psc minutes 03 july 2013 - city of fremantle · 7/3/2013 · recommendation for item psc1307-94:...

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 July 2013, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 2

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PSC1307-94 DEFERRED ITEM- FORREST STREET, NO. 19B (LOT 10), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0073/13) 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 9

PSC1307-96 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO TEMPORARY STORAGE YARD - (AA DA0219/13) 9

PSC1307-97 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 95A (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0224/13) 14

PSC1307-98 ASHBURTON TERRACE, NO. 24 (LOT 1), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY ACCOMODATION - (CJ DA0185/13) 19

PSC1307-99 HARVEST ROAD, NO. 52 (LOT 13), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING ADDITION - (KS DA0166/13) 24

PSC1307-95 SOUTH STREET NO 2/398 (LOT 152) O’CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY (27 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) BUILDING, SHOP, OFFICE AND TAVERN (JS DA0095/13) 31

PSC1307-100 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - 3 JULY 2013 43

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 44

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 44

CLOSURE OF MEETING 44

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 3 July 2013

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 3 July 2013 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.01 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 Brad Pettitt Mayor (entered at 6.02 pm and left at 6.57 pm) Cr Andrew Sullivan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Statutory Planning Mrs Michelle Gibson Minute Secretary Mr Sam Van Baren Administration Team Leader There were approximately 12 members of the public and 0 member/s of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Cr Robert Fittock Deputy Presiding Member / North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Tim Grey-Smith City Ward LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1307-94: Geoff Paganoni The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1307-97: Jonathan Harris The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1307-97: Fiona Morriston The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1307-98: Laurie Bugeja The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1307-98: Colin Kenworthy DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Nil LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil


Page 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 19 June 2013 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 26 June 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

TABLED DOCUMENTS Nil


Page 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Mayor, Brad Pettitt arrived at 6.02 pm prior to consideration of the following item. PSC1307-94 DEFERRED ITEM- FORREST STREET, NO. 19B (LOT 10),

FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0073/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 July 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1304-52 (17 April 2013) Attachments: Attachment 1: amended development plans

Attachment 2: Original PSC Report Date Received: 20 February 2013 (Original Application), 11 June 2013

(Amended Plans) Owner Name: Geoffrey and Helen Paganoni Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Land use: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed development is for a two storey single house at No. 19b Forrest Street, Fremantle. The application was previously deferred by the Planning Services Committee on 17 April 2013 to allow the applicant to amend plans addressing non-compliant building height and the setback of the garage. Amended plans have been submitted that amend the roof form and wall height. Wall height is still not compliant with Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes on the northern, southern and eastern elevations, however the discretion has been significantly reduced. Changes to the plans are considered to address the discretionary criteria of the applicable provisions of the Residential Design Codes, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policies and the application is therefore recommended for approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s LPS No. 4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or the Municipal Heritage Inventory, nor is it located within a Heritage Area. The subject site has an area of 386m2 and is located on the south western corner of Forrest Street and Amherst Street, Fremantle. 19a Forrest Street, Fremantle is a heritage listed property and is located on the western side of the subject site. Public open space is located directly to the east, and a two storey single house is located directly south of the subject site. DA0073/13 was presented to PSC on 17 April 2013, with variations to the Acceptable Development provisions for the primary street setback, buildings on boundary and building height. The officer’s recommendation was as follows- That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 19b (Lot 10) Forrest Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 20 February, 2013, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to Building Height.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy in regards to the Primary Street setback (Ground Floor and Upper Floor).

The Committee Decision was as follows- That the item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee to enable the applicant to reduce the height of the walls and to increase the setback of the garage from Amherst Street.


Page 6

Amended plans were received by the City on 11 June 2013 that alters the roof form to a pitched roof and reduces the FFL to reduce the external wall height. No amendments were made to the setback of the garage. Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans. DETAIL

Amendments to the original plan include the following:

• Roof form changed from concealed roof (flat) to pitched roof; • Reduced maximum external wall heights on all elevations; • FFL of house and garage reduced; and • Addition of a 1.3m2 balcony on both the Study and Bedroom 2 (eastern elevation

–Amherst Street). The applicant provides the following points as justification for the height variation:

• Ceiling heights are at the maximum allowance for a 3-4c dropped ceiling (for plumbing and services);

• Reduction of 28c ceilings to the upper floor will only gain an extra 172mm, a further 4c (343mm) on top of this would be required to reduce the heights to a 6m maximum;

• Excavation would cause the house to be lower than the verge level at Amherst Street and create a larger issue with the Forrest Street pathway heights.

All other aspects of the development are as per plans presented to PSC on April 17, 2013. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The amended plans alter or add the following discretionary decisions:

• Building height – roof pitch compliant, wall height seeking discretion.

The amended plans still request the following discretionary decisions: • Buildings on boundary.

CONSULTATION

The amended plans were not required to be advertised. One (1) submission was received during the advertising period for the original plans, objecting to the height variation.


Page 7

PLANNING COMMENT

The following discretionary decision has been altered from those presented to PSC on 17 April, 2013. All other aspects of the development are either compliant, or as per the original report. Building height

Maximum height Max. Height Provided Discretion Sought

External wall height - 6.0m

Northern elevation (Forrest Street) 6.1m

0-100mm

Southern elevation 6.2m 0-200mm Eastern elevation (Amherst Street)

6.6m 100-600mm

Western elevation 6m Complies Pitched roof – 9m 8.3m Complies

The above discretions are supported for the following reasons:

• In accordance with LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy Council can vary building height requirements at their discretion. It is considered that the application can be varied in accordance with Clause 4.2iii – The development does not result in any significant adverse impact on adjoining properties in regards to building bulk, boundary setbacks, visual privacy, access to views of significance and overshadowing.

• Overall, the application is not considered to present excessive building bulk to neighbouring properties and the level of discretion sought on each elevation is not excessive.

• Views of significance are not disrupted by the proposed development. • Boundary setbacks to the west, visual privacy and overshadowing are compliant. • The natural topography of the site mitigates some of the variation to the external

wall height.


Page 8

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 19 (Lot 10) Forrest Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 11 June, 2013, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 11 June 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 9

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 PSC1307-96 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF

USE TO TEMPORARY STORAGE YARD - (AA DA0219/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 June 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 9 May 2013 Owner Name: S-Cargot Pty Ltd Submitted by: Arrow Electrical Services Pty Ltd Scheme: Neighbourhood Centre Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: South Fremantle Heritage Area Use Class: Storage Yard Use Permissibility: ‘X’


Page 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the temporary use of the land as a ‘Storage Yard’ for the purpose of storing electrical products and service equipment. Pursuant to LPS4 the use of ‘Storage Yard’ is an ‘X’ use in the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. Clause 10.6 of LPS4 provides circumstances whereby, on a temporary basis, the City’s Council may grant approval to ‘X’ uses. It is considered that the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood will be unreasonably affected by approval of the application. Having regard to other factors as well as the submissions received during advertising of the application, it is recommended that the proposed development be refused. BACKGROUND

The subject land is located at No. 19 (Lot 1) Douro Road, South Fremantle and is zoned ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists on the corner of Douro Road and Hulbert Street, South Fremantle and contains an existing single storey building, surrounded by hardstand parking area with crossovers to both Douro Road and Hulbert Street. On 19 December 2011, the City granted planning approval for ‘Two Storey Development of Three Commercial Units, Five Multiple Dwellings and Three Grouped Dwellings’ (DA0416/11). This approval remains valid until 19 December 2013. In late 2012 the City received several complaints from surrounding landowners raising the following issues with the subject site (summarised);

• The site is being used to store shipping containers, large diesel generators and other electrical equipment. Repairs and transportation of equipment are also taking place at the site;

• There has been an abandoned truck in the car park area for a substantial period of time;

• Equipment is also being stored on the verges of both Douro Road and Hulbert Street;

• The current tenants are using forklifts to transport material and equipment in dangerous ways, including by reversing up Douro Road in a westerly direction against the flow of traffic; and,

• Equipment is being tested and operated in the hardstand area of the site. The noise and pollution from the diesel motors is not appropriate for a residential area or a Neighbourhood Centre.


Page 11

The complaints referred to the use of the land by the occupiers of the adjoining property at No. 17 Douro Road, being ‘Arrow Electrical Services Pty Ltd’; which are the Applicants for this application. The Applicants maintain non-conforming use rights for the use of No. 17 Douro Road as a ‘Storage/Commercial’ property. Storage materials have now been removed from the site (see photos in Attachment 2) DETAIL

The application seeks temporary approval for the use of the land as a ‘Storage Yard’ for the purpose of storing electrical products and service equipment. The application does not propose any screening or additional fencing. The application proposes the use of the site as a temporary storage yard by the adjoining occupier of No. 17 Douro Road, South Fremantle. Business details as provided by the applicant include:

• Hours of operation Monday to Friday 8am to 4pm, Saturdays 8am to 12noon; • Occasional storage of gensets on the hard stand area • Parking available on the bituminised area onsite; • Deliveries to the site will average twice a day.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and planning policies. Discretionary decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

• Land Use (Prohibited Use) The discretionary decision is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. Advertising of the application to surrounding landowners is mandatorily required under 10.6.3 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 June 2013, the City had received 8 submissions, including 7 objections. One of the submissions received was signed by 9 individuals. The issues raised are summarised as follows;

• The use generally is not consistent with the residential area surrounding the site;

• The applicant has a history with dangerous use of the site and the surrounding street;

• Noise and air pollution generated from the testing and maintenance of generators is inconsistent with the surrounding residential area;


Page 12

• There is a history of dangerous use of forklift equipment on Douro Road and Hulbert Street that would likely continue with this application;

• Adequate fencing to screen the use and provide for safety of pedestrians is not supported;

• The stacking of equipment to the fence line of adjoining properties is visually intrusive; and,

• The additional traffic generation, in particular the use of large trucks is inconsistent with the surrounding residential area.

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Clause 10.6 (Temporary Approval) allows for the City to grant planning approval to any land use temporarily for a period not more than two years (pursuant to clause 10.6.4). Clause 10.6.2 states that;

‘The Council may approve a temporary use in respect of any use class, but it shall only give such approval in respect of a use which would not ordinarily be permissible in the relevant zone where – (a) no building would be placed on the land unless it could be readily adapted for

use for a purpose permitted in the zone, or which might be precluded or inhibit the ultimate use of the land for a permitted purpose;

(b) the use would be compatible with the use of adjoining properties or the

predominant use of land in the immediate locality; and, (c) the use would not be prejudicial to the amenity of the locality.’

The proposed use of the land has also been assessed against the relevant objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre zone as outlined in clause 4.2.1(d) of LPS4, which are as follows;

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

(ii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners

or residential properties in the locality; and,...’


Page 13

The discretionary decision relating to the temporary use is not supported for the following reasons;

• The use proposes an informal extension of an existing non-conforming use, which by virtue of its use classification is generally inconsistent with the desired residential amenity of the locality;

• The use does not propose any measures, such as fencing or screening that may ameliorate the potential impact on the surrounding residential neighbourhood; and,

• The use as storage yard for equipment more commonly found in commercial and industrial areas does not compliment the visual amenity of the location.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to Storage Yard (Temporary) at No. 19 (Lot 1) Douro Road, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 9 May 2013, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the

land is zoned and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4. Specifically, the proposed temporary use is considered to conflict with the amenity of the adjoining locality as the nature of activities carried out at the land is inconsistent with the expected visual amenity of the surrounding residential and Neighbourhood Centre zones.



Page 14

PSC1307-97 SOLOMON STREET, NO. 95A (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - THREE

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0224/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 July 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photos Date Received: 10 May 2013 (Amended plans 13 June 2013) Owner Name: Jonathan Harris & Chelsey Shepherdson Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is for a three (3) storey grouped dwelling at No. 95a Solomon Street, Fremantle. The application seeks a number of variations to Local Planning Scheme No. 4, City of Fremantle Local Planning Policies and the Residential Design Codes including buildings on boundary, outdoor living area and building height. The proposed development is considered to meet all the discretionary criteria of each applicable provision of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS No. 4) and Local Planning Policies and is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zone ‘Residential’ and is allocated a density coding of R30 under the City’s LPS No. 4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or the Municipal Heritage Inventory, nor is it located within a Heritage Area.

The subject site has an area of 210m2 and is located at the rear of No. 95 Solomon Street, Fremantle. No. 95 is located on the Western side of Solomon Street and is bound by Hudson Mews to the north, Wray Avenue to the south and Ashburton Terrace to the West. Subdivision approval was granted for No. 95 Solomon Street, Fremantle on 5 February 2007 by the Western Australian Planning Commission. No. 95a was created at the rear of No. 95 and utilises common property to access Solomon Street. The City received the application for a three (3) storey grouped dwelling for the currently vacant lot on 10 May 2013. Amended plans and additional justification were received 13 June 2013. DETAIL

The application proposes a three (3) storey grouped dwelling with the following features:

• One (1) car garage; Ground floor

• Additional hardstand car bay; • 7m2 storage area; • WC; and • Hardstand manoeuvring area.

• Covered terrace; First floor

• Dining/kitchen/living area.

• Bedroom; Second floor

• Study; and • Ensuite.


Page 16

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

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development includes the following discretions to acceptable development criteria:

• Buildings on boundary; • Outdoor living area; and • Building height.

These are discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application was not compliant with Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 4 June 2013, the City had received five (5) submissions. Only one submission was from a neighbour immediately adjoining the subject site. The following issues were raised:

• Objection to excessive height; • Objection to shortfall in required parking; • Objection to restricted manoeuvring space that will require vehicles to reverse

in/out of long driveway; • Not suited to Solomon Street locality and impact on amenity; • Restriction of sunlight to neighbouring properties; and • Loss of privacy.

The applicant provided the following points in response to submissions received:

• Additional car bay provided to ensure compliance with Acceptable Development requirements;

• Visual privacy diagrams provided demonstrating compliance; • Addition justification for discretion sought regarding building height using Clause

5.8.1a) and 5.8.1b) of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Clause 4.2 of Local Planning Policy 2.9; and

• Assessment supporting the proposed style of the dwelling against DGF 24 (Solomon Street Local Area Policy).


Page 17

PLANNING COMMENT

Buildings on Boundary

Permitted Provided Discretion Abutting an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions (covered terrace north)

Abutting a similar height brick diving

fence

Parapet wall abuts a similar height fence (not parapet wall)

A boundary wall is proposed on the first floor, for the covered outdoor living area (terrace). The proposed boundary wall will be a maximum height of 4.1m above natural ground level and abuts an existing solid brick fence of similar dimensions that is shown on the plans to be on the applicant’s property. The proposed parapet wall is considered to be supportable in accordance with the following performance criteria:

• The boundary wall is not considered to impact on access to daylight or ventilation to major openings or outdoor living area;

• The boundary wall does not create a sense of confinement in regards to building bulk;

• The boundary wall does not affect existing trees or vegetation; and • The boundary wall does not interrupt access to views of significance.

Outdoor living area

Required Provided Discretion Minimum dimensions of 4m Width of 2.86m 1.14m minimum dimension The above discretionary decision is supported as the outdoor living area makes the best use of the northern aspect of the site and is capable of use with a habitable room. Building height – concealed roof

Permitted Provided Discretion North 7m 7.2m 0.2m South7m 8.8m 1.8m East 7m 7.7 – 8.6m 0.7-1.6m West 7m 7.7-8.6m 0.7-1.6m

The above discretions are supported for the following reasons:

• It is not considered that the proposed dwelling reduces the amenity of surrounding properties because of the dwellings location on a rear lot, its compliance with setbacks (1.7-2.3m greater than required), the topography of the lot and surrounding properties, overshadowing and visual privacy requirements and it does not adjoin a property on the heritage list.


Page 18


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Three (3) Storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 95a (Lot 2) Solomon Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 13 June 2013, subject to the following condition(s):





Page 19

PSC1307-98 ASHBURTON TERRACE, NO. 24 (LOT 1), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS

AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY ACCOMODATION - (CJ DA0185/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 July 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development plans

Attachment 2 – Site photos (No. 24 Ashburton) Attachment 3 – Site photos (No. 22 Ashburton)

Date Received: 23 April 2013 Owner Name: Lawrence Bugeja Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey single house Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed development is for ancillary accommodation, patio, outbuilding, an additional crossover and retrospective partial demolition of an existing front masonry fence at No. 24 Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle. The application is being referred to the Planning Services Committee due to a submission received during the advertising period regarding a proposed boundary wall. The application is considered to comply with the discretionary criteria of the City’s Local Planning Policies, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Residential Design Codes. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R30 under the City’s LPS No. 4 and is within the Fremantle South LPA. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or the Municipal Heritage Inventory, nor is it located within a Heritage Area. The subject site has an area of 473m2 and is located on the eastern side of Ashburton Terrace, near its intersection with Wray Avenue. The property is adjoined by single houses to the north and south, grouped dwellings to the east and commercial land uses to the west. DETAIL

The application proposes the following:

• Ancillary accommodation; • Patio; • Outbuilding; • Additional crossover and • Retrospective partial demolition of existing masonry primary street fence.

Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the Scheme, Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Policies. Discretions sought against these requirements are discussed in the Planning Comment section below.


Page 21

CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the applicant proposed a number of variations to the Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 21 May 2013, the City had received two (2) submissions. The following issues were raised: Submission 1

• Objection to the proposed boundary wall on northern side as it will restrict sunlight, increase energy costs and restrict wind into the house;

• Requested alteration of roof form to reduce the negative impact of the boundary wall;

• Request for sound batts in the roof and double-glazing of the granny flat; and • Objection to lack of parking.

Submission 2

• No objection to design, however lack of parking a concern – particularly in relation to verges being used for overflow parking.

The applicant provided the following points in response:

• No windows overlooking neighbouring properties; • Subject site is affected by overshadowing from existing development on

property to the north; • Existing development on lot to the north encroaches on subject site boundary by

100mm as demonstrated by Surveyors Report; and • Will endeavour ensure parking on other properties is not compromised?

PLANNING COMMENT

Buildings on boundary Required Provided Discretion Sought North – 750mm 0mm 750mm South – 750mm 0mm 750mm East – 750mm 0mm 750mm The proposed boundary walls measure between 3.5m – 3.6m in height. The boundary walls proposed on the northern and southern boundaries are proposed to be 7m in length, whereas the boundary wall proposed on the eastern boundary is proposed to be 4.7m in length. The above discretions are supported for the following reasons:


Page 22

• The northern boundary wall abuts a wall of similar dimensions that is setback 1m from the boundary. The neighbouring wall abutting the proposed ancillary accommodation has no windows. The porch area and windows shown in photographs provided by a submitter (Attachment 3) are setback from the boundary approximately 3m and will not be directly adjacent to the proposed boundary wall. As the proposed wall will abut a boundary wall of approximately the same dimensions, the discretion is supported.

• The southern boundary wall does not exceed overshadowing requirements and is not considered to affect major openings or outdoor living areas on the property to the south.

• The eastern boundary wall measures 4.7m in length and abuts open space of the lot to the east.

• the proposed boundary walls will not restrict access to sunlight and/or ventilation for major openings or outdoor living areas on neighbouring properties.

• A sense of confinement will not be created by way of building bulk, nor will a significant amount of vegetation be affected by the proposal.

• There will also be no restriction to access to views of significance. For these reasons, the discretionary decision is supported.

CONCLUSION The application is considered to comply with the performance criteria of relevant Local Planning Policies, the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Residential Design Codes. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Additions and Alterations to the Existing Single House and Ancillary Accommodation at No. 24 (Lot 1) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 23 April, 2013, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 23 April 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern, southern and

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



Page 23

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED the following deferral: That the matter be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order for the applicant to consider submitting modified plans that addresses the northern boundary wall variation with a view to reducing the height and/or roof design to address the neighbours concerns. LOST: 3/4 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Cr A Sullivan used his casting vote against the recommendation resulting in it being LOST. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Additions and Alterations to the Existing Single House and Ancillary Accommodation at No. 24 (Lot 1) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 23 April, 2013, subject to the following condition(s):


2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern, southern

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


CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 24

PSC1307-99 HARVEST ROAD, NO. 52 (LOT 13), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING ADDITION - (KS DA0166/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 July 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Site photos Attachment 3: Heritage Comment Date Received: 11 April 2013 Owner Name: Gerard MacGill Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: ‘Single House’ Use Class: ‘Grouped Dwelling’ Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as objections were received during the advertising period which raised concerns that are unable to be addressed through conditions of planning approval. Further, based on heritage advice it is recommended that no onsite car parking be provided for the proposed development. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 52 (Lot 13) Harvest Road, North Fremantle (subject site). The application has been assessed against relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies and requires the following discretionary decisions:

• Buildings setback from the boundary; and • Car parking.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of LPS4, the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s relevant policies. Further, in accordance with heritage advice and the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes the elimination of onsite car parking for the development is recommended to ensure the retention of a heritage significant wall. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 52 (Lot 13) Harvest Road, North Fremantle is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site is located on the north western side of Harvest Road and comprises 427m2 in area. The subject site comprises an existing Single House which is situated across both lots 12 & 13 associated with No. 52 Harvest Road, North Fremantle. The existing Single House is recognised as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage list and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a level 3 listed property and is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. No. 52 Harvest Road, North Fremantle is located within the street block bound by Harvest Road, Ainslie Road, Corkhill Street and Rule Street. DETAIL

On 11 April 2013 the City received a development application seeking planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling addition at No. 52 (Lot 13) Harvest Road, North Fremantle. Subject to the applicant seeking to address objections raised during the advertising period, revised plans were received by the City on 20 June 2013, proposing a two storey Grouped Dwelling addition as follows:


Page 26

Ground Level

• Bedroom; and • Demolition of a portion of the existing front retaining wall for the provision of a

driveway and one hard stand car parking bay. Upper Level

• Bedroom; • Balcony; • Bath; • Study; • Lounge; • Dining; • Kitchen; and • Storage.

For further details development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 May 2013, the City had received two (2) submissions pertaining to the proposal, raising the following relevant planning concerns:

• Heritage and objections in relation to demolition of existing heritage retaining wall; • Car parking; and • Buildings setback from boundary.

Heritage The application was referred to the City’s heritage department with comment received on 12 June 2013 as follows:

• The proposed additional dwelling can be supported on heritage grounds; • The original limestone retaining wall within the Harvest Road boundary is of

heritage significance to the original dwelling and streetscape and should be retained as much as possible and conserved. On this basis, it is recommended that only enough of the wall be demolished to allow for a pedestrian access gateway and not a driveway with the following condition:

o The limestone required to be removed for the gateway where possible is to

be reused to repair the wall. The conservation of the wall should include the removal of cement patchings, and its repair using only original methods and materials including only lime mortars.

For further details the Heritage comment is contained as ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. Parks and Landscapes


Page 27

The application was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscapes department as a crossover is proposed in the location of an existing verge tree. Comment was received on 2 May 2013 as follows:

• Parks would only support the removal of the small Sheoak tree but not the mature Eucalyptus Erythocrys or any other verge tree in front of the subject site in the Harvest Road road reserve.


The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions from the prescribed standards sought in this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Buildings setback from boundary

Element Required Provided Discretion North eastern Ground/Mezzanine level (Lounge, Bed, Bath).

3.7m. 1.9m. 1.8m.

North eastern Ground/Mezzanine level (Kitchen) 1.5m. 1.27m. 0.23m. The above discretions are supported for the following reasons:

• Located on the north eastern boundary with the majority of the building under 3.5m in height the discretions will not restrict significant sunlight accessing the north eastern adjoining property at No. 54 Harvest Road, North Fremantle;

• The setbacks are considered to allow for adequate ventilation for both the proposed dwelling and the north eastern adjoining property; and

• The discretions are not considered to result in excessive building bulk for the north eastern adjoining property as the majority of the wall is less than 3.5m in height. Building bulk is further reduced in the presence of major openings on the north eastern elevation which are not subject to the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes.

Car parking

Required Provided Discretion 2 onsite car parking bays.

1 onsite car parking bay (2 onsite car parking bays subject to recommendation below).

1 onsite car parking bay (two onsite car parking bays subject to recommendation below).


Page 28

To facilitate the provision of one onsite car parking bay a 5.9m length of the significant heritage retaining wall within the Harvest Road boundary of the property is required to be demolished. The heritage assessment deemed this wall to be of significant heritage value to the existing heritage listed dwelling at No. 52 Harvest Road and the Harvest Road streetscape and recommended retaining as much of the wall as possible. On this basis, and in accordance with concerns raised by adjoining residents, it is recommended that the entire length of the retaining wall be retained and no onsite car parking be provided to serve the proposed Grouped Dwelling addition. The provision of no onsite car parking for the proposed dwelling is considered to meet the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

• There is an availability of on-street car parking along both sides of Harvest Road. Specifically, there exists an availability of on-street car parking directly in front of the subject site on Harvest Road;

• The provision of a vehicle crossover to facilitate the provision of one onsite car parking bay will erode up to two on-street car parking bays in front of the subject site. On this basis, the provision of no onsite car parking is considered to result in increased parking supply for future residents and the locality;

• Taking into the consideration the heritage significance of the existing retaining wall in front of the proposed dwelling, the provision of no onsite car parking and the utilisation of on-street car parking for the residents of the proposed dwelling is considered adequate;

• The existing Single House at No. 52 Harvest Road, North Fremantle has no onsite car parking. The necessity to maintain on-street car parking is supported on this basis, whilst there is still deemed to be sufficient on-street car parking for the proposed Grouped Dwelling addition being provided with no onsite car parking; and

• Requiring no onsite car parking would not necessitate the provision of a crossover and in turn facilitate the retention of a Sheoak verge tree.

The applicant has requested that the north eastern portion of the wall (1m) be demolished to allow for a pedestrian access to the proposed residence. Due to the heritage significance of the existing retaining wall highlighted in the heritage assessment, the proposed demolition of the north-eastern portion of the wall to facilitate another pedestrian access to the site is not recommended to be supported. This recommendation is further based on the fact that an existing pedestrian access exists in front of the existing dwelling which is also capable of providing access to the proposed Grouped Dwelling addition. In the event that the Grouped Dwelling is developed and the lot is sought to be subdivided, the shared pedestrian access is capable of servicing two separate lots associated with the dwellings through the creation of either common property or an easement with rights of access over the existing pedestrian access. Accordingly, a condition of approval has been recommended requiring the conservation of the existing heritage significant retaining wall within the Harvest Road boundary of the subject site. Whilst heritage advice recommended supporting the retention of as much of the wall as possible it also advised that allowing only enough of the wall to be demolished as to facilitate a pedestrian access gateway and not a driveway would be a sufficient heritage outcome. This recommendation was subject to a condition to ensure any modifications to the wall were conducted in a manner that was not detrimental to the wall and used only


Page 29

lime based mortars. On this basis, PSC may wish to support demolition for a north-eastern portion of the wall at a maximum width of 1m to facilitate a pedestrian access to the proposed dwelling. This recommendation has been included as an alternative recommendation in the conclusion of this report. CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed against the requirements of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant Council policies. The setback of the building from the north eastern boundary has been supported in a Performance based assessment. Further, the application is seeking discretion from the onsite car parking requirements of the R-Codes and based on heritage advice in relation to the significance of the existing retaining wall within the Harvest Road boundary it is recommended that no onsite car parking be provided and the retaining wall be conserved. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. However, Council may wish to entertain an alternative recommendation based on heritage advice which supports the demolition of a north-eastern portion of the wall at no greater than 1m in width to facilitate the provision of a pedestrian access. In seeking this Council may wish to substitute Condition 3 as recommended in the Officer’s recommendation with the following:

3. That the existing heritage significant retaining wall within the Harvest Road boundary be maintained and not demolished for purposes other than providing a pedestrian access to the dwelling which is no greater than 1m in width from the property’s north eastern boundary. The limestone required to be removed for the pedestrian access is to be reused to repair the wall and conservation shall include the removal of cement patchings, and its repair using only original methods and materials including only lime based mortars to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 30


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 52 (Lot 13) Harvest Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. That the existing heritage significant retaining wall within the Harvest Road

boundary be maintained and not demolished for purposes of providing vehicle access, onsite car parking or additional pedestrian access to the dwelling to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby permitted, No. 52 (Lots 12 and 13) Harvest Road, North Fremantle 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 that is executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement shall require the owner twelve (12) months to amalgamate the lots.

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 31

Mayor, Brad Pettitt left the meeting at 6.57pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return. PSC1307-95 SOUTH STREET NO 2/398 (LOT 152) O’CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF

EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY (27 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) BUILDING, SHOP, OFFICE AND TAVERN (JS DA0095/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 July 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Amended Development Plans (dated 26 April 2013)

2. Site Photographs Date Received: 1 March 2013 Owner Name: Icie Pty Ltd Submitted by: West Coast Plan Scheme: Local Centre Zone Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Restaurant & Fast Food Outlet Use Class: Short Stay Dwellings, Shop, Office & Tavern Use Permissibility: A, D, P & A


Page 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination due to proposed ‘Tavern’ and ‘Short Stay Dwelling” land uses being listed as an ‘A’ use within the Local Centre zone and discretion being sought relating to car parking requirements. Furthermore, submissions have been received that cannot be resolved by the imposition of planning conditions. Whilst a considerable car parking shortfall is proposed, the discretion is considered to satisfy the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), in particular clause 5.7.3. Furthermore, the land use is considered appropriate when assessed against the objectives of the Local Centre zone. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Local Centre with a density coding of R80 under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City’s) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List, nor is it located within an allocated Heritage Area. The site falls within Sub Area 8.3.2 of the O’Connor Local Planning Area. The site is approximately 3175m2 and is located on the north western corner at the junction of South Street and Plane Tree Grove in O’Connor. The site is currently occupied by the Roxby Thai Restaurant and a ‘Drive Thru’ Coffee Outlet. The subject site is surrounded by numerous land uses including Residential and Commercial. To the east of the subject site is the common boundary the City of Fremantle shares with the City of Melville. The subject site is located within the street block bound by South Street to the south, Plane Tree Grove to the north and east, and College Corner/ Del Rosso Place to the west. DETAIL

Planning Approval is sought for the following components: • Demolition of all existing structures on site; • Construction of a four storey building consisting of 27 short stay dwellings and

under croft (parking and storage); • Construction of a Manager’s Office (Unit 1); • Construction of a Shop (Unit 2); • Construction of a three storey Tavern/ Restaurant building with Cellar below; and • A total of 54 car bays.

It must be noted that the applicant has lodged the application for the residential dwellings to be assessed as multiple dwellings and under Clause 8.2 (n) of LPS4, the use of a multiple dwelling as a short stay dwelling, where occupied by 6 or fewer persons, is classified as permitted development. Development plans are affixed to this report (attachment 1)


Page 33


The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Council Local Planning Policies and includes the following discretion to acceptable development requirements:

• Vehicle Parking; and • Discretionary Land Use.

CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council policy LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, the City had received 3 submissions which raised the following concerns (summarised):

• Land use (Tavern); • Antisocial behaviour; • Traffic; • Car wash issues (not subject site); • Sight lines; and • Vehicle Parking.

Further discussion relating to the above matters that do not meet the required standards will be included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Planning Referrals (External)

Main Roads

“The proposed development is acceptable to Main Roads WA subject to the following conditions being imposed:

• The proposed development is adjacent to South Street, a primary freight route and should comply with State Planning Policy 5.4 (e.g noise attenuation).

• No earthworks shall encroach onto the South Street reserve. • No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the South Street reserve. • The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing vegetation with the

South Street reservation. • All vehicle access shall be restricted to the existing driveway. • The ground levels on the South Street boundary are to be maintained as existing.


Page 34

Advice to Applicant

• All enquiries related to conditions 2-4 shall be directed to the Metropolitan Region – Asset Manager”

Western Power

As the site is adjacent to a high voltage transmission line the application was required to be referred to Western Power for comment. ‘The transmission line is far enough away as to not affect this development’. Planning Referrals (Internal)

Traffic

The following referral was made by the City’s Infrastructure department:

• “Moderate Impact on surrounding network – will require an Traffic Statement as per WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments, estimated trip generation and performance of Plane Tree Grove and South Street intersection upon completion (and occupation) of development;

• ACROD bay must conform to AS 1428.1 with location preferred to access ramps and lift. Query the size of the bay (shared space next to ACROD bay not preferred, given there is shown to be a generous supply of car bays over the required number, why not simply dedicate this “shared space” as the dedicated ACROD bay? – location noted to be near lift;

• Car bay ratio is adequate; • Inclusion of cycle parking area is noted; • Access through to existing car park area to the west – feature paving on driveway

noted. Would like to see further traffic calming on this vehicle access pathway as the primary circulation of traffic has been transferred, by the activation of the edges of the lot, through the centre as opposed to around;

• Access of 6m is fine from Plane Tree Grove however, and this may be my interpretation of the plan, the left hand turn immediately after that crossover seems to be a little tight due to the reclaiming of some of the swept path;

• Did not notice a loading area – provision for at least 1 small rigid loading vehicle for the commercial premises should be provided;

• Bin Store noted however access for pick up not shown – implication that garbage truck must access the internal road not recommended;

• Pedestrian access through the centre – feature paved area noted linking two new developments however there are some squeeze points for other through pedestrian traffic. Access through the area should be incorporated for pedestrians unless council would like to extend the existing footpath on Plane Tree Grove around to the South Street verge and then further west.”


Page 35

Environmental Health “The proposal outlined in these plans has a number of areas that need to be addressed or expanded upon.

• The development is in close proximity to residential premises that are likely to be affected by the development particularly during the construction phase. Given this a substantial construction management plan that outlines how noise vibration dust and site rubbish are to contained and mitigated should be produced;

• The proposed restaurant/ bar development has only one exit and none identified as being emergency/ fire escapes. Given this is to be a certified as a Public Building under the provisions of the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992, the building will require appropriate exits. Buildings with only one exit can generally not have an occupancy exceeding 50 people under the provisions of the mentioned regulations;

• The plans do not show how and where the mechanical services associated with the buildings, air conditioning, lift and kitchen exhaust system will be ducted and exhaust to. Given the roof is proposed to be a bar/ public area these issues should be addressed;

• The building does not have any designated delivery area or door. I feel a system for delivery of goods and removal of rubbish through the lobby area is impractical;

• The proposed kitchen area shows no detail however the area proposed is potentially too small to be practical, particularly once cool rooms, cooking equipment, sinks and workbenches are installed. As mentioned ducting for exhaust canopy and other mechanical services needs to be considered;

• The proposed bin area requires rubbish from the bars and kitchens to be taken through the lobby area and to be taken to the bin room which appears impractical. The removal of rubbish, recycling and fat and oil drums from the bin store will potentially cause the “roadway “ in front of the building to be blocked as there does not appear to be any off street area available to accommodate a truck;

• Given the roof of the restaurant/ bar building is to be an open bar and is in close proximity to residential properties an acoustic consultants report should be prepared by an acoustic consultant in relation to potential noise associated with the building and the proposed usage, particularly if there is to be music and other entertainment on the roof area;

• The proposed residential component has an underground/ under croft garage area that may require mechanical ventilation to ensure adequate air quality in this area. If such a system is required is should be located and designed so that it does not impact the neighbouring properties particularly due to exhaust air emissions or noise; and

• All mechanical systems such as any air-conditioning systems should be designed to ensure noise does not impact neighbours.”

The above comments from the City’s Environmental Health and Technical Services departments are matters that will not fundamentally change the design of the proposal if approved. On this basis it is recommended that these comments be included as conditions of approval.


Page 36

Heritage Comments(Demolition) Clause 5.15.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

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

significance and character of the locality in which it is located. Furthermore, Clause 5.15.2 states that in considering an application under 5.15.1, Council shall have regard to any heritage assessment required under Clause 7.4 Comment: “The building is to be considered to be of little or no cultural heritage significance. Recommendation: The proposed demolition of the building is acceptable. Digital photographs are to be taken of the building (once vacated). Photographs are to be in colour, of a high quality, and are to show the current state of the place. Each image should be clearly labelled, with a description of what is depicted in the photograph and the date it was taken. The photographs are to include:

i) A general/overall photograph of the building to be demolished, showing its setting including the streetscape;

ii) Photographs of the four external facades. The photographs are to be submitted to the City of Fremantle for approval before the commencement of any works.” A full copy of the Heritage Comment is affixed to this report (attachment 3). Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal has been presented to the City’s DAC several times (pre and post planning application submission) including February 2012, May 2012, August 2012 and March 2013. The recommendations of each meeting are outlined below. Summary Recommendations (February 2012)

• “Mixed use development and affordable housing on this site is supported; • The level of amenity to the proposed units needs to be increased specifically

relating to access to daylight, privacy, size of spaces, outlook, solar access and natural ventilation;

• Consideration needs to be given to proposed outdoor living areas that abut boundaries where the adjoining property could develop 11.0m high walls that will compromise access to daylight;

• Building towards the front of the lot is encouraged;


Page 37

• The reorientation and redesign of the proposed building into two separate east/west axis blocks to increase northern light will result in a better quality design and a higher amenity for the units;

• Need to better cue how a pedestrian approaches the building i.e. a more legible manner to access building is required; and

• The privacy of the adjoining northern single dwellings needs to be protected. • East and west facing windows need solar protection which will also add

architectural depth and character”

Summary Recommendations (May 2012) • “The residential entry point should be made more obvious; • The privacy of neighbouring residents from the north facing balconies still needs

addressing; • It is recommended that the distance between the residential blocks be increased

to allow better access to sunlight for lower units in the south block; • Can the eastern most stairs be used as the main access from the basement car

park (which would result in gaining additional car parking bays from deleting the stair currently shown as providing access from the car park;

• Pedestrian access way between the ground floor 1 bedroom units should be moved east so that sightlines from the residential entry to the northern block of units are maintained;

• Stair wells with a single run (rather than a double run) of stairs are recommended as they create an opportunity for more façade articulation and allow centrally located entry doors which will increase the internal space of the residential units;

• The disabled ramp to the corner building could be removed if the lift orientation and/or the FFL of the entry could be modified;

• If a container design aesthetic is pursued, the detailing, materials, and openings need to more accurately respond to a traditional container form and its visual logic;

• The current 45 degree rotated form should be modified to enable the more orthogonal arrangement of traditional container forms;

• The visibility of plant equipment needs to be further considered; • Any waste disposal/collection/storage areas should be adequately screened from

view; and • Cladding and windows to the container design should be consistent with the

container ‘theme’.”

Summary Recommendations (August 2012) • “The revised design improves the amenity of the residential units; • To improve legibility issues it is encouraged that you engage a skilled landscape

architect to further define the residential entrance through plantings and varied pavement treatments (i.e. colours and textures).”

Summary Recommendations (March 2013)

• “Previous DAC concerns relating to legibility of access (way finding) have not been addressed satisfactorily. Additional design cues indicating the unit entrance and pedestrian/vehicle hierarchy is required so that it facilitates an increased pedestrian focussed area rather than a car park through which pedestrians walk. This information is required prior to the determination of the development application.


Page 38

• Details of materiality and detailing is required however this can be provided at a later date through an appropriately worded planning approval condition.”

A meeting between the applicant, planning staff and DAC Chair was held on 22 April 2013 to discuss the applicant’s changes to plans to address the legibility of access issue (way finding) that was previously raised by the DAC. The applicant has now made several modifications to the plans that satisfy the DAC concerns including:

• Minimum 1.8m width external access path and increased lift lobby to ensure ease of access for furniture;

• Raised feature paving to delineate pedestrian priority over vehicle priority (and removal of 1-2 car bays to achieve this);

• Consistent landscaping and entrance signage to more clearly signalise the entry to the residential complex.

• Removal of the communal pool in the residential complex to create are more usable communal outdoor living area

PLANNING COMMENT

Vehicle Parking

Land Use

Type of bay Car Delivery Visitor Bicycle

Required

Provided

Required

Provided

Required

Provided

Required

Provided

Residential 22 22 N/A N/A 6.75 (7) 7 12 0

Office 3 2 1 0 N/A N/A 1 0 Shop 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0

Tavern 115 21 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 142 47 2 0 7 7 14 0

Shortfall 95 2 0 14 Clause 5.7.3 states that Council may waive or reduce the standard parking requirements outlined in Table 3 on the basis of the proposal satisfying one or more of the criteria outlined within clause 5.7.3(a). Of the criteria listed within clause 5.7.3, the proposal is considered to satisfy (i), (ii):

(i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking Whilst it is acknowledged that bays on adjoining private land cannot be considered in parking calculations, and the City is not aware of any legal agreement for a reciprocal parking agreement, there is large amount (120+) of surplus parking in alternative bays in the immediate vicinity. As the Tavern is proposed to open at 6pm, it is reasonable to expect that a number of patrons will utilise this parking if the 21 bays on site are already occupied. Also as the residential development is for short stay dwellings, there are likely to be instances where the development is not fully tenanted and/or short stay dwelling occupants may not have a vehicle. In these instances, patrons of the tavern will be able to utilise the basement parking of the residential development.


Page 39

(ii) The availability of public transport in the locality

The proposal is also located within close proximity to a ‘High Frequency Bus Route’, being South Street. The Transperth bus timetable indicates that the No’s 98 and 99 buses that operate the ‘Circle Route’ from the Fremantle Train Station passes the bus stop at the intersection of South Street and Plane Tree Grove 84 times on a week day. Whilst it is acknowledged that the discretion sought appears significant, it is not considered to truly reflect the demands of the uses. It would be reasonable to expect that by the very nature of the proposed use, and any liquor license that is subsequently granted that patrons may plan their night ahead, whether that be car pooling, catching a taxi or alternative means of transport other than driving. In this regard, it is considered that this may reduced the overall impact of car parking shortfall associated with this application. In summary, the shortfall in parking is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality in relation to car parking. There is a significant amount of alternative parking available within the direct proximity to the site as well as a number of feasible public transport options. Accordingly the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Land Use Tavern and Short Stay Dwelling It is considered that the proposed Tavern and Short Stay Dwellings are generally consistent with the desired intent of the Local Centre zone due to the following objectives of the zone being met:

(i) ‘provide for weekly and convenience retailing including small-scale shops, showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms, entertainment, residential (at upper levels), recreation, open spaces, local offices, cottage industry, health, welfare and community facilities which serve the local community, consistent with the local—serving role of the centre,

(ii) encourage the provision of suitable and accessible services to residents of the locality,

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

Note Objective (iii) derived from Part 4.1, A 5.4 of Fremantle Planning Strategy.

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


Page 40

Furthermore, point 4 in the Statement of Objectives in Local Planning Policy 3.8 stipulates as follows: ‘to ensure the development of the South Street Local Centre as a vibrant community hub that serves the day to day needs of nearby residents’. In addition, the ‘Roxby Thai’ restaurant that currently exists on site, currently operates with a ‘tavern’ Liquor Licence although the functioning of the premises is more similar to restaurant as the majority of the floor area is used to accommodate seated meals rather than standing bar area. In light of the above, the proposed Tavern use is consistent with what Council has outlined as their preferred uses within the Local Centre zone and LPP 3.8 – O’Connor and as such the change the proposal is recommended to be supported. It is considered that the proposal will act to strengthen the purpose of the Local Centre zone in providing for uses that can contribute towards revitalisation of the centre, facilitating a more comprehensive array of uses which will in turn contribute to the vitality of the O’Connor locality and the City as a whole. On this basis, it is considered that a refusal is not warranted in this circumstance. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a Four Storey (27 Short Stay Dwellings) Building, Office, Shop and Tavern at No. 2/398 (Lot 152) South Street, O’Connor, subject to the following condition(s):


2. Once vacated, digital photographs of the existing building are to be documented and forwarded to the City of Fremantle for approval before the commencement of any works.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit details to City’s Technical Services Department regarding following to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle:

• Pedestrian movement; • Loading area/s; • Traffic calming; and • Garbage collection

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit details to the City’s Environmental Health Department regarding the following to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle:

• A construction management plan; • Emergency escapes;


Page 41

• Mechanical services and plant equipment location/s; • Undercroft ventilation; • An acoustic report; that shows how the proposed tavern in close

proximity to existing and proposed residential uses will be able to comply with noise regulations

• Garbage collection; • Kitchen layout; and • Delivery area/s

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a submission a detailed schedule of external materials, colour swatches and textures is required to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee.

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

7. Prior to occupation, a total of twelve (12) bicycle racks are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. No earthworks shall encroach onto the South Street reserve. 9. All stormwater drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site (no

discharged onto the South Street reserve). 10. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing vegetation with

the South Street reservation. 11. All vehicle access shall be restricted to the existing driveway. 12. The ground levels on the South Street boundary are to be maintained as

existing. 13. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

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

14. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the site plan (SK1) or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to occupation, all boundary walls shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to occupation, the car parking, vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of visitor parking, shall be constructed, drained and line marked to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


Page 42

Cr A Sullivan moved to defer the item to next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting

Defer the application to next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for conditions relating to the landscaping of the residential component of the development to be further developed.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 43

PSC1307-100 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY - 3 JULY 2013 Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

That the information is noted.

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 44

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) Nil. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.12 PM.


Page 45

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 46


of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


Page 47


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 48

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


Page 49


Page 50

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 July 2013, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 3 July 2013

Page 2

psc minutes 03 july 2013 - city of fremantle · 7/3/2013 · recommendation for item psc1307-94:...

Documents