify the document and encourage development within the allowable density and height and allow for consideration of exceptional development proposals. These changes have been made having regard to feedback from precinct landowners and other stakeholders.


Page 74

Council is recommended to approve the amendments and authorise submission of the amended structure plan to the WAPC for final approval.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority required.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council:

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and attachment 1.

2. Approve the changes to the Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan contained in Attachment 1 to the item considered by the Planning Committee on 6 September 2017.

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to request the Western Australian Planning Commission to amend the Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan in the form contained in Attachment 1 to the item considered by the Planning Committee on 6 September 2017, in accordance with the provisions of clause 29(1) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against



Page 75

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr Jon Strachan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PC1709-1, PC1709-4, PC1709-8 and PC1709-9. CARRIED: 5/0

For Against


The following item was MOVED and carried en bloc earlier in the meeting.

PC1709 -1 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 116 (LOTS 14 AND 15), FREMANTLE - THIRD STOREY ADDITIONS, SIGNAGE AND ADDITIONAL USES OF OFFICE AND LUNCH BAR TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING - (NB DAP003/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Comment to JDAP Attachments: 1. Development Plans

2. Schedule of Submissions 3: Applicant’s Road Safety Assessment 4: City’s Road Safety Assessment 5: DAC Comments 6: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for third storey additions, signage and additional uses of Office and Lunch bar to an existing commercial building located on the corner of Wray Avenue and Hampton Road, Fremantle. As the value of the proposal is $2.15 million, the applicant has opted to have the application determined by the metro south-west Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). The City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR) is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) for consideration, prior to being forwarded to the JDAP. The resolution of the PC can be included in the RAR as the PC’s comment to the JDAP. The application is recommended for refusal.


Page 76

PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the following additions and alterations to an existing two storey Commercial building:

third floor addition, including lift and stairs

two animated signs of dimensions 8 m wide by 2.7 m high, one each on the southern and western third floor elevations

ground floor addition to the eastern side consisting of a Lunch Bar

additional use of Office (‘P’ use) to the third floor, and Lunch Bar (‘A’ use)

retention of the existing Consulting Rooms use

alterations to the existing façade including awnings. The full details of the proposal and City Officer’s assessment are contained in the RAR reproduced in the second part of this report. Site/application information Date received: 3 July 2017 Owner name: Mr Alastair McKendrick and Mrs Pamela Gabriels Submitted by: Pinnacle Planning Scheme: Mixed Use Heritage listing: Listed, Not within a Heritage Area Existing land use: Medical centre Use class: Medical Centre, Office, Lunch Bar Use permissibility: ‘P’, ‘P’ and ‘A’ OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: SUPPORT the Officer’s Recommendation contained in the Responsible Authority Report as follows:

Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/17/01245 and accompanying plans DA.00 – DA.14 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is contrary to the discretionary building height provisions of

Cl. 4.8.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.14: Advertisements, having regard to traffic safety, character and amenity of the area, and the digital nature and third party advertising use of the signs in accordance with Cl. 67(g) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

3. The animated signs are not suitable for the location and will have a

detrimental impact on traffic safety due to their location near a hazardous intersection in accordance with Cl. 67(r) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


Page 77

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 116 (Lots 14 and 15) Wray Avenue, Fremantle

Development Description: Third Storey Additions, Signage and Additional Uses of Office and Lunch Bar to an Existing Commercial Building

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: Pinnacle Planning

Owner: Mr Alastair McKendrick and Mrs Pamela Gabriels

Value of Development: $2.15 Million

LG Reference: DAP003/17

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/17/01245

Report Due Date: 11 September 2017

Application Receipt Date: 3 July 2017

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 2: Development Plans and Elevations 3: Schedule of Submissions & copies of responses received from statutory or public authorities 3: Applicant’s Road Safety Assessment 4: City’s Road Safety Assessment 5: DAC Comments 6: Site Photos

Officer Recommendation: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/17/01245 and accompanying plans DA.00 – DA.14 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is contrary to the discretionary building height provisions of Cl. 4.8.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning

Policy 2.14: Advertisements, having regard to traffic safety, character and amenity of the area, and the digital nature and third party advertising use of the signs in accordance with Cl. 67(g) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


detrimental impact on traffic safety due to their location near a hazardous


Page 78

intersection in accordance with Cl. 67(r) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Details: outline of development application

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban

LPS: Mixed Use

Insert Use Class: Medical Centre (P), Office (P), Lunch Bar (A)

Insert Strategy Policy: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Insert Development Scheme: n/a

Insert Lot Size: 974m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Medical Centre

The application proposes the following additions and alterations to an existing two storey Commercial building:

third floor addition, including lift and stairs

two animated signs of dimensions 8 m wide by 2.7 m high, one each on the southern and western third floor elevations

ground floor addition to the eastern side consisting of a Lunch Bar

additional use of Office (‘P’ use) to the third floor, and Lunch Bar (‘A’ use)

retention of the existing Consulting Rooms use

alterations to the existing façade including awnings. A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1. Background: The site consists of two lots, with the existing building being wholly contained within Lot 15. The existing building is a two storey Commercial building, which was constructed circa 1933 and has been approved for a Medical Centre. Though the site is on the City’s Heritage List due to the presence of Limestone Features, these features were unable to be located and the site was recommended for removal from the list in 2010, however, this was never carried out and the lot remains on the Heritage List. The site is not within a Heritage Area. The northern lot (Lot 14) contains only car parking areas and landscaping, with vehicle access taken from Hampton Road and the parking lot entrance located within 10 m of a signalised intersection. The site slopes up approximately 4 m from Hampton Road towards the rear and the existing building sits on the street front boundary. A search of the property history reveals that various approvals have been granted for signage, painting, re-roofing, awnings and façade changes. However, as all of these elements are proposed to be removed or significantly altered in the subject application they are not considered to be relevant. Legislation & policy: Legislation


Page 79

Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

Cl. 3.2.1: Objectives of the Zones

Cl. 4.7: Vehicle Parking

Cl. 4.8: Variation to Height Requirements

Schedule 8: Local Planning Area 4 – Fremantle South State Government Policies Nil Local Policies LPP 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals LPP 1.9: Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design LPP 2.14: Advertisement Policy Consultation: Public Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions were sought against LPS4 and the City’s Local Planning Policies. The advertising consisted of two signs on-site (one facing each street), letters sent to properties within 100 m of the subject site, notification sent to the local precinct and a community information session. The advertising period concluded on 15 August 2017, and 27 submissions were received, inclusive of one fully in support. The main issues raised in the submissions included:

Issue Raised Officer’s comments

Building height Not supported – The discretionary height sought does not comply with Council’s policies in accordance with Cl. 4.8.1(d) of LPS4 (see below).

LED Signage Not supported – The signs are contrary to the City’s policy and pose a traffic hazard to an already dangerous intersection.

Traffic and car parking

Supported – The development is located within a high frequency zone with parking available in the vicinity.

Building design Not supported – The animated signs are integrated into the design and their removal would require significant alterations.

A summarised Schedule of Submissions is provided in Attachment 2. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The application was referred to the 10 July 2017 DAC meeting where:


Page 80

The Design Advisory Committee advises that it is not in a position to provide support for the proposal in its current form and offers the following comment:

1. The proposed height may be appropriate for this corner location. The applicant should provide streetscape elevations of the immediate context to demonstrate its potential compatibility with the height of surrounding buildings having regard for the topography of the streets.

2. Notes that the proposed animated billboards are considered problematic and are

unlikely to be supported.

3. The proposed external refurbishment of the existing two storey building makes an improved contribution to the street, however the design of the third floor should be reconsidered, especially in the event the animated billboards are not supported.

4. Details of improvements to the legibility of entrances to the existing building and

the proposed café including an overall plan demonstrating improvements to the ground plane will enhance the overall design quality of the proposal.

On 2 August 2017, the applicant submitted amended plans revising the grounds floor façade. The amended plans were referred to the 14 August 2017 DAC meeting where the DAC were generally supportive of the ground and first floor design changes. However, the members had serious concerns about the suitability of the animated signs in regards to their prominence and the location of the site. The signs are integrated into the building facade and their removal would significantly alter the design. The DAC resolved the following: The Design Advisory Committee advises that it does not support the proposal in its current form as the proposed animated signs have been designed as an integral element of the design of the development and are not considered to be appropriate for this location nor do they result in a high quality urban outcome for the area. Full minutes are available as Attachment 4. Planning assessment: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 The proposal seeks a variation against the following elements of LPS4:

Element Requirement Proposal Compliance

Wall height (Schedule 8. Cl. 4.1 of LPS4)

7 m maximum 11.9 m Does not comply – Requires assessment under Cl. 4.8.1 of LPS4 (see below)

Land Use – Lunch Bar (Zone objectives of Cl. 3.2.1 of LPS4)

Compliance with objectives of Cl. 3.2.1 of LPS4

Lunch Bar – ‘A’ use

Complies (see below)

Vehicle parking 26 bays 18 bays Does not comply


Page 81

(Cl. 4.7.2 of LPS4) -discretion required (see below)

Local Planning Policies The proposal does not comply with LPP 2.14: Advertisement Policy as it proposes animated signs containing third party advertising, which are specifically prohibited under the policy. Further, the location of the signs adjacent to a busy intersection is contrary to Main Roads WA Guidelines and Austroads Report AP-R420-13 and are likely to contribute to the hazardous nature of the interchange in front of the building (further discussed below). Officer Comments Wall height Clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 permits variations to the height requirements of Schedule 8 as follows: Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following- (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the

locality generally, (b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council's local planning policies. The existing building on site exceeds the maximum wall height of 7 m by approximately 0.3 m, thus allowing consideration of additional height under the above clause. The requirements of the clause are discussed below: (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the

locality generally The proposed development has a maximum height of 11.9 m at the Wray Avenue and Hampton Road intersection, however, the steep slope of the subject site results in the rear of the building being only 8 m above the natural ground level when viewed from the rear of the site, which is only one metre above the permitted 7 m height. The bulk of the height is directed towards the streetfront and the overall impact as viewed from the rear adjoining properties is diminished due to the slope of the land. The proposed flat roof further diminishes building bulk and impact to views as compared to a pitched roof. The eastern adjoining lot contains a residential property, however, the house is built on the boundary and has no major openings facing the subject site. Notwithstanding that the proposed office use is not bound by the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes, any overlooking and additional building bulk from the proposed upper floor to the east will be


Page 82

to the roof, blank walls and front setback of the adjoining eastern property and therefore will pose no adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining lot. The upper floor is to be constructed above the existing footprint of the building, resulting in the height variation being located in excess of 12 metres from the adjoining north-western residential property on Hampton Road. Combined with the steep slope of the natural ground levels, the additional storey, in and of itself, will have minimal impact on the adjoining property. However, the proposed animated signs are integrated into the design of the upper floor and these will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality as discussed further in (d) below and elsewhere in this report. The negative impact is likely to be exacerbated given the increased height sought and, therefore, the development is not considered to satisfy the criteria of sub-clause (a). (b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale

between buildings of varying heights within the locality LPS4 provides no definition of the ‘locality’, but has been previously taken by the City to mean within approximately 200m of the subject site. Within this distance, there is one lot containing a building more than two stories, being No. 100 Hampton Road, which contains a seven storey (~20 m wall height) multiple dwelling development and is located within a Development Area zone containing distinct Scheme provisions. Importantly, natural ground levels within the area slope up approximately 14 m from the street front of the subject site towards the north-east of the 200 m radius (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 1: Topography immediately north-east of the subject site (Subject site shown in red in left hand corner)


Page 83

As a result, any two storey (6 m wall height) house above the 20 m contour line will naturally be higher than the proposed development, thus giving the appearance of a graduation in building height as one approaches Wray Avenue. Further, the proposed development is located on a busy intersection with Commercial uses of a similar large bulk and scale on all corners as shown in the figure and table below.

Figure 2: Aerial view showing the bulk and scale of buildings across the intersection from the subject site.

Address Wall Height Roof Height

69-73 Wray Avenue 6.7 m (Wray Ave Elevation) 8.8 m (Southern Elevation)

8.7 m 10.5 m

91 Hampton Road 7.3 m 9.4 m

The above developments have lesser wall heights but include pitched roofs which increase their mass and size. Combined with the steep slope of the land, the proposed development could be considered to graduate the scale between the various heights of the commercial and residential properties within the locality. (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and This clause does not apply as the building is not heritage listed nor located within a heritage area.


Page 84

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council's local planning policies. The animated signs are contrary to the provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.14: Advertisements, which prohibits both animated and third party signs, and their location adjacent to the intersection is considered unsafe (both issues further discussed below). The applicant has confirmed that the signs are integral to the building and have not opted to delete them from the proposal. Further, the signs have been integrated into the building facade in such a way that their removal would present a significant design change and, therefore, the application is recommended for refusal in its entirety. The proposal, specifically the proposed animated signage, is considered to have a detrimental impact on the locality and is inconsistent with the requirements of the advertisement policy. Therefore, the discretionary wall height is not supported. The application is recommended for refusal as it is contrary to the requirements of Cl. 4.8.1(d) of LPS4. Land use The existing Medical Centre and the proposed Office use are both ‘P’ uses within the Mixed use zone and are supported. A Lunch Bar is an ‘A’ use within a Mixed Use zone which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2. In considering an ‘A’ use the Council will have regard to the matters to be considered of Cl. 67(a) of the Regulations. Sub-clause (a) allows Council to consider matters against the aims and provisions of the Scheme, which includes an assessment against the zone objectives. Cl. 3.2.1(e) of LPS4 sets out the objectives of the zone as follows: Development within the mixed use zone shall-

i. provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones;


iii. ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area;

iv. ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and

v. conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.

The proposed Lunch Bar is considered to satisfy the objectives of the Mixed use zone for the following reasons:


Page 85

The use provides a compatible land use in a small scale premise primarily serving customers visiting the site and would not be detrimental to the viability of other zones.

The use is consistent with the character of the area, particularly as a similar sized café operates within the medical centre across the street.

The small scale of the Lunch Bar will have minimal impact to the amenity of the locality.

The Lunch Bar is located against a blank wall of the adjoining dwelling and the alfresco area will have minimal impact to adjoining properties.

Vehicle parking

Use Bays Required Bays Provided

Shortfall

Medical Centre (4 Consulting Rooms)

5:1 practitioner or consulting room (whichever is greater) = 20 bays

18 8 Lunch Bar (14.2m2 nla)

1:20m2 nla (min. 2) = 2

Office (130m2gla)

1:30m2 gla = 4.3

TOTAL = 26

The parking variation is supported under Cl. 4.7.3 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The development is served by public transportation, being on seven different bus routes, and is located within a high frequency bus route as defined by the R-Codes.

The Lunch Bar is likely to be used by people already visiting the site for other purposes rather than acting as an attractor for visitors and therefore the demand is considered to be shared among existing parking bays.

Two car bays near the eastern entrance were removed to improve the ground floor entrance and address building design issues raised by the DAC.

The Medical Centre use is not changing and currently has 20 car parking bays, which are underutilised based on the applicant’s justification and an aerial history of the car parking on-site. The additional uses will have minimal impact on the amenity of the locality.

Local Planning Policy 2.14: Advertisements The policy defines Animated Signs as “includ[ing] but not limited to any sign or its contents that moves, and includes flashing or “chasing” lights, as well as video signs, plasma and LCD screen signs and signs which are “trivision”, “variable message”, “changing message” and “fibre optic” signs.” Though the applicant states the signs will be static in that they will only display still images, they are still considered an Animated Sign as per the policy. Clause 1.1(g) of the Policy states that ‘Advertisements in the form of an Animated sign will not be supported by Council’ which is considered to be a specific and intentional inclusion in the Policy as these types of signs are not supported by the City within its Local Government Area.


Page 86

In addition to (g) above, all signage must be assessed against the additional provisions of Cl. 1.1 of the policy. The relevant sub-clauses are discussed below: b) Advertisements are to be located and designed so as not to cause a hazardous

distraction to motorists, pedestrians or other road users. The proposed signs are considered to be located above a hazardous intersection and will cause a dangerous distraction to motorists as discussed in further detail below. c) Advertisements will be compatible with the style, scale and character of the

surrounding streetscape, and the predominant uses within the locality. Consideration will be given to the number and type of existing signs in the locality so as to avoid visual clutter.

The animated signs are not considered to be compatible with the character of the surrounding streetscape nor the style of signs in the locality, which consist predominantly of static, non-illuminated signs. The few illuminated signs are standard backlit signs, which do not move or flash. All signs currently in existence in the locality are used only to display the name of the business or to identify goods and services sold on-site. One rooftop billboard exists across the street, however, this is only used to display the name of the business operating from the site. The proposed animated signs are of a size and scale so as to dominate the upper floor rather than be subservient to the building, contrary to the variations permitted under the Design principles of the policy as discussed below. The operation of the signs, including their changing nature and display of third-party advertising, is contrary to the character of the surrounding streetscape and the established businesses in the area. Permitting animated signs of this nature into what is effectively a Local Centre environment surrounded by dense residential uses will negatively alter the character of the area. The prominent location of the site and the height of the signs contributes to significant light spillage to nearby residential properties and will negatively impact the amenity of the locality. The higher ground level of the site compared to that of the Residential zone to the south and west will further exacerbate the negative impacts of the illumination by allowing visibility from longer distances. Even dimming the screens at dusk, as proposed, will result in an unacceptable level of additional light affecting the Residential properties within the immediate locality. d) Advertisements shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle movements. Notwithstanding the impact on driver distraction discussed below, the City concurs with the applicant that the advertisements are located so as not to physically impede pedestrian or vehicle movements. f) Advertisements are not to emit a flashing or moving light or radio; animation or

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

The signs are only proposed to show static images, however, the messages are variable and will change, which the City considers to be a ‘moving light’ and therefore is not


Page 87

supported. The height above ground level of the signs will increase the area impacted from the light spillage caused by the signs and negatively impact nearby residential areas. h) Advertisements will not be approved on private land which include:

i. the name, logo, or symbol of a company or other organisation that does not own or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located, or

ii. a product or service not provided on the site on which the advertisement is located;

iii. a product or service that does not form part of the signage displaying the name, logo or symbol; of a company or other organisation that owns or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located; or

iv. signs for an activity or event not occurring on the site on which the advertisement is located.

Though the applicant has stated they intend to advertise the businesses on site, they have also stated an intention to advertise names, products, services, activities, etc. that do not own or substantially occupy the site or building, contrary to the provisions above. Such third party advertising is not supported as it negatively impacts the surrounding locality by way of visual clutter and is not compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding streetscape nor the adjoining Residential zones. No other signs in the locality advertise products contrary to sub-clause (h) above and to allow the proposed signs to do so would introduce a new variation that would be inconsistent with the policy requirements and the character of the area. Notwithstanding the comments above, the provisions of Cl. 1.1 may be varied under Cl. 3 of LPP 2.14 where:

(a) The cumulative effect of the signage does not negatively impact on the surrounding locality by way of visual clutter; and

(b) The scale and design of the signage is subservient to the building to which it relates and are sized in proportion with parapets, panels, windows and wall areas within close proximity to the proposed sign so as to not dominate the view of the building from the street.

As discussed above the size, scale, animated nature and provision of third party advertising of the signs is considered to negatively impact the surrounding locality by way of visual clutter and negative impact to road safety. Further, the signs are designed so that they dominate the view of the building from the street and create significant illumination likely to negatively impact nearby Residential zones. The signs are not in proportion to the existing building and are designed to stand out rather than blend in to the streetscape. The animated signs are located above a hazardous intersection and their use is likely to draw attention away from the road, thereby increasing the rate of vehicle accidents and reducing safety for pedestrians and motorists. The animated signs are not supported for all the reasons stated above and the application is recommended for refusal. Traffic Safety


Page 88

Clause 67(r) of the Deemed provisions permits local governments to consider the suitability of the land for the development taking into account the possible risk to safety. For the subject application, the City’s Traffic Engineer has considered the impact of the upper floor animated signs on road safety and does not support the signs as they are likely to increase the risk of hazardous distraction on drivers. The City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the Road Safety Assessment provided by the applicant (Attachment 3) and the existing road environment. The City considers that the signs do not meet the Main Roads Roadside Advertising Guide requirements or the guidance of Austroads Research Report AP-R420-13 Impact of Roadside Advertising on Road Safety (summarised checklists included in the appendix of Attachment 3) for reasons discussed below and contrary to the conclusions of the applicant’s assessment. Though created for State road reserves, the City relies on the guidelines of the Main Roads and Austroads guides when assessing advertising signs for safety purposes. Additionally, the City notes that the Road Safety Assessment provided by the applicant does not address the high crash rate and black spot designation of the intersection generally, nor the “overall risk profile” guidance of section 9.2 of the Austroads Report and the Main Roads guide to high crash rate areas specifically. Section 9.2 of the Austroads Report states that all installations should consider the “overall risk profile of the road environment” and that “black spots…should be ruled out for advertising device placement”. Further, the Main Roads guide states that advertising devices should “ensure the device is not placed in a high crash rate area”. The animated signs are proposed to be located directly above a black spot intersection with a high rate of rear end collisions according to Main Roads intersection database. The Wray Avenue and Hampton Road intersection is ranked as the fifth most hazardous intersection in Fremantle according to the Main Roads crash rankings. The locations of the signs therefore directly contradict the advice of the Austroads Report and the Main Roads guidelines, and do not consider the overall risk profile of the existing intersection. As a high-risk location above an already hazardous intersection, animated signs of any kind are not supported as they are likely to draw drivers’ attention away from the road and increase the hazardous distraction to motorists and other road users in an already challenging intersection. Notwithstanding that animated signs are inappropriate having regard for black spot intersections in general, the City considers that the specific locations of the signs do not satisfy the Austroads or Main Roads guidelines. Cl. 3.1.1.2: Longitudinal Placement of the Main Roads guide states that longitudinal placement controls are intended to “minimise the level of driver distraction in areas where greater concentration is required” and, to this end, provides a Device Restriction Zone around intersections as shown below.


Page 89

Figure 3: The yellow indicates a Device Restriction Zone subject to Local Government control and enforcement. For Hampton Road and Wray Avenue, ‘d’ equals 65 m. Animated signs within this restriction area are considered to potentially distract drivers at a critical time on approach to a dangerous intersection, contrary to the assertions of the applicant’s Road Safety Assessment. As demonstrated by the current high crash rate, greater concentration is required in the subject intersection and, to that end, any signs that decrease concentration likely result in a corresponding increase in the crash rate. The City therefore does not support any animated signs within the restriction zone on the grounds of detrimental impact to road safety. Section 9.2 of the Austroads Reports regarding longitudinal placement (Appendix C of Attachment 3) recommends animated signs be located so as not to interfere with the effectiveness of a traffic control device and not be visible at the approach to an intersection. The City acknowledges the applicant’s findings that the signs will not present as a direct background to the traffic signals. However, their proximity to the traffic signals must also be considered. The location of the signs above the traffic signals will likely have the effect of drawing driver attention up and away from the roadway, particularly when approaching the intersection from the north and east. The proposed signs will be visible on approach to the intersection and will likely diminish the effectiveness of the traffic signals and increase the risk of road hazards through driver distraction. Overall, the proposed animated signs above the intersection are not supported as they are likely to cause a hazardous distraction to motorists and are contrary to the guidelines of the Main Roads Roadside Advertising Guide and Austroads Research Report AP-R420-13 Impact of Roadside Advertising on Road Safety. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. Conclusion: The application is recommended for refusal for three reasons:

a) The proposed building height fails to meet the discretionary height provisions of clauses 4.8.1(a) and (d) of LPS4 due to inconsistency with Council’s Local Planning Policy 2.14

b) the animated signs are contrary to the policy provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.14: Advertisements

c) the location of the animated signs above a hazardous intersection increases the risks to road safety.


Page 90

The applicant has been notified that the animated signs are not supported in any form for the reasons stated above but has confirmed that the signs are integral to the development and not opted to remove them and amend the proposal. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal in its entirety. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: SUPPORT the Officer’s Recommendation contained in the Responsible Authority Report as follows:

Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/17/01245 and accompanying plans DA.00 – DA.14 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is contrary to the discretionary building height provisions of

Cl. 4.8.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning

Policy 2.14: Advertisements, having regard to traffic safety, character and amenity of the area, and the digital nature and third party advertising use of the signs in accordance with Cl. 67(g) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


detrimental impact on traffic safety due to their location near a hazardous intersection in accordance with Cl. 67(r) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against



Page 91


PC1709 -4 REUBEN STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 4), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE- (CJ DA0275/17)


2: Site photos 3: Heritage comment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single house at No. 5 Reuben Street, Beaconsfield. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretion against the following elements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and local planning policies:

primary street setback


building height

visual privacy

overshadowing The proposal is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of the above and is recommended for conditional planning approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for additions and alterations to an existing single storey Single house. The proposal includes the partial demolition of a lean-to at the rear of the building and the construction of a two storey addition at the rear with a skillion roof. Development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 2 June 2017 Owner name: Roderick Mickle Submitted by: D2R Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


Page 92

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as design principle assessments are sought against the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 30 June 2017, and one (1) submission was received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Overshadowing and restriction on access to northern sunlight.

Detrimental on adjoining heritage properties.

Overlooking from balcony.

Privacy screens shown are not sufficient.

Value of adjoining property will be diminished. In response to the above, officers provide the following comments:

Solar access and visual privacy are assessed within the report below.

The upper floor addition has been assessed on heritage grounds and is supported (see attachment 4).

Property values are not a relevant matter to be considered under planning requirements.

OFFICER COMMENT



Page 93

primary street setback


building height

visual privacy

overshadowing The above matters are discussed below. Background The property is located on the western side of Reuben Street in Beaconsfield and falls within the Fremantle South local planning area. The site is 255m2 and is currently occupied by a single storey Single house which is included on the Heritage List. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history for this site. Heritage The proposed additions are considered to be appropriate and are not considered to impact on the heritage significance of the place. Heritage comment is included as attachment 4 of this report. Primary street setback


Upper floor 10m 9.1m 0.9m

The reduced upper floor setback can be varied in accordance with the following criteria of LPP 2.9 –

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

No. 5 Reuben Street slopes down by almost 2m from east to west (from front to rear of the site).The proposed addition also has a skillion roof, with the lower portion of wall height at front of the lot. This is where discretion is being sought against LPP 2.9. The combination of the skillion roof, with the sloping lot, means that the two storey addition is almost hidden by the existing single storey house at the front of the site (see elevations on development plans). As shown by the east elevation (street elevation), only a marginal portion of wall will be visible, and the addition is well hidden behind the existing heritage house. It is not considered that setting back the building by the additional 900mm would make a significant alteration to the streetscape compared to the currently proposed setback and therefore the addition is supported against the criteria of the policy.

Lot boundary setbacks



Page 94

South (GF) 1.5m 1.25m 0.25m

North (GF ) 1.5m Nil 1.5m

The southern lot boundary setback is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The lesser setback does not directly contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings, as any impacts on loss of sunlight particularly as much of the wall will be hidden behind existing boundary fencing.

The lesser setback does not result in any new design principle assessment relating to visual privacy.

The 250mm reduction in the required setback is not going to have a significant contribution on the amount of building bulk as viewed by the southern property.

The northern boundary wall is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways:

The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to winter sun for the adjoining property owing to its location on the northern boundary.

The building on the northern property is setback by approximately 1.5m ensuring access to ventilation is not compromised.

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

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

Building height (external wall)


External wall height 6m 6.1m 0.1m

The wall height is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways:

The application proposes a skillion roof design. The proposed roof form, while above the external wall height limit is significantly below the height of a Deemed-to-comply pitched roof (9m) and is considered to be of significantly less bulk and scale.

With regards to the development limiting direct access of sunlight and ventilation to existing habitable openings and spaces, the additional 100mm of wall height for the highest peak of the skillion is not considered to create a significant adverse impact on the southern neighbour.

Access to views of significance will not be disrupted by the addition, and the properties to the east are at a higher level.


Page 95

Visual privacy


Balcony (west elevation)

7.5m Between 1.8m – 2.1m m

5.4m and 5.7m

The upper floor balcony has the potential to overlook the backyard of the properties to the north and south. It is recommended that screening be provided to ensure the privacy of adjoining property owners is protected. Solar access to adjoining sites


Overshadowing 25% (63.7m2) 34% (86.7m2) 9% (23m2)

The proposed design is considered to respect the existing key sensitive habitable spaces (internally and externally) of the southern property and is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The existing lots in the area are much smaller than the deemed-to-comply minimum site area of 300m2, making it much more difficult to meet deemed-to-comply requirements for shadow.

The southern adjoining dwelling doesn’t incorporate any existing solar collecting devices that would be impacted by the proposal.

The existing outdoor living area for the southern property (a deck) is located in centre of site at the rear of the existing dwelling. This area would remain unchanged in terms of middy solar access, as the existing built form onsite today already throws shadow over this deck and area. The applicant has provided an overshadowing diagram which demonstrates where shadow will fall .

Figure 1: Extent of overshadowing as a result of the two storey addition


Page 96

The upper floor southern elevation is setback slightly more than what is required under deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes.

There is a large area of open space to the rear of the southern site which will remain unaffected by shadow.

CONCLUSION The proposed development has been assessed to meet deemed-to-comply and/or design principle criteria with the exception of visual privacy which is conditioned to comply. Accordingly the application is recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. No trees are impacted by the proposed development. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the rear two storey additions and alterations to existing Single house at No.5 (Lot 4) Reuben Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 2 June 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to use of upper floor balcony, on plans dated 2 June 2017 the

western elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

floor level


Page 97

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



4. Prior to practical completion of the development herby approved as part of

DA0275/17, the boundary wall located on the northern common boundary shall be of a clean finish in either:


face brick

painted surface

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

5. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for

compliance, if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against



Page 98


PC1709 -8 LIVINGSTONE STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 29), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (SP DA0326/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Planning Committee Attachments: 1. Revised development plans

2. Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a two storey Grouped dwelling at No. 12 Livingstone Street, Beaconsfield (subject site). The application is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions received raising relevant planning concerns which cannot be addressed via the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The application also seeks the following discretionary assessments against Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant local planning policies:

land use


external wall height

car parking

site works

primary street setback The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a two storey Grouped dwelling at the subject site. Amended plans were received in response to City officer’s concerns relating to the southern lot boundary setback. Amendments made from the original set of plans include:

increasing the southern lot boundary setback of the ground floor from 1.5m to 1.7m and the upper floor from 1.2m to 1.3m

A copy of the amended plans is contained as Attachment 1 of this report. Site/application information Date received: 28 June 2017 Owner name: Carmel Ahern Submitted by: Building Lines Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Single house Use class: Grouped dwelling Use permissibility: ‘D’


Page 99

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The advertising period concluded on 27 July 2017, with three submissions received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Vehicle access should be prohibited from the Right-of-way

The southern lot boundary setback is not sufficient to allow for solar access into the southern adjoining lot’s open spaces

The external wall height variation reduces solar access to the southern lot and impedes views of significance.

Existing natural ground level should be utilised as floor level. In response to the objections received, the applicant amended the plans to address the concerns and make the southern lot boundary setback comply. The lot has a benefit on the title for implied rights of access and legally is able to access the proposed garage from the Right of way. Wall height and site works are discussed further in this report. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the


Page 100

areas outlined below do not meet the Deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design principles:

land use


building height

car parking

site works

primary street setback The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located east of Livingstone Street, north of Beard Street and west of Moran Street. The site has a land area of approximately 1012m2 and is currently a Single house. The site is subject to a two lot survey strata conditional subdivision approval (WAPC155293), however conditions have not been cleared and the lot remains as one currently. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The subject site is not individually heritage listed, however is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Land Use A Grouped dwelling is a ‘D’ use in the Residential Zone, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion in accordance with the matters to be considered in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In this regard the following matters have been considered:

(a) The aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area

(m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development

(n) The amenity of the locality including the following: (i) Environmental impacts of the development (ii) The character of the locality (iii) Social impacts of the development

(p) Whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved

(y) Any submissions received on the application. The proposed development is considered to address the above matters for the following reasons:

The development is a Grouped dwelling within a Residential zone, and is considered to be consistent with the objectives of this zone in that the proposal provides a form of housing which is consistent with the type and scale of development in the immediate locality.

The bulk and scale of the building has been assessed against relevant planning requirements and is supported against discretionary principles as discussed below.


Page 101

The Grouped dwelling is considered simple in form and not considered to result in detrimental impacts on the amenity of the locality.

The development is not considered to create adverse social impacts for the locality.

The application has been advertised, with the summarised content of submissions included above.

Residential Design Codes Lot boundary setback


Northern ground floor living room wall

1.1m 1m 0.1m

The proposed setback variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-codes in the following ways:

The bulk resulting from the variation is considered to be negligible, as the proposed lot boundary setback, seeking 0.1m discretion, is for the single storey component that extends a total of 7m of a 50m long northern boundary.

The proposed northern wall does not incorporate major openings and will not impede sunlight access to the property’s open space. The 1m corridor between the dwelling and northern boundary wall maintains ventilation from prevailing winds to both sites.

The reduced setback for a wall with no major openings, will not impact on the visual privacy of the northern adjoining lot.

Building height


External wall height 6m 8.07m 2.07m

The proposed external wall height variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-codes in the following ways:

The proposed wall height is not considered to result in shadow falling on active outdoor living areas of the southern adjoining lot, nor impact the streetscape due to being a rear development.

The proposed wall height is located on the southern portion of the building and maintains winter sunlight to the subject site’s northern aspect.

The proposal is compliant in external wall height at the highest point of the lot, with the upper floor roof being flat. Therefore, the western portion of building seeking discretion for additional height will not impede any views of significance for eastern lots addressing the fishing boat harbour any more so than the compliant portion of wall height. It is also noted that a compliant 9m roof ridge would result in a greater impact than that of the current proposal.

Parking


Parking 2 car bays 1 car bay 1 car bay

The proposed car parking variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-codes in the following ways:


Page 102

The locality of the site provides ample street parking along the Livingstone street frontage.

The site is closely located to a number of Transperth (140m) bus routes including the 513 and 778.

Site works requirements


Site works requirements

Excavation or filling within a site and behind a street setback line limited by compliance with building height limits and building setback requirements.

Maximum external wall height is not compliant

2.07m

The proposed site works requirement variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-codes in the following ways:

The proposed excavation reduces the height of the proposal at the highest point of the lot.

The site works proposed are located in the rear area of the site and will not alter the impression of natural ground level when viewed from the public street.

The site works do not impact the portion of building seeking height discretion. Primary street setback


Primary street setback Ground Floor Upper Floor

7m 10m

3m 4m

4m 6m

The City has determined the primary street for the proposed dwelling to be the private right of way to the east of the subject site as this is the principle means of access to the proposed dwelling. Although the right of way is not considered to represent your traditional primary street an assessment against the City’s LPP2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy is as follows. LPP 2.9 outlines discretionary criteria where, in particular circumstances, a variation to the primary street setback can be considered. Under clause 1.2 variations may be considered subject to proposed development meeting one of the following:

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

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

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

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or


Page 103

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

Primary street setbacks

Element Dwelling number Existing setback Complies

Prevailing Streetscape

No. 6 Livingstone Street GF: 0.3m (carport) 9m (dwelling UF: 9m

No Yes No

No. 8B Livingstone Street GF: 1.5m UF: 1.5m

No No

No. 10 Livingstone Street

GF: 24m (rear setback) UF: 24m (rear setback)

- -

No. 14 Livingstone Street GF: 1.55m (rear setback)

-

It is noted that only 6 Livingstone Street and 8B Livingstone Street are utilising the private right-of way as Primary Street access. All other properties have a standard lot boundary setback requirement for abutting the right of way. The proposed primary street setback is considered to meet the variation criteria of LPP2.9 in the following ways:

The proposed setback of the ground and upper floor are behind the line of existing ground floor and upper floors of other dwellings addressing the right of way.

The reduced setback will not significantly impact the streetscape, given that other existing buildings located along the right of way depict a lesser setback than that proposed by the applicant.

Additionally, given the right of way acts as a secondary option of vehicle access, development on lots fronting Livingstone Street and Moran Street would have setbacks assessed from the right of way as per a lot boundary setback. In theory, a compliant two storey Single house with Livingstone Street as its primary street would have capacity to be built up to the boundary of the right of way, corrupting the prevailing streetscape existing currently. In conclusion, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant Design principle criteria above, the application is recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil


Page 104

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a two storey Grouped dwelling at No. 12 (Lot 29) Livingstone Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 2 August 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Advice Note(s): i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered,

contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against



Page 105


PC1709 -9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

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

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 5/0

For Against



Page 106

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1709 -12 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8: FENCES POLICY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: 1: Full Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences Policy – includes

proposed amendments (underlined) and deletions (strikethrough)

SUMMARY

This report proposes the following amendments to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences Policy:

Reinstate exemptions that were inadvertently deleted for certain types of fences from requiring development approval subject to meeting specific criteria.

Introduce new exemptions for lots within or abutting a place on the City’s Heritage List.

Eliminate the need for neighbour consultation when a side/rear boundary fence only impacts Industrial lots.

Clarify elements of the existing policy.

Provide administrative fixes to reflect the changes resulting from the enactment of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

This report recommends that council proceed to amend the policy and advertise the amendments for public comment. BACKGROUND In August 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect for all local governments in Western Australia. The Regulations imposed a set of uniform provisions (the Deemed provisions) to all local planning schemes. Local governments were subsequently required to update their schemes to bring them in line with the new provisions. As a result, the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) was amended on 25 October 2016. During the amendment process several fence provisions were inadvertently deleted from the list of developments permitted without development approval (formerly Schedule 15 of LPS4, now Schedule A of LPS4). The result is that some fences that were previously exempt from requiring development approval now require approval prior to commencement of works. Specifically, the following previously exempt fences were deleted from the Schedule:

Primary street fences up to 1.2m high where not in a Heritage Area or in a property on the Heritage List.

Secondary street fences up to 1.8m high where not in a Heritage Area or in a property on the Heritage List.


Page 107

Any other fence up to 1.2m in height within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation and where not on a property on the Heritage List.

Any other fence up to 1.8m in height where not on or abutting a property on the Heritage List.

The proposed amendment to LPP 2.8: Fences Policy consists of five distinct changes:

Restoring the above exemptions as they previously existed in the Scheme.

Introducing new exemptions for fences on heritage listed lots that meet specific criteria.

Reducing the administrative burden for side/rear fences that only impact Industrial lots.

Clarify elements of the existing policy.

Administrative fixes including updating clause numbers to correctly reference the Deemed provisions and amended LPS4.

Though scheme amendments are more statutorily binding, amending a planning policy is quicker and less onerous than amending a scheme. Additionally, the Regulations allow local governments to exempt development approval through a local planning policy (this could only be done through provisions in a scheme prior to 2015). As the proposed amendments aim to exempt fences from requiring development approval rather than vary design requirements for development, incorporating them into a planning policy is sufficient. Clause 3 of the Deemed provisions permits local government to amend a planning policy where the policy is consistent with the local government’s scheme. The amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Deemed provisions and LPS4. A full copy of the policy is included as Attachment 1 with the proposed amendments highlighted, and deleted sections in red. CONSULTATION

Community engagement on the amendment to the local planning policy will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Clause 5 (procedure for amending local planning policy) of the Deemed provisions of the Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. Community engagement includes precinct group notification, advertising via the local press and notice on the City’s community engagement webpage for a period of 28 days. OFFICER COMMENT

The proposed amendments to Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences Policy are discussed below by section. Throughout the policy, amendments have been made replacing references to LPS4 with the relevant clauses of the Deemed provisions, where applicable. All changes are indicated as underlined (for additions) or strikethrough (for deletions) in Attachment 1.


Page 108

Statutory Background, Purpose and Application The amendments to these sections consist of purely administrative fixes that update the references to deleted clauses of LPS4 to reflect the relevant provisions of the Deemed provisions and the amended LPS4. These amendments do not alter any statutory requirements and are provided only to correctly reference the current legislation. Exact changes are shown underlined in Attachment 1, but broadly the changes proposed are:

Amend the ‘Statutory Background’ section to reference the Regulations and the Deemed provisions.

Amend the ‘Purpose’ section to include reference to the Deemed provisions and fence exemption criteria.

Delete references to clauses within LPS4 and replace with references to the Deemed provisions and the Regulations where applicable.

Include updated reference to additional existing local planning policies that contain specific fence requirements.

1 - Primary and Secondary Street Fencing Requirements The major change to this section involves reintroducing the former (pre-2015/16) scheme provision permitting solid fencing up to 1.8 m in height along secondary streets. This change will make secondary street fence requirements consistent with the exempted development of proposed Clause 7 (discussed below). It is noted that the previous version of the City’s Scheme exempted such solid fencing even though the Fences Policy required them to be visually permeable above a certain height. As the City’s Scheme overruled any policies, this discrepancy did not become an issue requiring planning approval until the exemption was accidentally deleted when the Scheme was updated in 2016. Therefore changes to this section, along with the addition of Clause 7, simply reinstate the criteria for development that does not require development approval that was previously included in the Scheme. Proposed fencing above the stated height or outside the visual permeability requirements will still require planning approval. Clause 1.3 is also amended to clarify and expand the type of fences permitted for non-residential development, and replace the term “non-residential area” with the term “a lot with non-residential land use”, as there is no definition for the term “non-residential area”. The remaining changes are formatting changes to bring the text in line with the City’s Style Guide. 2 - Primary and Secondary Street Fencing Requirements on Heritage Lots There is no change to this clause beyond an administrative update altering the reference to LPS4 to reflect the Deemed provisions. 3 - Sightlines at Vehicle Access Points on Non-Residential Land This clause is amended to again clarify the term “non-residential area” and revise the sightlines criteria to better protect vehicle and pedestrian safety. This clause is necessary to retain as sightlines requirements are addressed in residential development through the R-Codes but there is no corresponding requirement for non-residential development.


Page 109

The existing requirement for a 3 metre truncation (see ‘note’ below for an example of truncation) on a solid wall is considered overly broad and does not adequately address safety in all circumstances for commercial vehicles exiting a lot. The Australian Standards (AS2890.2) is a national set of specific criteria used to assess vehicle access and parking dimensions for non-residential developments. It is proposed that these criteria be used to assess each individual proposal, when necessary, rather than continue an unsuitable ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. 4 - Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Gates A minor clarification has been added to this section specifying that vehicle and pedestrian gates are to be consistent with the other provisions the policy. 5 - Side and Rear Boundary Fences and Screening Materials The requirement of this clause for neighbours to be consulted in certain circumstances has been deleted as redundant because identical neighbour consultation requirements are addressed in Clause 6. 6 - Consultation Minor amendments to this clause include administrative fixes to reference the Deemed provisions and clarification on when a variation requires advertising. Neither of the above amendments changes how fences are advertised or assessed and they are provided for clarity only. The addition of Clause 6.2 waives advertising for side/rear fencing that only impacts Industrial lots. Fences within industrial areas are often proposed above a height of 1.8 metres and currently require neighbour consultation, even if the lot abuts another industrial zoned lot and is to the benefit of both. There are no development criteria to assess such fences as they do not impact residential lots and they are often quickly approved after the consultation period. However the requirement for consultation creates delay for the applicant, additional administrative work and increases the officer time taken for an assessment on a development that ultimately has little to no impact on any other lot. Importantly, the proposed waiver of advertising only applies when all lots impacted are zoned ‘Industrial’. Further, Local Planning Policy 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals gives discretion to the Manager Development Approvals to require consultation for any development if it is considered in the public interest to do so. In the unlikely event that a side/rear fence in an Industrial zone may have a negative impact to the locality, there is still ability to require neighbour consultation. 7 - Development Permitted Without Development Approval Clause 7 is proposed to be added to the existing Fences Policy to exempt fences from requiring development approval when specific criteria are met. This clause is split into two sub-clauses: Clause 7.1, which relates to fences within or on the boundary of a heritage listed lot, and Clause 7.2, which relates to all other fences. 7.1 Fences on or abutting a heritage listed property


Page 110

Clause 7.1 relates to fences on or abutting properties on the City’s Heritage List and is proposed as follows:

Where a fence is within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, development approval is not required if it complies with ALL of the following:

a) The maximum height is 1.2 m where within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation, and a maximum height of 1.8 m in all other cases.

b) The fence is not located within the primary or secondary street setback area.

c) The fence is in line with or behind the main wall of the heritage building when viewed from both the primary and secondary street.

d) The fence is freestanding and not attached to any existing structure, existing building or heritage feature.

e) Where the lot is zoned and/or used for residential development and the fence abuts a vehicle access point, the fence complies with the Deemed-to-comply sight lines requirements of the R-Codes (see note below).

f) The fence is not within or on the boundary of a lot containing a place that is entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

The above clause is the most significant of the amendments as it introduces new exemptions into the City’s planning framework. The amendment is intended to exempt typical pool fences and rear/side boundary fences from requiring development approval. Planning officers have found that although standard height (1.8 m high) boundary fences and pool fences (typically 1.2 m high) currently require development approval where located on lots on the City’s Heritage List, they are excluded from the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the current Fences Policy when located outside of street setback areas. As such, there are no development criteria for assessment. The only consideration for such fences is their impact on the cultural heritage significance of the lot, which rests primarily on two criteria: impact on the streetscape, and impact on existing heritage buildings or structures. Provided fences are freestanding, and located in line with or behind the wall of the dwelling so as not to block views from either the primary or secondary streets, the City’s Heritage Coordinator deems such fences to have no detrimental impact to the heritage significance of the place in terms of the abovementioned criteria. However, such applications require a not insignificant amount of administrative time simply to process, and create an unnecessary regulatory burden for residents. Therefore, it is proposed to exempt such fences from requiring development approval where they meet all of the criteria of proposed clause 7.1 above.


Page 111

The proposed amendment does not alter the need to obtain development approval for any fence that may affect views to the dwelling, i.e. as fences in the primary or secondary street setback area. Nor does it exempt fences from requiring compliance with the sightlines requirements of the R-Codes in order to protect vehicle and pedestrian safety. The clause only exempts fences up to a certain height and where such fences can be confidently determined to have no detrimental impact to the heritage significance of the place. The proposal brings the fencing exemptions for heritage listed lots closer in line to those of non-heritage listed lots (discussed below). It reduces the burden and cost to owners and the City’s administration by removing classes of fences which have no detrimental impact from requiring development approval. The amendments set out criteria whereby residents may develop land quicker and at a lower cost. The proposed fence exemptions only apply to lots on or adjoining places on the City’s Heritage List. They do not apply to those lots requiring a referral to the State Heritage Office under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, which encompasses the West End Heritage Area and places on the state heritage register. It also does not have any impact on the building permit process, meaning that certain fences, including masonry fences over a certain height and pool fences, will still require a building permit under the Building Codes of Australia. 7.2 Fences not on or abutting heritage listed properties Prior to the 25 October 2016 scheme amendment discussed above, the City’s LPS4 contained a table in Schedule 15: Minor Development Permitted Without Development Approval. The section relating to fences is provided as Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Exempted fences under former Schedule 15: Minor Development Permitted

Without Development Approval


Page 112

It was intended that the exemptions of Schedule 15 be carried over to the new scheme format in their entirety, excluding any exemptions provided as part of the Deemed provisions. This was considered a ‘basic’ amendment under the Regulations as it was to be purely administrative with no significant changes to LPS4 beyond those required by the Regulations. Consequently, the amendments were not required to be advertised to the community. However, during the scheme amendment process most of the listed exemptions of Figure 1 were inadvertently deleted. Had these deletions been deliberate the changes would have been advertised for comment as they presented a significant change to the Scheme. Currently, the only remaining exemptions in LPS4 are for fences within or on the boundary of a property within a Heritage Area where they are:

‘Within the secondary street setback area and up to 1.80 m in height; and

Any other fence within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation up to 1.20 m in height.’

In essence, the proposed clause 7.2 adds the original table shown in Figure 1 above (excluding column 1 – heritage listed properties, which are discussed above) as a separate clause in the Fences Policy. Such a policy amendment only reinstates exempted development that was inadvertently deleted during the scheme amendment process without introducing any new exemptions or requirements. It is proposed that the few fence exemptions remaining in Schedule A of LPS4, as well as fences up to 1.2 m in height in non-heritage areas permitted by clause 1.1 of the Fences Policy, be retained and noted in the table for ease of reference. The proposed amendment is as follows:

7.2 Fences Not on nor Abutting Heritage Listed Properties

Where a fence is not within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, Table 1 below shows development for which development approval is not required subject to the following:

a) In the case of development subject to the R-Codes, the fence complies with the sight lines criteria of clause 5.2.5 of the R-Codes (see note below).

b) In the case of non-residential development, the fence complies with the site lines criteria of the relevant Australian Standards.


Page 113

Table 1: Development for which development approval is not required (excludes fences within or on the boundary of a property on the Heritage List)

Type of Development Within or on the boundary of a property within a Heritage Area

All other cases

Fence within primary street setback area

Approval required Up to 1.2 m in height

Fence within secondary street setback area, unless within the primary street setback area

Up to 1.8 m in height* Up to 1.8 m in height

Any other fence within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation


Any other fence Up to 1.8 m in height Up to 1.8 m in height

*These fences exempt from requiring development approval under Schedule A of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and shown here for ease of reference only

All fences will still require compliance with the R-Codes, and specifically the sightlines requirements of Clause 5.2.5 of the R-Codes, in order to be considered exempt. The sightlines requirement is singled out as a provision that is often overlooked when fences are proposed. Therefore, in order to clarify requirements and circumvent frequently asked questions, the sightlines requirements and relevant drawings from the R-Codes are reproduced as a note at the end of the policy as follows:

Note: The Deemed-to-comply requirements of Cl. 5.2.5: Sight lines of the R-Codes requires fences associated with residential development to be truncated, or reduced to no higher than 0.75 m above natural ground level, within 1.5 metres of where a driveway or other vehicle access point meets a street boundary (includes right-of-ways, private streets, etc.) as shown in the figure below.


Page 114

Figure 1: Locations of truncations or reduced fence height, adapted from Figure Series 9 of the R-Codes.

Conclusion The proposed amendments to LPP 2.8 are intended to clarify the provisions of the current policy, assist in how those provisions are interpreted by applicants and the City’s officers when undertaking fencing assessments, and to streamline the approvals process by eliminating compliant fences determined to have no detrimental impact from requiring development approval. It is recommended that this draft amended policy be advertised in accordance with the Deemed provisions and LPP 1.3. Following the conclusion of the advertising period, a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of final adoption. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS There are no strategic implications to making and advertising amendments to the fences policy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Adopting the policy may slightly reduce the amount of fees collected by the City due to a decrease in planning applications submitted. However, the fees collected for such fence applications are not significant (a flat rate fee of $147 per application) and do not recover the cost of officer and administrative processing time. Adopting the policy will allow City officers to concentrate on more substantial developments and potentially decrease the overall time taken to assess applications.


Page 115

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local governments are authorised to prepare and/or amend local planning policies under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority required. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council: Amends Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy in accordance with Cl. 4 and 5 of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which includes a period for making submissions, as follows:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8

FENCES POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: 22 October 2008 AMENDED: xx/xx/2017 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the Deemed provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly, these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The Deemed Provisions of the Regulations requires the Local Government to consider a broad range of considerations and allows Council to impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for development approval. This includes but is not limited to the height, position, form and materials of fences. Schedule A of LPS4 includes specific types of fences that are permitted development and therefore development approval from the City is not required.


Page 116

Note: This policy does not attempt to interpret any of those matters considered under the Dividing Fences Act 1961 (the Act). Where there is a conflict between the Act and this policy, the Act shall prevail.

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide development standards for fencing that requires development approval under the Deemed provisions and to exempt certain fencing from the need to seek development approval. DEFINITIONS AND TERMS The following terms are used in this policy and are defined as follows: Prevailing Streetscape: Means the characteristics (front walls and fencing) of the 3

properties, where appropriate, adjoining either side of the subject site, fronting the same street and in the same street block. In the case of a corner lot where the dwelling is orientated to the splay, the characteristics of the adjoining three properties, where appropriate, facing both streets shall be considered. Greater weight may be given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining properties on either side of the subject site fronting the same street(s). For the purpose of this definition, properties separated by a street shall not be considered ‘adjoining’.

Subject site: Means the site or lot on which the development is

proposed. Visual Permeability: Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the

vertical surface has:

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

A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

All other terms used in this policy have the same meaning as defined in the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and LPS4. APPLICATION


Page 117

The provisions of this policy apply to all areas zoned or reserved under the Scheme area of LPS4, except where specific provisions relating to front fences are contained within a Local Area Planning Policy or equivalent. In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the Local Area Planning Policy shall prevail. Note: As at July 2017, those Local Area Planning Policies that include provisions

for fencing are:

DGB4 – Mardie Street including the East of Edmund Street;

DGF8 – Douglas Street Local Area Policy; and

LPP3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy.

LPP 3.14 – Wray Avenue Precinct

DGN10 – Rous Head Industrial Park/Harbour

DGN11 – Cypress Hill – Harvest Road, Corkhill Street and Alfred Road and the Swan River

DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines. POLICY 1. Requirements Applicable to All Fencing Excepting:

those properties on the Heritage List

those properties subject to a Local Area Planning Policy that includes provisions for fencing (such as the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct policy).

1.1 Fences within the primary street setback area as viewed from the street, and

side fences abutting public open space reserves shall be visually permeable above 1.0 metre within heritage areas and 1.2 metres in other areas to a maximum height of 1.8 metres, with piers not higher than 2.0 metres.

1.2 Fences within a secondary street setback area and outside of a primary street

setback area may be solid to a maximum height of 1.8 metres. 1.3 Council may exercise discretion to vary the height of fences in the primary

and/or secondary street setback area(s) where any of the following apply:

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

b) minor variations are made necessary by virtue of the sloping topography of the site

c) chain link, mesh, or garrison fences on a lot with non-residential land use and that are greater than 1.8 metres in height shall be permitted where in the opinion of Council, it is necessary to provide security to a commercial or industrial property, and are consistent with the established pattern of fences within the streetscape.

1.4 Council may permit solid fencing for a portion of the total length of the

boundary within the primary street setback area, where surveillance between


Page 118

a habitable room window of the dwelling and the street and approach to the dwelling is available, and either of the following criteria is satisfied:

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

b) where it is consistent with the prevailing streetscape. 2. Requirements for properties included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause

8 of the Deemed provisions. 2.1 Fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of places

on the Heritage List shall be compatible with, and complimentary to, the heritage character of the listed place with respect to height, materials and heritage character.

2.2 Where a property is included on a Heritage List, Council may specify the type

of building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place or area.

3. Sightlines at Vehicle Access Points on Non-residential Land 3.1 Where a fence is proposed on a lot containing wholly non-residential land

use, abuts a vehicle access point, and is not of visually permeable construction, sight lines are to be provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards AS2890.2 (as amended).

4. Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Gates 4.1 Where a fence includes vehicle and/or pedestrian access gate(s), Council will

only support such gates where they are designed and constructed so that they swing into subject site when opened or closed and are otherwise consistent with the relevant provisions of this policy.

5. Side and Rear Boundary Fences and Screening Materials 5.1 Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.8

metres in height, or screening material that projects more than 500 mm above the top of an approved fence unless the proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact on adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views.

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

6. Consultation 6.1 Adjoining property owners shall be consulted in accordance with Clause 64 of

the Deemed provisions in the following circumstances:


Page 119

a) where discretion is sought for fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) in relation to the requirements of clause(s) 1.1 and/or 1.2 above

b) where side and/or rear boundary fences exceed 1.8 metres in height

c) where any form of privacy screening is to be attached to, and extend more than 500 mm above a side and/or rear boundary fence.

6.2 Notwithstanding clause 6.1 above, consultation is not required where

fencing/screening is on a side or rear boundary, AND the only affected adjacent lot(s) are zoned Industrial.

7. Development Permitted Without Development approval

7.1 Fences on or Abutting a Heritage Listed Property

Where a fence is within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, development approval is not required if it complies with ALL of the following:

a) The maximum height is 1.2 m where within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation, and a maximum height of 1.8 m in all other cases.

b) The fence is not located within the primary or secondary street setback area.

c) The fence is in line with or behind the main wall of the heritage building when viewed from both the primary and secondary street.

d) The fence is freestanding and not attached to any existing structure, existing building or heritage feature.

e) In the case of development subject to the R-Codes (includes any development on a lot with a residential land use), the fence complies with the R-Codes, including the sight lines criteria of clause 5.2.5 (see note below).

f) The fence is not within or on the boundary of a lot containing a place that is entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

7.2 Fences Not on nor Abutting Heritage Listed Properties

Where a fence is not within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, Table 1 below shows development for which development approval is not required subject to the following:

a) In the case of development subject to the R-Codes (includes any development on a lot with a residential land use), the fence complies with the R-Codes, including the sight lines criteria of clause 5.2.5 (see note below).


Page 120

b) In the case of non-residential development, the fence complies with the site lines criteria of the relevant Australian Standards.

Table 1: Development for which development approval is not required (excludes fences within or on the boundary of a property on the Heritage List)

Type of Residential Development

Within or on the boundary of a property within a Heritage Area

All other cases

Fence within primary street setback area

Approval required Up to 1.2 m in height

Fence within secondary street setback area, unless within the primary street setback area


Any other fence within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation


Any other fence Up to 1.8 m in height Up to 1.8 m in height

*Fences exempt from requiring development approval under Schedule A of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and shown here for ease of reference only

Note: The Deemed-to-comply requirements of Cl. 5.2.5: Sight lines of the R-Codes requires fences associated with residential development to be truncated, or reduced to no higher than 0.75 m above natural ground level, within 1.5 metres of where a driveway or other vehicle access point meets a street boundary (includes right-of-ways, private streets, etc.) as shown in the figure below.


Page 121

Figure 1: Locations of truncations or reduced fence height, adapted from Figure Series 9 of the R-Codes.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against



Page 122

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil. THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.00 PM.


Page 123

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 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 124


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 125


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 126

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.

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Committee

6 September 2017

Page 2

minutes - home | city of fremantle · peter nelson jessie liddon rick cameron the following members...

Documents