town planning & building committee · cr amor made the following impartiality declaration in...

Town Planning & Building Committee

1 July 2014 6.35pm

MINUTES

Town of East Fremantle 135 Canning Highway, East Fremantle WA 6158

PO Box 1097, Fremantle WA 6959 Tel: (08) 9339 1577

Fax: (08) 9339 3399 E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.eastfremantle.wa.gov.au


1 July 2014 INDEX

Y:\COMMITTEE\Minutes\TP & Building Committee\14 TP Minutes\July_14\TP 010714 (Index).docx 1

MINUTES OF A TOWN PLANNING & BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING, HELD IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING ROOM, ON TUESDAY, 1 JULY, 2014 COMMENCING AT 6:35PM. T66. OPENING OF MEETING

T66.1 Present T67. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

T68. WELCOME TO GALLERY

T69. APOLOGIES

T70. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES T70.1 Town Planning & Building Committee – 10 June 2014 T71. CORRESPONDENCE (LATE RELATING TO ITEM IN AGENDA) T71.1 King Street No. 65 (Lot 327) T72. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

T72.1 Town Planning Advisory Panel – 27 May 2014 T73. REPORTS OF OFFICERS - STATUTORY PLANING/DEVELOPMENT

CONTROL T73.1 Receipt of Reports

T73.2 Order of Business

T73.3 Gordon Street No. 2 (Lot 4) Page (2)

Applicant: Mr Craig Bailey Agenda Ref. 9.3 Owner: D Sounness Application No. P78/14

T73.4 King Street No. 65 (Lot 327) Page (14)

Applicant: Kensington Design Australia Agenda Ref. 9.5 Owner: A Robinson Application No. P63/14

T73.5 East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage adjacent to Allen Street Page (22)

Applicant: East Fremantle Football Club Agenda Ref. 9.6 Owner: Minister for Lands Application No. P60/2014

T73.6 Silas Street No. 10 (Lot 593) Page (42)

Applicant: C Eardley Agenda Ref. 9.1 Owner: Ten Tangents Application No. P56/2014

T73.7 Clayton Street No. 60A (Lot 2) Page (45)

Applicant: 101 Residential Agenda Ref. 9.2 Owner: R J Wynn Application No. P77/14


1 July 2014 INDEX

Y:\COMMITTEE\Minutes\TP & Building Committee\14 TP Minutes\July_14\TP 010714 (Index).docx 2

T73.8 Canning Highway No. 101 (Lot 4274) Page (54) Applicant: Griffiths Architects Agenda Ref. 9.4 Owner: Main Road Western Australia Application No. P49/14

T74. REPORTS OF OFFICERS – STRATEGIC PLANNING T74.1 Review of Local Planning Strategy & Town Planning Scheme No. 3 T75. ADJOURNMENT

T76. RESUMPTION

T77. REPORTS OF OFFICERS – STRATEGIC PLANNING (CONT) T77.1 Review of Local Planning Strategy & Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Page (59) Agenda Ref. 10.1 T77.2 Restoration of “Old Police Station” Page (62) Agenda Ref. 10.2 T78. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

T79. URGENT BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE BY PERMISSION OF THE

MEETING

T80. CLOSURE OF MEETING

Town Planning & Building Committee (Private Domain)

1 July 2014 MINUTES

Y:\COMMITTEE\Minutes\TP & Building Committee\14 TP Minutes\July_14\TP 010714 (Minutes).doc 1

MINUTES OF A TOWN PLANNING & BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING, HELD IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING ROOM, ON TUESDAY, 1 JULY, 2014 COMMENCING AT 6:35PM. T66. OPENING OF MEETING

T66.1 Present Cr Siân Martin Presiding Member Cr Julie Amor Cr Cliff Collinson Cr Matthew Handcock Mayor James O’Neill Mr Jamie Douglas Manager – Planning Services Mr Andrew Malone Senior Town Planner Mrs Peta Cooper Minute Secretary T67. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Presiding Member made the following acknowledgement:

“On behalf of the Council I would like to acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the traditional custodians of the land on which this meeting is taking place.”

T68. WELCOME TO GALLERY There were 7 members of the public in the gallery at the commencement of the meeting.

T69. APOLOGIES Cr Michael McPhail Cr Maria Rico

T70. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES T70.1 Town Planning & Building Committee – 10 June 2014

Cr Collinson – Cr Amor That the Town Planning & Building Committee minutes dated 10 June 2014 be confirmed. CARRIED

T71. CORRESPONDENCE (LATE RELATING TO ITEM IN AGENDA) T71.1 King Street No. 65 (Lot 327)

Email from Kensington Design providing amended southern elevation indicating stairwell window to be fixed and obscure glazed. Cr Martin – Mayor O’Neill That the information be received and held over for consideration when the matter comes forward for discussion later in the meeting (MB Ref T73.4). CARRIED

T72. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

T72.1 Town Planning Advisory Panel – 27 May 2014

Cr Martin – Mayor O’Neill That the minutes of the Town Planning Advisory Panel meeting held on 27 May 2014 be received and each item considered when the relevant development application is being discussed. CARRIED


1 July 2014 MINUTES


T73. REPORTS OF OFFICERS - STATUTORY PLANING/DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

T73.1 Receipt of Reports

Mayor O’Neill – Cr Handcock That the Reports of Officers be received. CARRIED

T73.2 Order of Business

Mayor O’Neill – Cr Handcock The order of business be altered to allow members of the public to speak to relevant agenda items. CARRIED

Cr Amor made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of 2 Gordon Street: “As a consequence of the applicant, Mr Craig Bailey (Ecovision Homes), being known to me from many years ago, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”.

T73.3 Gordon Street No. 2 (Lot 4)

Applicant: Mr Craig Bailey Owner: D Sounness Application No. P78/14 By Andrew Malone, Senior Town Planner on 6 June 2013 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report considers the demolition of an existing dwelling and proposed development application for a single storey dwelling with undercroft garage at 2 (Lot 4) Gordon Street, East Fremantle. The proposal raises the following key issues with regard to the determination of the application: · variation to side setback (secondary street Woodhouse Road) – required setback 2.0

metres. Proposed setback is 1.0 – 1.5 metres; · variation to rear setback – required setback 6.0 metres. Proposed setback is 1.0

metre; · Visual Privacy: Overlooking into northern neighbor’s property; and · Side secondary street fence on Woodhouse Road of a maximum height above 2.2

metres (1.8 metres required). The proposed demolition and new dwelling is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Description of Site The subject site is: - a 855m² block - zoned Residential R12.5 - developed with a single storey dwelling and undercroft. - located in the Richmond Hill Precinct. Statutory Considerations Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) – Residential R12.5 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Relevant Council Policies Local Planning Policy – Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Impact on Public Domain Tree in verge: No impact. Light pole: No impact. Crossover: As existing. Footpath: No impact. Streetscape: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling. Documentation Plans and relevant forms date stamp received on 20 May 2014. Date Application Received 20 May 2014 Any Relevant Previous Decisions of Council and/or History of an Issue or Site N/A CONSULTATION Advertising The application was advertised to surrounding neighbours and a sign was erected on-site for a two week period between 22 May 2014 and 9 June 2014. Council on 17 June 2014 received a late submission raising concern with regard the proposed development. This concern is summarised below.

SUBMISSION APPLICANT RESPONSE OFFICER COMMENT

If 2 Gordon Street is developed in line with the drawings made available at Council, it would result in a building being constructed within the 6 metre boundary of the rear of the land. In is proposed that such new building encroach that envelope and be allowed to be constructed as close 1 metre from the rear of the boundary land. Such a construction would destroy our view and use and benefit of our premises in the way we currently enjoy it.

In order to protect the current view at 45 Woodhouse Road towards and along the river in a North East direction, we oppose the approval of any dwelling at 2 Gordon Street be allowed within 6 metres of the rear boundary of the land. Alternatively and if required that the proposed building be permitted to be constructed within the 6 metre boundary that the top of the roof line not exceed the height of the existing timber pergola in that area (estimated 36.0 RL)

The design principle of the R-Codes are primarily – 1. To reduce scale and bulk of

dwelling to adjacent residences (and there open space back yards.) The proposed dwelling is single storey with a small roof height/mass and floor height lower than Woodhouse Road. The proposed dwelling is very low scale and bulk. (The portion of proposed dwelling with reduced west boundary setback has no impact on adjoining open space.)

2. Ensure Sunlight and natural ventilation to adjacent residences. The proposed dwelling has no adverse impact on the Sunlight and natural ventilation to adjacent residences.

3. Ensure no adverse Overlooking to adjacent residences. The proposed dwelling has no adverse impact on the overlooking to adjacent residences. Further justifications to approve the proposed residence include but not limited to-

4. The Woodhouse Road streetscape is of existing residences with side setbacks to west and east boundaries of typically 1m. I would argue that

The comments from the neighbours have been considered. The submitter of the letter regarding the potential impact to their views has provided 2 photographs illustrating the views. One photograph appears to have been taken from the street, the other from the front porch of the neighbour’s property (45 Woodhouse Road). The applicant has provided a sketch illustrating the potential impact the proposed dwelling will have on the views of the neighbour. As the dwelling is single storey, the proposed dwelling is considered to be no higher than the existing corner vegetation on the lot. The proposed development is not considered to significantly impact on the neighbours views.

The proposed incursion into the rear of the lot is addressed in detail later in this report.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


SUBMISSION APPLICANT RESPONSE OFFICER COMMENT our proposed dwelling respects streetscape better than if there was a 6m setback to west boundary.

5. Another design principle of the R-Codes is the provision of a useable open space as a “backyard”. The proposed design provides a very large useable “backyard” of approx. 22m x 12m

6. The reduced setback to west boundary affords separate roof to Bed 4 and Sitting. The separation and hip roof design actually retains the view corridor for 45 Woodhouse. There is a 7m separation between the two ridges and this allows open space between roofs to view corridor. Refer to attached SK100 which indicates an overlay of proposed design on photo provided by neighbours - 45 Woodhouse Road East Fremantle Patrick and Merissa Hayburn

7. The single storey and small roof forms (width) means that the proposed dwelling is basically a similar height to the existing trees on that part of the site for requested 6m setback.

8. The reduced setback has afforded the proposed design to remain single storey to Woodhouse and retain a significant tree in the middle of the site.

9. Averaging of setback. Averaging of front setback is permitted. The proposed design easily complies with a 6m average.

10. If the design was modified to provide a 6m setback and without doing a design the outcome is likely to be worse with respect to the view corridor for 45 Woodhouse. The separate roof forms would be removed and there would be a continuous roofline. The redesign may need to accommodate a two storey mass to Woodhouse. The 6m setback area would be landscaped and a tree planted here would grow significantly higher than the simple low single storey residence proposed.


1 July 2014 MINUTES



11. As a new residence the proposed design represents a small residence for the size of lot and precedent of most new homes in the area.

12. The existing residence at 45 Woodhouse Road habitable floor level is approximately 5m higher than our proposed floor level. The existing residence at 45 Woodhouse Road habitable floor level is high enough to look over our proposed low, single storey residence to Woodhouse Road.

Town Planning Advisory Panel This application was considered by the Town Planning Advisory Panel at its meeting held on 21 January 2014 and the following comments were made:

COMMENTS APPLICANT RESPONSE OFFICER COMMENT

Panel supports the proposed simple single storey development with minor variation sought. Panel supports the proposed screen wall. Panel supports the retention of the landscaping and existing mature trees / vegetation. Panel commends the offset of the garage with regard to the retention of the streetscape.

No submission received. The Panel’s comments are acknowledged.

Site Inspection By Senior Town Planner on 10 June 2014 and 18 June 2014 following the neighbour’s submission to assess the impact to views. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and the Town’s Local Planning Policies. A summary of the assessment is provided in the following tables. Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Assessment

Scheme Provision Status 4.2 Zone Objectives A 4.3 Zoning Table A

Residential Design Codes Assessment

Design Element Required Proposed Status Open Space 55% 70% A Outdoor Living 30sqm 44sqm A Car Parking 2 2 A Site Works Less than 500mm Less than 500mm A Overshadowing 25% N/A A Drainage On-site On-site A


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Local Planning Policies Assessment LPP Residential Design Guidelines Provision Status 3.7.2 Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings N/A 3.7.3 Development of Existing Buildings N/A 3.7.4 Site Works A 3.7.5 Demolition A 3.7.6 Construction of New Buildings A 3.7.7 Building Setbacks and Orientation D 3.7.8 Roof Form and Pitch A 3.7.9 Materials and Colours A 3.7.10 Landscaping A 3.7.11 Front Fences D 3.7.12 Pergolas N/A 3.7.13 Incidental Development Requirements N/A 3.7.14 Footpaths and Crossovers A 3.7.15-20 Precinct Requirements A

DISCUSSION Side Boundary Setbacks The front boundary setback and the side boundary setbacks to the north and west comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ setback requirements of the R-Codes. The setback requirements to southern boundary (secondary street: Woodhouse Road) are required to be 2.0 metres from the boundary, as per the secondary street setback requirements of Table 1 of the R-Codes. The proposed set back from the secondary street ranges from 1.0 metre to 1.5 metres. Notwithstanding the above, the side secondary street set back will be addressed below. The LPP RDG Element 3.7.7 provides performance criteria by which to assess proposed variations to setback requirements. This is summarised below. P1.1 The primary street setback of new developments or additions to non-

contributory buildings is to match the traditional setback of the immediate locality.

The proposed dwelling is set back 7.5 metres from the front boundary. The proposed form of the dwelling is set back to match the traditional setback of the immediate locality. The proposed dwelling will have a minimum set back of 7.5 metres to the verandah, 9.4 metres to the garage door and 9.4 metres to the dwelling. The design of the dwelling and existing slope in the lot will minimise visual impact to the primary street and will articulate the front of the dwelling. The front set back to the boundary complies with Council requirements. P1.2 Additions to existing contributory buildings shall be setback so as to not

adversely affect its visual presence. The existing dwelling is not listed on the Town’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The existing dwelling is set back approximately 9.4 metres from the front boundary and between 1.0 – 1.5 metre to the side secondary street boundary. It is considered the proposed development does not adversely affect the visual presence of the primary or secondary streetscape or adjoining neighbours. P1.3 Developments are to have side setbacks complementary with the

predominant streetscape. With regard to the proposed side set (secondary street) to the dwelling, the required set back from the boundary is 2.0 metres as per Table 1 of the R-Codes. The proposed set back from the side (secondary street) boundary varies between 1 metre and 1.5 metres.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


The existing dwelling is located 0.9 metres from the secondary street. An existing outbuilding is located 0.2 metres from the secondary street boundary. There is a fall of approximately 1.0 metres from the road to the subject lot boundary. The proposed dwelling is articulated with the wall set back between 1 metre and 1.5 metres. The wall is 3.2 metre in height, however will only present at 2.2 metres from the road. As illustrated in the east and west elevation, persons standing on the road will only view the eaves and roof form of the proposed dwelling. The side setback is considered to have a side setback that is complementary with other side setbacks in the area, however due to the corner nature of the lot the impact to the secondary street should be considered. It is considered there is minimal impact to the primary or secondary streetscape. It is considered the wall does not impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbour. The dwelling is single storey and is lower in height than the verge or road, therefore there is minimal impact to the streetscape and character of the area. The proposed height of the wall does not significantly impact on the scale or bulk of the dwelling, therefore it is also considered the boundary fence (discussed in the next section of this report) will not negatively impact the streetscape. The proposed dwelling has been designed to mitigate any adverse impact with regard to scale or bulk of the dwelling, as it has been designed to be articulated vertically and horizontally. The proposed front boundary set back of 7.5 metres complies with the front set back requirements. side setback variation to the ‘Deemed to Comply’ requirements is considered a minor variation. The proposal does not significantly negatively impact the streetscape or adjoining neighbours and therefore it is considered that the reduced side setback can be supported by Council. Rear Setback The proposed dwelling is required to be set back 6 metres from the rear boundary, however in this instance the rear set back of the lot also abuts a secondary street. The secondary street forms part of the Woodhouse Road Streetscape. The proposed ancillary accommodation / granny flat is located 1 metre from the rear boundary and 1.5 metres from the secondary street boundary. The ancillary accommodation / granny flat does not comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes. The ‘Design Provisions’ of 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback allows for: P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

• reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open

spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on

adjoining properties.

The proposed dwelling and ancillary accommodation / granny flat is considered to comply with the ‘Design Provisions’ of Element 5.1.3 of the R–Codes. It is considered the bulk and scale of the proposal is similar to that of the existing dwelling. The proposal is single storey and is considered to have no adverse height, scale or bulk impacts. There are no ventilation or direct sun impacts. Overlooking will be discussed in a later section of this report. The proposed development is considered to adequately address the ‘Design Provisions’ of Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes. Notwithstanding the above compliance, the neighbour’s submission concerns maintaining views of the river from 45 Woodhouse Road. The proposed development has 2 adjoining dwellings to the north (4 and 8 Gordon Street) (illustrated in the objector’s submission and the applicants response) that are of a greater height than the existing dwelling. Whilst the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions require a 6 metre rear set back, the existing dwelling has a structure located to the rear of the lot. This structure, as is clearly illustrated in the neighbour’s submission, has no impact on the views of 45 Woodhouse


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Road. As is clearly illustrated in the applicant’s response submission both 4 and 8 Gordon Street and the existing vegetation on the subject lot restrict the views from 45 Woodhouse Road. The neighbour has requested the RL of the rear ancillary accommodation / granny flat has a maximum roof height of 36.0 RL, only 0.22 metres above the Finished Road Level of RL 35.78. The proposed structure is single story and will have a roof height of approximately RL38.8. The proposed ancillary accommodation / granny flat and dwelling is single storey and will not have an impact on the views of 45 Woodhouse Street. The proposed finished floor level of the ancillary accommodation / granny flat at RL 35.0 is 0.78 metres below the centre of the road. 45 Woodhouse Road is elevated above Woodhouse Road with the main living areas located above an undercroft, therefore there will be minimal visual impacts to the viewing vistas of 45 Woodhouse Road. The proposed single storey ancillary accommodation has a window fronting Woodhouse Road (secondary Street) and is considered to form part of the streetscape for Woodhouse Road. The ancillary accommodation addresses Woodhouse Road and while it is setback 1.5 metres from the boundary, the single storey nature of the development is considered to have no significant impact to Woodhouse Road with regard to bulk and scale. The ancillary accommodation proposed within the rear set back along the secondary street, does not have a negative impact on the streetscape or adjoining neighbours. The applicant has demonstrated the neighbour’s existing views will be protected. Therefore it is considered that the reduced side and rear setback can be supported by Council. Visual Privacy The ‘Deemed to comply’ provisions for Element 5.4.1 Visual privacy of the R-Codes requires major openings which have their floor level more than 0.5 metre above natural ground level, and positioned so as to overlook any part of any other residential property behind its setback line, to comply with the following: · 4.5 metres in the case of bedrooms and studies; · 6.0 metres in the case of habitable rooms, other than bedrooms and studies; and · 7.5 metres in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces. The proposed alfresco area and front verandah is considered to have minor overlooking into the adjoining property to the north. The verandah overlooking is to the front of the adjoining lot and therefore considered not to overlook a habitable area of the adjoining neighbour. It is considered the verandah has no adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbour, including no direct overlooking of habitable areas. The alfresco area is screened to the northern elevation, however the ‘cone of vision’ to the western elevation does extend into the northern neighbours lot. This overlooking is over an existing carport structure. The proposed development does not comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes. The ‘Design Provisions’ of 5.4.1 allows for: 1 Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of

adjacent dwellings achieved through: · building layout, location; · design of major openings; · landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or · location of screening devices.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


2 Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as: · offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is oblique

rather than direct; · building to the boundary where appropriate; · setting back the first floor from the side boundary; · providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or · screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens,

external blinds, window hoods and shutters). The proposed alfresco and verandah overlook a carport and front garden of the northern neighbours lot. The carport and front garden are not currently considered as active habitable spaces. Both the alfresco area and verandah are screened to the northern elevation. The adjoining property is overlooked because the applicable cone of vision extends beyond the proposed screens into the neighbours lot. The proposed screens to the alfresco and verandah on the northern elevation restrict direct overlooking into the northern neighbour’s lot. It is considered unnecessary to screen the alfresco area and verandah further. The front setback area of the adjoining properties is clearly visible from the streetscape and therefore offers no privacy protection, therefore the proposed verandah is considered acceptable and can be supported. The alfresco area overlooks an existing roof to a carport. This is not a sensitive habitable area. Proposed and existing trees on the subject lot and neighbours lot do provide further screening, however the trees cannot be considered as permanent screening. The neighbour’s amenity is considered to be protected. No submission from the adjoining neighbour was received by Council. It is considered the proposed design complies with the Design Principles of Element 5.4.1 Visual privacy of the R-Codes. Fencing Woodhouse Road The proposed front fence on Gordon Street fully complies with Council’s fencing requirements. The proposed section of fence that is considered to require a variation is on the secondary street (Woodhouse Road). A solid fence to a height of 2.2 metres is proposed for a length of 7.5 metres (total boundary length is 37.4 metre: 20% of the total lot boundary length on Woodhouse Road). The solid component of the base of the fence, as it appears from the street, will be to a maximum height of 2.2 metres, however, it will only be 1.2 metres above the actual road height. The proposed wall is to screen a bedroom and bathroom window and drying court. Due to the height variation between the road and the subject lot, it is considered people utilising the road / verge will have direct views into the bedroom and bathroom window and drying court. The proposed solid fence will screen the bedroom and bathroom window and drying court. The remaining lot boundary will have a vegetative screen, however vegetation by its nature can be slow growing and may not act as an immediate screen to the above rooms. Although the overall height of the fence will exceed the 1.8 metres specified as the maximum height of fencing under the RDG (2.2 metres solid from ground level), this section of fence is only 7.5 metres in length and the remaining vegetative fencing meets the RDG requirements. Further, the style of fencing is considered acceptable, given there is approximately 1 metre height difference between the lot and the road, therefore reducing any potential impact to the streetscape. The RDG state that where the lot has frontage to two streets the wall on the secondary street should not extend to the primary street frontage unless it complements the design of the wall on that frontage. In this case the proposed primary street wall is comprised of a low timber picket and brick fence of a maximum height of 1.2 metres. The secondary street fencing is vegetation with 7.5 metres solid rendered wall. The vegetation will abut the front fence and is considered to compliment the front fence.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Although this 7.5 metre length of wall and 2.2 metre high section of wall does require Council discretion, both secondary and primary street fences are considered to compliment the design of the dwelling. Given the remainder of the secondary street frontage is vegetative style fencing the proposed solid section of screen fencing is considered acceptable and therefore can be supported. CONCLUSION The height, scale and setback of the proposed dwelling are consistent with the prevailing built form in the streetscape. The proposed single storey dwelling is considered to be consistent and sympathetic with the adjoining properties and the streetscape in the locality. The proposed dwelling is of a similar height, scale and bulk as the existing dwelling. It is considered acceptable and appropriate to develop a single storey dwelling, excavated into the lot with undercroft garage for reduced visual impact on both the primary and secondary streets as proposed. It is proposed to generally maintain existing levels, thereby maintaining the amenity and views of adjoining neighbours. The application is considered to have had due regard for the Town’s requirements relating to residential developments, as well as the requirements outlined within the R-Codes. Whilst the application does seek some minor variations for setback to the secondary street, overlooking and fencing, it is considered the proposal has been designed to minimise impact to the streetscape and adjoining neighbours. Based on the above, it is considered the proposal merits approval subject to appropriate conditions. RECOMMENDATION That Council exercise its discretion in granting approval for the following: (a) variation to side setback (secondary street) Element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of

the R-Codes (south elevation) – required setback 2.0 metres. Proposed setback is 1.0 – 1.5 metres;

(b) variation to rear setback Element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the R-Codes (west elevation) – required setback 6.0 metres. Proposed setback is 1.0 metres;

(c) variation to Element 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes Visual Privacy; (d) element 3.7.11 of the Residential Design Guidelines: front fence on Woodhouse Road of a maximum height above 1.8 metres; for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of proposed single storey dwelling with undercroft garage at 2 (Lot 4) Gordon Street, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 20 may 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. No front fence (Gordon Street) is to be constructed above 1.2 metres in height

without the prior approval of Council to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant officers.

2. No secondary street fence (Woodhouse Road) is to be constructed above 2.2 metres in height along a maximum length of 7.5 metres as indicated on the plans date stamp received on 20 may 2014 without the prior approval of Council to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant officers.

3. All screening as indicated on the plans to the alfresco and verandah to be provided to a height of 1.6 metres and designed to be visually screen direct overlooking northwards into the adjoining lot, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

4. Crossover to be a maximum width of 3.0 metres. 5. Crossover to be designed and constructed as per Council specifications to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant Council Officers.

6. Prior to the installation of externally mounted air-conditioning plant, a development application, which demonstrates that noise from the air-conditioner will comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997, is to be lodged and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. (refer footnote (i) below)

7. The works are to be constructed in conformity with the drawings and written information accompanying the application for planning approval other than where


1 July 2014 MINUTES


varied in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval or with Council’s further approval.`

8. The proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Demolition Permit and a Building Permit and the Building Permit issued in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.

9. With regard to the plans submitted with respect to the Building Permit application, changes are not to be made in respect of the plans which have received planning approval, without those changes being specifically marked for Council’s attention.

10. All stormwater is to be disposed of on site, an interceptor channel installed if required and a drainage plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with the Building Surveyor prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

11. All introduced filling of earth to the lot or excavated cutting into the existing ground level of the lot, either temporary or permanent, shall be adequately controlled to prevent damage to structures on adjoining lots or in the case of fill, not be allowed to encroach beyond the lot boundaries. This shall be in the form of structurally adequate retaining walls and/or sloping of fill at the natural angle of repose and/or another method as approved by the Town of East Fremantle.

12. Where this development requires that any facility or service within a street verge (street trees, footpath, crossover, light pole, drainage point or similar) is to be removed, modified or relocated then such works must be approved by Council and if approved, the total cost to be borne by the applicant. Council must act reasonably and not refuse any reasonable proposal for the removal, modification or relocation of such facilities or services (including, without limitation any works associated with the proposal) which are required by another statutory or public authority.

13. If requested by Council within the first two years following installation, the roofing to be treated to reduce reflectivity. The treatment to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant officers and all associated costs to be borne by the owner.

14. This planning approval to remain valid for a period of 24 months from date of this approval.

Footnote: The following are not conditions but notes of advice to the applicant/owner: (a) this decision does not include acknowledgement or approval of any unauthorised

development which may be on the site. (b) a copy of the approved plans as stamped by Council are attached and the

application for a Building Permit is to conform with the approved plans unless otherwise approved by Council.

(c) it is recommended that the applicant provides a Structural Engineer’s dilapidation report, at the applicant’s expense, specifying which structures on adjoining sites may be adversely affected by the works and providing a record of the existing condition of the structures. Two copies of each dilapidation report should be lodged with Council and one copy should be given to the owner of any affected property.

(d) all noise levels produced by the construction of the development are to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

(e) in regard to the condition relating to the finish of the neighbour’s side of the parapet wall it is recommended that the applicant consult with the neighbour to resolve a mutually agreed standard of finish.

(f) with regard to construction of the crossover the applicant/builder is to contact Council’s Works Supervisor.

(g) the patio may not be enclosed without the prior written consent of Council. (h) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act 1961. (i) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from an

air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to


1 July 2014 MINUTES


$5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”.

Mr Craig Bailey (Ecovision Homes) addressed the meeting in support of the officer’s report. Mr Bailey also addressed the concerns of the neighbour (45 Woodhouse Road) who sought modification of the design in order to protect their current view of the river in a north-east direction. Cr Amor spoke against the officer’s recommendation stating that she could not support a 7.5m long x 2.2m high screen wall along Woodhouse Road. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Cr Handcock – Mayor O’Neill That Council exercise its discretion in granting approval for the following: (a) variation to side setback (secondary street) Element 5.1.3 Lot boundary

setback of the R-Codes (south elevation) – required setback 2.0 metres. Proposed setback is 1.0 – 1.5 metres;

(b) variation to rear setback Element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the R-Codes (west elevation) – required setback 6.0 metres. Proposed setback is 1.0 metres;

(c) variation to Element 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes Visual Privacy; (d) element 3.7.11 of the Residential Design Guidelines: front fence on Woodhouse Road of a maximum height above 1.8 metres; for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of proposed single storey dwelling with undercroft garage at 2 (Lot 4) Gordon Street, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 20 may 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. No front fence (Gordon Street) is to be constructed above 1.2 metres in height

without the prior approval of Council to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant officers.

2. No secondary street fence (Woodhouse Road) is to be constructed above 2.2 metres in height along a maximum length of 7.5 metres as indicated on the plans date stamp received on 20 may 2014 without the prior approval of Council to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant officers.

3. All screening as indicated on the plans to the alfresco and verandah to be provided to a height of 1.6 metres and designed to be visually screen direct overlooking northwards into the adjoining lot, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

4. Crossover to be a maximum width of 3.0 metres. 5. Crossover to be designed and constructed as per Council specifications to

the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant Council Officers.


7. The works are to be constructed in conformity with the drawings and written information accompanying the application for planning approval other than where varied in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval or with Council’s further approval.`




1 July 2014 MINUTES







Footnote: The following are not conditions but notes of advice to the applicant/owner: (a) this decision does not include acknowledgement or approval of any

unauthorised development which may be on the site. (b) a copy of the approved plans as stamped by Council are attached and the






(g) the patio may not be enclosed without the prior written consent of Council. (h) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act

1961. (i) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from

an air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”. CARRIED 4:1


1 July 2014 MINUTES


T73.4 King Street No. 65 (Lot 327) Applicant: Kensington Design Australia Owner: A Robinson Application No. P63/14 By Andrew Malone, Senior Town Planner on 13 June 2014 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report considers an application for planning approval for additions and alterations comprising partial demolition of existing rear extensions and construction of new additions comprising kitchen/ dining/ living, activity room and laundry at ground floor and study, master bedroom and ensuite at first floor level at 65 (Lot 327) King Street, East Fremantle. The proposal raises the following key issues with regard to the determination of the application:

variation to side setback (carport) – required setback 1.0 metres. Proposed setback is 0.5 metres, (Note: The term ‘up to a lot boundary’ means a wall, on or less than 600mm, from any lot boundary, other than a street boundary).

The proposed additions and alterations in all other respects are considered to comply with the Residential Design Codes and RDG. The additions and alterations are recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Description of Site The subject site is: - a 508m² block - zoned Residential R20 - developed with a single storey dwelling - located in the Plympton Precinct. Statutory Considerations Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) – Residential R20 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Relevant Council Policies Local Planning Policy – Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) Impact on Public Domain Tree in verge : No impact Light pole : No impact Crossover : No impact Footpath : No impact Streetscape : Minimal impact. Additions are two storey, however are located 14.8

metres from the front boundary and will not be directly visible from the streetscape.

Documentation Plans and relevant forms date stamp received on 17 April 2014. Date Application Received 17 April 2014 Any Relevant Previous Decisions of Council and/or History of an Issue or Site Nil.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


CONSULTATION Advertising The application was advertised to surrounding neighbours for a two week period between the 9 May 2014 and the 23 May 2014. At the close of advertising, Council has received one submission relating to this development application.


Please refer south elevation plan/drawings, planning application number P63/14 window facing 67 King Street dwelling. As this window looks over our much used outdoor living area, we would like to request of council/good neighbours, that all parties consider either remodelling the new window design to a position higher up than currently placed on plans, so that there is no clear line of sight into our much used outdoor living area. Or alternatively, using glass that does not allow clear viewing into our much used outdoor living area. We believe either of the aforementioned alternatives would protect our ongoing privacy and would hopefully meet the needs of our good neighbours.

No response has been provided with respect to the comments raised.

The submission by the neighbour has been considered in the assessment of this application. The proposed window to the stairwell is considered not to be a habitable area, therefore is not assessed for overlooking. The proposed window is considered compliant with regard to overlooking.

Town Planning Advisory Panel This application was considered by the Town Planning Advisory Panel at its meeting held on 11 March 2014 and the following comments were made:


Panel recommends the proposed design should be less ornate with regard to the features of the additions and alterations, as the proposal is considered to impact on the character of the area and overwhelms the existing simple single storey dwelling. Panel has concerns with regard to the overlooking from the balcony on the northern elevation. Panel supports the proposed carport.

The proposed attic roof form enables the overall roof height to be substantially lower than would be the case for a conventional flat ceiling. This reduces the impact of overshadowing on the adjoining property and ameliorates the impact of the additions from the street by significantly reducing the building height and bulk. The dormer windows and associated gables are an integral component of the attic roof form and are required to enable head height clearance to the loft rooms. We also contend that this complexity in the roof form further minimises the impact on both the streetscape and adjoining properties due to the articulation reducing the visual building bulk of the proposal. In response to the concerns regarding overlooking from the balcony on the northern elevation we submit that the balcony being set back 4.9m from the adjacent side boundary if included as part of the bedroom would meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes in regard to privacy. Given the proposed balcony is only 0.9m wide]

The Panels and applicants comments are acknowledged A detailed assessment of the proposal has been undertaken and is addressed below. The applicant’s comments do have merit and the proposed additions are considered to comply with the height, bulk and scale requirements of the R-Codes and RDG.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


SUBMISSION APPLICANT RESPONSE OFFICER COMMENT and less than 3m2 and located of the bedroom it is entirely unsuitable as an active habitable area. We contend that the net impact on the adjoining owners privacy is no greater than if this space was enclosed and part of the bedroom.

Site Inspection By Senior Town Planner on 17 June 2014. ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and the Town’s Local Planning Policies. A summary of the assessment is provided in the following tables. Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Assessment


Residential Design Codes Assessment

Design Element Required Proposed Status 6.4.1 Open Space 50% 58% A 6.4.2 Outdoor Living 30sqm 40sqm A 6.5 Car Parking 2 2 A 6.6 Site Works Less than 500mm Less than 500mm A 6.9.1 Overshadowing 25% 22.6% A 6.9.2 Drainage On-site On-site A

Local Planning Policies Assessment

LPP Residential Design Guidelines Provision Status 3.7.2 Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings A 3.7.3 Development of Existing Buildings A 3.7.4 Site Works A 3.7.5 Demolition A 3.7.6 Construction of New Buildings N/A 3.7.7 Building Setbacks and Orientation D 3.7.8 Roof Form and Pitch A 3.7.9 Materials and Colours A 3.7.10 Landscaping A 3.7.11 Front Fences N/A 3.7.12 Pergolas N/A 3.7.13 Incidental Development Requirements N/A 3.7.14 Footpaths and Crossovers N/A 3.7.15-20 Precinct Requirements A

DISCUSSION Visual Privacy The ‘Deemed to comply’ provisions for Element 5.4.1 Visual privacy of the R-Codes requires major openings which have their floor level more than 0.5 metre above natural ground level, and positioned so as to overlook any part of any other residential property behind its setback line, to comply with the following: · 4.5 metres in the case of bedrooms and studies; · 6.0 metres in the case of habitable rooms, other than bedrooms and studies; and


1 July 2014 MINUTES


· 7.5 metres in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces. The proposed verandah adjoining the dining room has been conditioned to require it to have a floor level not more than 0.5 metre above natural ground level. Whilst the verandah at 0.6 metres above the natural ground level does not adhere to the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes, the condition as included in the Officer’s Recommendation (reduced in height by 0.1 metre) is considered to comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ visual privacy requirements. The Panel raised concern with regard to potential overlooking from the windows on the northern elevation. Three windows located on the northern elevation, comprising of a study, ensuite and bedroom. The ensuite is not assessed for overlooking under the provisions of the R-Codes. The proposed study and bedroom windows are required to be 4.5 metres from the northern boundary. The bedroom window is located 5.8 metres from the boundary. The study is located 4.5 metres from the boundary. The proposed bedroom and study windows are setback comply with the visual privacy ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes. A Juliet balcony is proposed to be included with the bedroom. The balcony located on the northern elevation is set back 4.9m from the boundary. The Juliet balcony is 0.9m in width and 2.7 metres in length (total area 2.5m²). The area of the balcony limits its use as an outdoor active habitable space, as such the balcony is considered to form a part of the bedroom and is required to comply with the 4.5 metre set back to the boundary. The balcony is 4.9 metres from the boundary and therefore is considered to adhere to the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-codes in regard to privacy. A neighbour has objected to the potential overlooking from the stairwell in the dwelling on the southern elevation. The stairwell is considered to be a transitory area utilised infrequently to access the study and bedroom, therefore the stairwell window is not assessed against the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. Element 2.5.4 of the R-Codes states:

The decision-maker shall not refuse to grant approval to an application where the application satisfies the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and the relevant provisions of the scheme and any relevant local planning policy.

The application has also been assessed against the provisions of Clause 10.2 (amenity provisions) of the Town Planning Scheme and is considered to comply. The neighbour’s amenity is considered to be protected through the developments compliance with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of Element 5.4.1 Visual privacy of the R-Codes, therefore the applicant as conditioned can be supported. Side Boundary Setback The proposed additions and alterations comply with the setback requirements of the RDG and the R-Codes, with the exception of the carport. This is addressed below. The setback requirement to the northern boundary for the proposed carport is required to be set back 1.0 metre from the northern boundary and 6.0 metres from the front boundary. The proposed set back from the font boundary is 6.8 metres and the carport is proposed behind the building line of the verandah. While the carport is not located behind the actual building line of the dwelling, the proposed carport is visually permeable and is considered to integrate with the existing verandah. The existing dwelling is set back well behind the building line of the northern and southern dwellings and is set back well behind the prevailing set back of the immediate dwelling in the locality. The carport does not impact on the streetscape or adjoining dwellings. The front set back of the carport is considered acceptable.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


The carport is proposed to be located 0.5 metres from the northern boundary. The carport is 3.0 metres in height and 5.4 metres in length. The required set back is 1.0 metre. Council discretion to the Acceptable Development Criteria of the RDG is required. Notwithstanding the above, the side set back will be addressed below. The LPP RDG Element 3.7.7 provides performance criteria by which to assess proposed variations to setback requirements. This is summarised below. P1.1 The primary street setback of new developments or additions to non-

contributory buildings is to match the traditional setback of the immediate locality.

The proposed carport is set back 6.8 metres from the front boundary, with the existing dwelling located 5.7 metres from the front dwelling. Both the carport and dwelling are located to the rear of the prevailing building line of the two adjoining dwellings to the north and south. The proposed carport is located to the rear of the existing verandah. The front set back to the boundary for the dwelling and proposed carport complies with Council requirements. P1.2 Additions to existing contributory buildings shall be setback so as to not

adversely affect its visual presence. The existing dwelling is not listed on the Town’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The existing dwelling is set back approximately 5.8 metres from the front boundary. The adjoining dwellings are constructed forward of the existing dwelling and proposed carport. The proposed carport will have no significant impact on the visual heritage character of the area. The proposed carport will not have a negative impact on the streetscape. It is considered the proposed carport does not adversely affect the visual presence of the primary streetscape or adjoining neighbours. P1.3 Developments are to have side setbacks complementary with the

predominant streetscape. With regard to the proposed side set back to the carport, the required set back from the boundary is 1.0 metres as per Table 2 of the R-Codes. The proposed set back from the side boundary is 0.5 metres. The R-Codes note that anything less than 0.6 metres from the boundary is considered to be constructed ‘on the boundary’. The proposed carport is located behind the building line of the adjoining (northern) neighbour and is to the rear of the existing verandah. The carport is open and is considered to integrate with the verandah. The height, scale and bulk of the carport is consistent with the existing dwelling, with the overall height of the carport to be under the height of the eaves of the dwelling. The carport has been designed to be a simple structure that is consistent with the design of the dwelling. The side setback does abut a southern window of the adjoining neighbour, however as the carport is open, light and ventilation will still be received by the window. A 1.8 fence also separates the carport and neighbours window. No letter of concern or objection was received from the neighbour. The proposed carport is considered to be consistent with other carports, garage and outbuilding within the locality, therefore the side setback is complementary with the predominant streetscape. In conclusion the proposed carport is considered to have no significant impact with regard to scale or bulk to the streetscape or adjoining dwelling, therefore the reduced side setback can be supported by Council.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


CONCLUSION The proposed design of the additions and alterations as conditioned are sympathetic with the character of the existing dwelling and with adjoining dwellings and the overall character of the locality. The proposed additions and alterations do not impact on the streetscape. The proposed side set back variation is considered minor. The development as conditioned is considered to adhere to the ‘Deemed to Comply’ privacy requirements of the R-Codes. Based on the above, it is considered the proposal merits approval subject to appropriate conditions. RECOMMENDATION That Council exercise its discretion in granting approval for: .. variation to the side setback Element 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setback of the R-Codes

(northern elevation) – required setback 1.0 metre. Proposed setback is 0.5 metres; for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at 65 (Lot 327) King Street, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 17 April 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. Proposed verandah located adjoining the ‘Dining Room’ not to exceed 0.5 metres in

height above the natural ground level. 2. Prior to the installation of externally mounted air-conditioning plant, a development

application, which demonstrates that noise from the air-conditioner will comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997, is to be lodged and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. (Refer footnote (i) below)










(c) it is recommended that the applicant provides a Structural Engineer’s dilapidation report, at the applicant’s expense, specifying which structures on adjoining sites may be adversely affected by the works and providing a record of the existing


1 July 2014 MINUTES


condition of the structures. Two copies of each dilapidation report should be lodged with Council and one copy should be given to the owner of any affected property.


(e) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act 1961. (f) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from an

air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”.

Information referred from late correspondence (MB Ref. T71.1) and included in the following memo from the Senior Town Planner was tabled:

“Amended elevations of the south elevation have been submitted to Council indicating the stairwell window will be fixed and obscure. While the stairwell window is not required to be obscure, the applicant has proposed it to be fixed and obscure to address neighbour’s concerns. An additional condition is recommended to be included in the Officer’s Recommendation:

Stairwell window to southern elevation to be fixed and obscure in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 26 June 2014, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive.”

Sally Pearse (Kensington Design) addressed the meeting in support of the officer’s recommendation. Mayor O’Neill – Cr Handcock That Council exercise its discretion in granting approval for: .. variation to the side setback Element 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setback of the R-

Codes (northern elevation) – required setback 1.0 metre. Proposed setback is 0.5 metres;

for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at 65 (Lot 327) King Street, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 17 April & 26 June 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. Stairwell window to southern elevation to be fixed and obscure in accordance

with the plans date stamp received 26 June 2014 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

2. Proposed verandah located adjoining the ‘Dining Room’ not to exceed 0.5 metres in height above the natural ground level.

3. Prior to the installation of externally mounted air-conditioning plant, a development application, which demonstrates that noise from the air-conditioner will comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997, is to be lodged and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. (Refer footnote (i) below)



6. All stormwater is to be disposed of on site, an interceptor channel installed if required and a drainage plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Executive Officer in consultation with the Building Surveyor prior to the issue of a Building Permit.









(e) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act 1961.

(f) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from an air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”. CARRIED 5:0

Note: As 5 Committee members voted in favour of the Reporting Officer’s recommendation, pursuant to Council’s decision regarding delegated decision making made on 18 June 2014, this application is deemed determined, on behalf of Council, under delegated authority.

Mayor O’Neill having declared a proximity interest in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street) as he lives directly opposite the subject site left the meeting at 6:53pm. Cr Martin made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street): “As a consequence of the applicant, Mr Adam Kelly (CEO – EF Football Club), being known to me due to our membership of the East Fremantle Oval Recreation Precinct Community Reference Group (CRG) there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Cr Collinson made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street): “As a consequence of two of the objectors to this proposal, Maureen & Damien Flynn, being friends of mine, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”. Cr Collinson made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street): “As a consequence of my serving on Council with Mayor O’Neill who is one of the objectors to this proposal, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”. Cr Martin made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street): “As a consequence of my serving on Council with Mayor O’Neill who is one of the objectors to this proposal, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”. Cr Handcock made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street): “As a consequence of my serving on Council with Mayor O’Neill who is one of the objectors to this proposal, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”. Cr Amor made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage (Allen Street): “As a consequence of my serving on Council with Mayor O’Neill who is one of the objectors to this proposal, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”. T73.5 East Fremantle Oval – Erection of Signage adjacent to Allen Street

Applicant: East Fremantle Football Club Owner: Minister for Lands Application No. P60/2014 By Jamie Douglas, Manager, Planning Services on 17 June 2014 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report considers an application for a retrospective planning approval for signage already erected and proposed additional signage on the East Fremantle football oval reserve. The erection of the signage by the football club and its application for planning approval raises the following primary issues:

Compliance The measures undertaken in respect to the unapproved works to gain planning compliance.

Statutory Considerations The status of the land and the relevant process for determination of the application.

Assessment The merit of the application and its compliance with relevant planning provisions and structural integrity. Issues relevant to the assessment of merit are streetscape impact, amenity impact to neighbours, functional requirements for regional recreation reserve and community benefit.

The report recommends the WAPC be advised that Council supports the proposal subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Relevant Council Policies LPP- Design Guidelines – Signage (adopted 21 June 2011)


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Impact on Public Domain Tree in verge : No impact Light pole : No impact Crossover : N/a Streetscape : The rear of the signage will visible from Allen Street and apparent

from other vantages from within and outside the Reserve. Documentation Plans and forms date stamp received on 27 March 2012 and further plans and information received on 12 April & 22 May 2012. Date Application Received 15 April 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal is for the erection of a new signboard on a series of existing pylons located in the oval apron between the playing field boundary and the Allen Street boundary. The applicant provides the following description of the works. ”The East Fremantle Football Club removed existing signage and frames due to the risk they posed to the public with a loss in their structural integrity. These signs were removed in the 2013 season. The upright poles on which the signs were mounted were inspected and deemed appropriate to remain. As configured previously the signage area consisted of:

· 16 separate signs of 3 metres in width (approximate) and 2.4 metres in height. · Approximately 115 square metres of signage extended over a length of

approximately 66 metres. · An estimated gap between each sign of 1.2 metres. · Signs were positioned on top of each pole which contributed to the compromised

structural integrity of the signs and increased the risk. After consulting with an engineer it was determined that frames that affix to the front of the upright poles would provide greater stability and durability. As the Club viewed the signage area as pre-existing we proceeded in having a new frame affixed to the front of the upright poles at a height of 2.2m above the ground. As the signage frame is now continuous it covers an area of 66metres in length and is 2.4m high. Total square metres of signage is 158 (approx)” CONSULTATION The application was referred to the Town Planning Advisory Panel, was advertised in the local press and 24 nearby residents in Allen Street were notified in writing. Advertising The application was advertised to surrounding neighbours for a two week comment period between the 26 April and 12 May 2014. This advertising period was subsequently extended by two weeks concluding on 26 May 2014 in response to an objection as regarding the description of the new works in the original advertisement and neighbour letters. At the close of advertising 12 (including 4 from two households) submissions were received, which are summarised and responded to below. As can be seen the submissions raise similar issues, where these have been addressed they are crossed referenced to the relevant issue number and comment in the table. Accordingly the submission comments table should be read as whole. The submissions in full are attached to this report. In accordance with established practice the submissions were forwarded to the applicant for response. As a general response was received, this follows the table below.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Submission Officer Comments

Peter Watson - 70 Allen Street

This submission was received prior to the public notification and comment period a further submission was received during the advertising period. The submitter has raised a number of questions regarding process and tenancy matters which have been responded to by the CEO in emails to the submitter. The issues raised which are relevant to the assessment of the planning merit of the proposal are addressed below.

1. The works do not have building or planning approval by Council. In no way can the current signage be regarded as a new for old construction.

Agree. Following the erection of the signs, the EFFC was advised that prior planning and building approval was required for the works, in response to which the Club initially offered to remove the signs. Subsequently an application for planning approval was received. The issue is addressed above in the ‘compliance’ section of this report.

2. The construction of this billboard does not meet the prescribed guidelines of the LPP – Design Guidelines –Signage.

Agree. The proposed signage does not adhere to the General Provisions and performance criteria of the Policy.

3. None of the major stake holders, local residents, were informed of this construction, which will block air flow across the ground to neighbouring houses, and will create a large visual eyesore for residents now staring at the back of a billboard.

Public Notification was conducted subsequent to this objection being received once adequate information regarding the proposal was received. Given the grade separation, intervening planting and distance of the signage from Allen Street properties it is considered air flow to neighbouring residents will not be impacted. The proposed signage will have a visual impact upon the streetscape and affect view shed from opposing Allen Street properties. The degree of impact is considered in the assessment section of this report

4. A further worry is that the billboard has been hastily constructed on the old corroded metal uprights.

Engineering Certificates have been supplied by ‘Structerre’ with respect to the Sign frames and the supporting uprights which verify their structural integrity and wind loading capacity for a design life of at least 5 years.

5. The rapid removal of this, non-approved construction is most urgently warranted.

The matter of compliance is addressed in the assessment section of this report. However, it is highly relevant to note the proposed signage is not inconsistent with the purpose for which the land is reserved, and is similar to advertising found at other WAFL grounds.

6. I understand that Council was not responsible for the billboards construction and safety, and it was the Club who paid for its construction, but its construction on council controlled land does not absolve council from any legal risk, and its continued presence implies councils consent.

The submitter’s opinion regarding possible liability is noted, however it is not apparent that Council’s degree of risk beyond its usual exposure as a regulatory authority is heightened in this instance. No planning or building approvals have been issued, structural certificates have been provided and Council is moving to attain compliance.

7. What precedent will this set within the Town? It is not considered that Council’s decision in respect to this proposal will establish a planning precedent.

8. The proposal is in breach of the provisions of the TPS No 3 and Planning Policy – Signs Guidelines. Various clauses cited.

The issue is addressed in detail under the Statutory Considerations section of this report. The lands are not reserved under the TPS No. 3 and are therefore not subject to the provisions of the Scheme and its Policies.

Jon Rose - 82A Allen Street

9. The CRG was formed to develop a whole precinct plan for this A Class reserve. Surprised football club erected signage without approval. Club needs to be informed in strongest possible terms about their need for due process and to remind them that they are guests on this community

The CRG was formed to provide community input into redevelopment concepts for the Precinct. It is not a decision making body and its terms of reference do not support a role in the process of development control. Agreed prior approval for the works is required – Club was advised of the statutory requirements and removal of the signboards was originally requested.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Submission Officer Comments owned land. The site is in the ownership of the State Government and

has an established regional recreation function as a WAFL venue. Notwithstanding the vesting of the Reserve in the Town for management purposes it nevertheless performs a regional function and is subject to the MRS not the town’s planning scheme. Accordingly the broader community interests (i.e. beyond that of the East Fremantle Community and more specifically Allen Street residents) are relevant planning considerations.

10. The signage as proposed significantly and negatively impacts on: - the views, especially sunset views, of several

homes in Allen Street. - the values of the effected properties (will

compensation based on valuation be offered?) The signs increase the sense of disconnection between the street and this open space, A class reserve area.

There are numerous SAT decisions which confirm that there is no absolute right to an existing view and SAT generally only takes the loss of highly significant views (eg “iconic” river views, views to Rottnest etc) into account, if at all. Accordingly development cannot be denied on this basis alone and generally in appeal situations it is not even considered to be a significant factor. In light of the above any perceived value or loss of that value derived from views afforded over land owned by others are not germane to this planning assessment and cannot be used as a basis for compensation. There is no statutory provision for compensation relevant to this application.

11. It there is to be signage, alternatives should be considered including but not limited to: - alternative placement which does not impact on

the views of local residents and the streetscape - having signage which can be erected and taken

down immediately before and after big games.

It is relevant to consider if there are reasonable alternatives which would meet the Club’s requirements. However the size and placement of the signage is a result of requirements for sponsorship placement for TV broadcasts. Other provisions such as increased boundary planting should also be considered.

Jennifer Lawrence - 64 Allen Street

12. The EFFC oval is an A class reserve and firmly believe that this means it should be enjoyed by the entire community.

The site is in the ownership of the State Government and has an established regional recreation function as a WAFL venue. The site is zoned under the MRS as a ‘restricted public access’ reserve.

13. The street view of the reserve is lovely and open and adds to the ambience of the street and the surrounding areas. I object to the club placing very obstructive and ugly signage that destroys that vista.

The objection is noted. The impact upon streetscape character and views is addressed in detail in the assessment section of this report.

14. There may be other alternatives for recognising sponsors – the signage appears to be far bigger than any other signage in the area – I query whether it breaches Council guidelines

The EFFC has explained its requirement for the signage as proposed – agreed the signage is unique in its size and setting – it does not adhere to the signage policy for the reasons explained within this report.

Christian and Rosemary Ainslie - 68 Allen Street

15. We note that framework for the signage (including some attached signs) has already been erected by the EFFC without approval in breach of local planning laws.

Agreed prior planning approval from the WAPC is required. The applicant has applied for retrospective approval.

16. Each current signpost supported advertising measuring approx. 1m. by 2m. The new structure is approx. 65m. by 5m.

The old signage consisted of 16 separate signs of approx. 3m in width and 2.4m in height resulting in approximately 115.2m² of signage extending over a length of approximately 66 metres. The ‘new’ signage consists of a continuous signage frame of 66m in length and 2.4m high. Total square metres of signage is 158 (approx.)”

17. The new structure restricts visibility of the oval from the eastern side of Allen Street such that visibility will be limited to the back of the advertising material

The signage is 66m. in length, it is less than a third of the oval eastern boundary. See no 12 above.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Submission Officer Comments for the entirety of the oval’s eastern boundary.

18. The EFFC has failed to demonstrate that the current posts are structurally sound

Engineering Certificates have been supplied with respect to the sign frames and existing uprights which verify their structural integrity.

19. As the proposal does not comply with the Signs Policy general requirements & Appendix 1. Council does not have discretion to approve the Proposal.

The Council is not bound by the Policy pursuant to Cl 2.3 of the Scheme see Statutory Considerations section of this report

20. The framework erected without approval should be immediately removed following determination by Council at its upcoming meeting.

Noted, see Compliance section of this report.

Nancy Tucker - 53A Petra Street

21. Wish to complain about signs – blot on the landscape , in other words an eyesore

The impact of the proposed signage on the streetscape is addressed in detail in the assessment section of this report.

22. Where they council approved? No

23. Was the council structural engineer consulted? The Town does not have in-house engineering expertise. Verification by an independent structural engineering was required from the applicant and was received.

24. What right has the football club to erect such massive structures where the public are in attendance, are the signs allowed under the terms of the EFFC lease?

The structures require prior planning and building approval. The signage is replacing previous sponsorship signage albeit on a larger scale. The lease does not restrict the erection of signage by the EFFC subject to the necessary approvals.

Clinton Kessey & Elizabeth Cumming - 80 Allen Street

25 What steps are Council taking to ensure the EFFC abide by Council regulations? EFFC are not owners of the ‘A’ class reserve. What is the usual penalty for erecting such a structure without Council approval?

The issue is addressed in detail in the compliance section of this report. Council is not the Planning Authority in this instance and its planning approval is not required. However, the enforcement provisions of sec 214 of the Planning & Development Act may apply and a penalty up to $200,000 may apply.

26. We would assume that council planners would not ordinarily guarantee an applicant be allowed signage as it was before? Can council or EFFC demonstrate that the original signage was approved by council, and if so, did council follow correct procedure in this case?

It is considered the proposal is not “like for like” and an application is required. Council is not the planning authority and could not have granted the original approval.

27. We are very concerned about the impact on views and light penetration at dusk from the footpath and at least five residences on the opposite side of the street.

Consequential loss of resident property values.

Impact upon views is addressed in detail in the assessment section of this report. Overshadowing is not assessed as an issue. Value impacts are addressed in 9. Above

28. We are also concerned by the precedence this sets. It is not considered that any precedence will be established.

29. Has a structural engineer assessed the structure? Yes

30. There are many areas on and around the oval which have neglected signage with opportunity for renewal which have no impact on street view.

Noted however these do not have existing uprights in situ sufficient to hold the proposed framework, are not immediately opposite the grandstand and viewing areas and do not have similar exposure for TV broadcast.

31. Is Council Policy 095 – Council Policy on council owned and council leased premises.

Council has commissioned two structural condition reports on the Oval facilities. It is not considered that annual inspections are appropriate or economic in this instance. An approval condition requiring routine maintenance is


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Submission Officer Comments desirable.

Damien Flynn - 62 Allen Street

32. The signage is very intrusive and has a direct impact on neighbouring Allen Street residents and spoils the view of users of the area.

Impact upon views is addressed in detail in the assessment section of this report.

33. If any club or individual did this immediate remedial action would be taken by the Town. Penalties would apply to anyone erecting signage on any “A” class reserve without consent.

It is usual practice to invite and determine an application for retrospective approval in order to mitigate the possibility of unnecessary legal action. Refer Compliance section of this report.

34. The Town and Council’s first duty is to act in the interests of residents and it should do so in this instance and have this offensive signage removed forthwith at the club’s expense. Not to do so would create a precedent.

See above note 32. It is not considered this application will set a precedent due to the unique nature, zoning and established use of the subject site.

Maureen Flynn - 62 Allen Street

35. The existing uprights had individual signs atop each which allowed for an outlook from Allen Street albeit interrupted. The framework which has been attached to the poles is significantly larger than the previous signage.

Noted. Refer note 15 & 16 above for comparison in the former and proposed signage.

36. Residents living adjacent to the signage will have their outlooks dramatically impacted. Would I be allowed to erect a large structure on my property that had such a detrimental impact on my neighbours’ views.

Refer comment 9 & 20. The submitter’s property is zoned residential and subject to the TPS No. 3, its policies and the R-Codes. A similar sized advertising structure could not be approved. The subject site is a regional recreation reserve subject to the MRS – with no such restrictions.

37. The CRG established a guiding principle that the Oval should be visually “unlocked” as a multi-use p.o.s. outside match and training times – the framework runs counter to this principal.

Principle 9 states the “East Fremantle Oval should be visually “unlocked” as a multi-use public open space outside match and training times”. This principle indicated that unrestricted public access to the oval outside of match and training times should be permitted and that this should be visually apparent to the general public. It is considered the principle therefore meant to refer primarily to access not advertising signage.

38. The proposed structure is outside the EFFC lease area and the erection of any signage should not be approved. It is unclear if planning approval was ever received for the previous signage. Retrospective approval should not be approved.

Notwithstanding any approvals which may have been issued by the WAPC, the previous signage would have had ‘existing use rights’ since it pre-dated the introduction of TPS N0.3 – the issue of a prior approval in respect to this signage is therefore moot in respect to the assessment of planning merit. See above note 32.

Refer Compliance section of this report.

39. If approved a precedent will be set. This application will not set a precedent due to the unique nature, zoning and established use of the subject site.

Suzanne & James O’Neill - 72 Allen Street

This email was addressed to Members of the TP&BC but has been included as a submission in response to the advertised proposal.

40. It needs to be stated that this signage has already been partially constructed and is therefore not proposed.

Agreed. The application is for retrospective planning approval for signage already erected and proposed additional signage

41. It appears the signage is not within the leased area of the EFFC and should be removed. How can the EFFC apply for signage outside the lease area?

Refer Compliance section of this report. Clubs who operate on local reserves require planning approval from the Town. Some other clubs have constructed signs without Council approval, with the


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Submission Officer Comments

Should the revenue the signs generate go to the Town? Is the written permission of the lessor required to construct signs? Is this permitted under the current Lease? The Council cannot approve an application from a third party on land vested in Council for which they do not have a lease. If the signs are outside the lease, who is responsible for the maintenance, insurance and liability? Are other clubs allowed to construct signs without Council approval?

Town taking appropriate action. Clubs who operate from Regional Reserves require planning approval from the WAPC or the Swan River Trust. Some other clubs appear to have erected signs without Council approval with verification of this pending.

42. There are no scale drawings. Has the sign been certified by an appropriate engineer?

The information provided is sufficient to determine a planning application, detailed construction drawings will be required for a building permit and this is a recommended condition should WAPC grant approval. Yes the structure has been certified by an Engineer.

43. The proposed signage area is larger than previous signage.

Agreed. Refer issue no.15 & 16

44. Signage of this scale will have a significant impact on light, wind and outlook and be an eyesore on an ‘A’ class reserve.

Refer issue No. 3 and assessment section of this report.

Joan Fletcher - 56 Allen Street

45. The new frame is neatly constructed but it will present a serious visual and physical barrier along this part of Allen Street. It is ugly and unfriendly in appearance because it is such a continuous length.

The proposed signage will have a visual impact upon the streetscape and affect view shed from opposing Allen Street properties. The degree of impact is considered in the assessment section of this report.

46 I suggest that the signage be removed and relocated – some of the signs could be at Allen & Marmion Streets and at the other end of the ground near the council depot

The EFFC has provided comments in respect to alternate signage options. The suggested locations will not provide the exposure of the existing location or utilise existing structural uprights.

47. Concerned the EFFC has erected large signs on an A class reserve without approval where they have a detrimental impact on the street

As stated the site is zoned as a ‘limited public access’ regional reserve reflecting its function as a WAFL venue. The issue of statuary process and compliance is addressed in detail in the Statutory Considerations and Compliance sections of this report.

Daniel Humphreys - 64 Allen Street

48. The previous signage was individual in nature, the new structure is an eyesore.

Agreed. The proposed signage is larger than previously erected. Its visual impact is addressed in detail in the assessment section of this report

49. EFFC cannot currently fill their advertising space around the boundary of the ground itself.

The EFFC response is noted in this regard.

50. There is no community benefit in erecting this structure on an A class reserve.

The continued viability of the EFFC and this WAFL venue is considered to be of community benefit.

51. The EFFC would be better placed to spend money on fixing some of their existing structures rather than erecting new ones.

Sponsorship money gained from the advertising is required by the EFFC to maintain and upgrade existing facilities

Jacqueline Burns - 66A Allen Street

52. I am concerned at the length and height of the structure. When signage is added, this will block a sizeable section of the view across the oval. The closed off look will disconnect the oval from the community

The proposed signage will have a visual impact upon the streetscape and affect view shed from opposing Allen Street properties. The degree of impact is considered in the assessment section of this report.

53. The natural light affecting the current streetscape It is not considered that natural light to the streetscape


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Submission Officer Comments will be dramatically reduced. will be impacted.

54. I ask that council consider moving the structure to either end of the oval to reduce impact on the residents living opposite.

The EFFC has provided comments in respect to alternate signage options. The suggested locations will not provide the exposure of the existing location or utilise existing structural uprights.

We provide the following in response to the comments made to provide clarification and further context to the application.

For clarification, there were previously 16 signs of a size of 1.7m high and 2.7m wide which were erected on top of the supporting poles which have been utilised in the construction of the signage area for which we have mad application. The gap between each sign was approximately 1.5m.

With respect to the structural integrity and safety concerns raised we have provided two documents.

The first is a letter of compliance from Perna Engineering certifying the materials and methods used in construction of the signage frame. The second, provided by Structerre Engineering, addresses the integrity of the overall structure including supporting uprights and the expected wind loads, confirming the suitability of the structure for the intended purpose.

There are two determining factors with respect to the site location of the signage area which support the application and basis for which we seek approval.

The first and most significant is that the Allen Street side of the Oval is in the "television arch" for the broadcasting of any fixtures from East Fremantle Oval. The television arch refers to the area captured by the broadcaster's cameras which are positioned on the Moss Street side of the Oval.

The most valuable property rights for our corporate partners are those which feature in the television broadcast that is goal to goal on the Allen Street side of the Oval. At all WAFL venues the signage is saturated within the television arch to maximise commercial returns.

At East Fremantle Oval, the proposed signage area has the added benefit and associated value to corporate partners, of attracting the attention of patrons attending not only home games but all other Club activities. Whilst acknowledging this is an estimate only, we anticipate that the percentage of visitation concentrated to the Moss Street side of the Oval with viewing to Allen Street would be in excess of 90% of visitors.

The other determining factor was in recognising that this area was already being used as a signage area and the infrastructure to support the signage, the footings and supporting poles, were existing and available for use. This provided a logical and cost effective means to construct the new signage area.

With respect to the visual effects of the proposed signage we make the following observations. From the street view almost 90 per cent of the Oval surface would still be visible. From the elevated positions of the actual dwellings this percentage would decline but the majority of the Oval surface would remain visible.

Visibility of the East Fremantle Football Club buildings and grandstand are affected but with the signs being lowered from the previous height, the previous signs were approximately 0.5 metres higher, the impact is more on the East Fremantle Football Club buildings than the view above the height of signage, with the proposed signage lower than previous.

The signage area is predominantly screened by the trees located on Allen Street, in some areas almost obscuring the signage, whilst in others the signs are much more visible.

The East Fremantle Football Club is a not for profit organisation that makes a significant contribution to our community and with an estimated 60,000 unique visits being made to the Oval each year for Club activities, a significant contributor to local business as an area attraction.

The ability to commercialise property rights associated with sponsorship is a significant contributor to the financial sustainability of the Club, contributing approximately 15% of current total Club revenues. The proposed signage area has a commercial sponsorship value of $52,500 per annum, and is imperative to the Clubs plans to increase our overall sponsorship revenues to $400,000, or almost 20% of total revenues.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Under the Town of East Fremantle Local Planning Policy, "Design Guidelines for Signage", we seek the support for this 'discretionary' signage at East Fremantle Oval, allowing the Club, through the support of corporate partners to continue our investment in our community, an investment that supports participation in sport and provides continued affordable development opportunities to the youth in in our community, maintaining the Club's reputation as one of the most successful talent development programs in Australian Rules Football.

The East Fremantle Football Club and facility support 26 Junior Clubs, 20 Senior Clubs, 29 Auskick Centres and 1 Female Club in our Combined Metro & Regional Zone (2013 data). A combined participation base in the East Fremantle District of 14,534.

All supported by the strongest volunteer workforce in the WAFL, in excess of 100, and the contribution made by our members, supporters, donors and corporate partners.

The East Fremantle Football Club reiterates that the retrospective application for signage was the result of our view that the signage area was an existing signage area and not the result of our unwillingness to comply with the planning requirements of the Town of East Fremantle.

Town Planning Advisory Panel Comments This application was circulated to the Town Planning Advisory Panel members on 8 May 2014 with a request for response within seven days (this was necessary because of rescheduling of the Panel meetings which occurred in May). The Panel response was: It had no objection to the application by the EFFC for signage at the oval. STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS The subject site is designated as a ‘Metropolitan Region Reserve – Parks and Recreation, Restricted Public Access’ under the Town of East Fremantle Planning Scheme No 3. Accordingly the following clause 3.2 of the Scheme is applicable.

3.2 Regional Reserves

3.2.1 The land shown as ‘Regional Reserves’ on the Scheme Map are lands reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and are shown on the Scheme Map for the purposes of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959/WA Planning Commission Act 1985. These lands are not reserved under the Scheme.

3.2.2 The approval of the local government under the Scheme is not required for the commencement or carrying out of any use or development on a Regional Reserve.

Note: The provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme continue to apply to such Reserves and approval is required under the Metropolitan Region Scheme from the Commission for the commencement or carrying out of any use or development on a Regional Reserve unless specifically excluded by the Region Scheme.

The process for determination of applications for development within Regional Reserves is:

· the initial application is lodged with the Town in the same manner as development applications made under the TPS No. 3.

· the Town considers the application and advises the WAPC of its recommendations in respect to the application.

· in order for the WAPC to determine the matter it is necessary for the Town as ‘owner of the land’ (because management is vested in the Town notwithstanding the land is in ownership of the State) to sign MRS Form 1 – ‘Application for Approval to Commence Development’. It should be noted that there are at least two SAT cases which suggest that where an application for review is received in a case where the local government is the landowner but has not signed the form, the SAT has the power to sign the application form on the local government’s behalf (even if opposed


1 July 2014 MINUTES


by the local government) so as to allow the merits of the application to be considered. It is therefore not open to Council to deny a determination of the merits of this application by simply refusing to sign MRS Form 1. Indeed it could be construed as a misuse of power to do so.

Metropolitan Region Scheme As stated, the subject site is designated as a MRS ‘Parks & Recreation Reserve – Limited Public Access. The MRS does not provide an elaboration on the purpose and development provisions for such Limited Public Access Reserves however typically this designation is applied under the Scheme to sporting grounds and other recreation and entertainment venues where at certain times, the perimeter is secured and an entrance fee is charged, or access is regulated in relation to the primary function of the Reserve. The WAPC Development Control Policy 5.4 sets out the objectives and considerations to be taken into account by the WAPC in determining advertisements. This Policy states (inter alia) that:

· the erection of advertising on all regional reserves requires the approval of the WAPC

· the WAPC is to be satisfied the proposal will not detract from the amenity of the reservation and the locality generally

· the purpose for which the land is reserved is a primary consideration

· the relationship of the advertising to the use and management of the land.

These matters are addressed within the assessment section of this report.

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Although the application is not subject to the provisions of the Scheme, for the purpose of this assessment, the application was advertised as if it were subject to the public notification provisions of Clause 9.4 of the Scheme. Accordingly public submissions received as a consequence of the new works and in response to newspaper advertising and neighbours letters, are considered in this assessment. As stated above, the subject land is not reserved under the Planning Scheme and the provisions of the Scheme and Planning Policies established in support of the Scheme are not applicable and any assessed non-compliance cannot therefore be used as a basis for determination. A number of submissions identified areas of perceived non-compliance with Scheme provisions and the provisions of the LPP – Signs Guideline. By way of explanation, the following provisions of the Scheme and LPP may otherwise have been regarded as relevant. The following explains why the provisions of the LPP would have in any case been appropriately set aside in this instance.

Clause 5.9

· Advertising Signs

5.9.1 Except as provided for in Schedule 5 of the Scheme, no advertising sign are to be erected or displayed without the approval of the local government.

5.9.2 Advertising signs are to be designed and constructed having due regard

to any relevant local government Policy. 5.9.3 In its determination of any application for erection or display of an

advertising sign for which planning approval is required, the local government is to take into consideration the likely impact of the proposal on the safety and amenity of the area.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Clause 10.2 of the Scheme lists matters to be considered by Local Government in assessing an application for development. In assessing the merit of this proposal the following are relevant:

10.2 (c) the requirements for orderly and proper planning…, 10.2 (j) the compatibility of a use or development with its setting…, 10.2 (o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality; 10.2 (p) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land…; 10.2 (z) any relevant submissions received on the application and any other

planning consideration the local government considers relevant;

Local Planning Policy, Design Guidelines - Signage The following extracts of the Policy are relevant to its interpretation and application in respect to the proposal.

1. Introduction The purpose of this guideline is to provide a reasonable scope for advertising and information signs for commercial property in a manner which does not overwhelm or compromise visual amenity within the streetscape. This Design Guideline clarifies the range and extent of signage that is allowable, within the Town of East Fremantle.

2. Objectives

· To provide adequate opportunities for commercial advertising to support and encourage local business activity.

· To promote and protect significant positive visual elements which contribute to East Fremantle’s ‘sense of place’ and the visual amenity of the streetscape.

· Protect the cultural heritage values of a place of cultural significance.

· Co-ordinate multiple signage on single buildings through the establishment of an approved signs regime for the site.

· Ensure the type and size of signs is appropriate for their location.

· Minimise the proliferation of advertisements.

· Ensure that advertisements do not adversely impact on traffic circulation and management, or pedestrian safety.

· Ensure advertisements are generally erected on land where the advertised business, sale or goods or service is being carried out.

As can be seen from the statements contained in the ‘Introduction’ and ‘Objectives’ to the Policy, its principal aim is to control advertising and information signs for commercial property. Its provisions have therefore been structured to provide for an appropriate range and size of signs to be affixed on or adjacent to commercial buildings. The scale of signage provided for is therefore appropriate within urban streetscapes. However for this reason the Policy is not readily applicable to major advertising hoardings which are free standing and sited within a regional recreation reserve and where they do not address a street and/or building. This proposition is further evidenced by the ‘General Requirements for Signage’ contained in Part 4 of the Policy. Inter alia, the Requirements state.

4.1 Signs shall relate directly to the activity undertaken on the premises.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


The signs are third party advertising for Club sponsors they do not relate directly to EFFC activities.

4.7 Signs shall be in harmony with the design, scale and character of the buildings

which form their background.

The signs are free standing and do not relate to any particular building. 4.9 The principal sign on the premises shall relate to the name and nature of the

business or occupier. Identification of goods and services should be secondary.

The signs are third party advertising for Club sponsors. They principally relate to the promotion of goods and services supplied by business not related to the site.

4.11 Signage affixed to a building shall not exceed a maximum of 45% of total

exposed wall area for any one wall.

The signage is free standing and does not relate to a building or wall.

The proposed signage is defined as a ‘pole or pylon sign under the Policy. The proposed signage exceeds the total area dimensions indicated in the Performance Criteria of the Policy which is as follows:

· Total height should not exceed 5 metres

· Total area of each sign face should not exceed 6m2

· Double sided signs should be identical in dimension and both sides should be less than 300mm apart

· Only one pole or pylon sign per site (land parcel)

· May be internally illuminated It is apparent the proposed signage is inconsistent with the provisions of the LPP – Design Guidelines Signage. However as evidenced by the Guidelines – ‘Introduction’, ‘Objectives’, ‘General Principles’ and ‘Performance Criteria’, they are not intended for application in respect to major advertising hoardings which are free standing and sited within a regional recreation reserve. It is considered appropriate therefore that this assessment should be guided by the general provisions of the Planning Scheme and in particular clause 10.2. Had this been an application to which the Scheme provisions applied, it would nevertheless have been appropriate to consider the provisions of Clause 2.3 of the Scheme which provides that where it is necessary, the provisions of a LPP should be set aside:

2.3 Relationship of Local Planning Policies to Scheme

2.3.1 If a provision of a Local Planning Policy is inconsistent with the Scheme, the Scheme prevails.

2.3.2 A Local Planning Policy is not part of the Scheme and does not bind

the local government in respect of any application for planning approval but the local government is to have due regard to the provisions of the Policy and the objectives which the Policy is designed to achieve before making its determination.

ASSESSMENT It is considered the proposal and the submissions in respect of the application raise the following issues relevant to this assessment:

· Compliance


1 July 2014 MINUTES


· Structural Integrity

· Natural ventilation and air flow

· Impact on Streetscape & Views

· Development within a Regional Recreation Reserve (Restricted Access) & Broader Community Benefit

Compliance Objectors to the signage have asked why Council has not urgently required the removal of the non-approved signage. The following matters have informed the approach taken to compliance in this matter. The applicant contended that it was merely replacing pre-existing signage and therefore the works did not constitute ‘new’ development. However the proposed works differ substantially from the pre-existing signage and accordingly are considered to constitute ‘development’ pursuant to the Planning and Development Act. Accordingly an application for planning approval is required and a Building Approval under the Building Code of Australia is also required. Early in March 2014, the EFFC, erected the sign frame on the existing pylons and commenced to erect some sign boards on the frame without prior approval. As soon as the CEO was aware of this situation he contacted the Club’s Chief Executive Officer to seek the removal of the sign boards pending a determination of an application for planning approval. An undertaking was given by the Club’s CEO that this would occur on the next Monday following the first game of the season. It is understood that subsequently the EFFC Board instructed its CEO that the sign board should remain pending consideration of a planning application. It is not the Town’s practice that the moment an act of non-compliance with planning and/or building requirements is identified, action is taken to remove the offending structure. For example, the Town does not require the demolition of an unapproved front wall, studio in backyard etc, prior to determining if those structures will or will not have a detrimental impact and can comply with relevant planning provisions. Unless there are safety issues, breaches of Building Codes etc, in the majority of cases the person responsible is asked to apply for retrospective planning approval. The EFFC has been treated no differently in that regard. The legal avenues open to Council to require the removal of the works are subject to appeal provisions of the State Administrative Tribunal. Based on past experience with the SAT in such matters, the SAT has required that the Planning Authority first determine the planning merit of the development and whether it will approve or conditionally approve an application for the development before the SAT will consent to the progression of any Order for the removal of illegal works. Some submissions made to Council query whether the proposed signage is permissible under the terms of the lease agreement with the Council under which the Club operates. The CEO considered the lease agreement between the Club and the Town and also sought legal advice on the matter. It appears that aspects of the lease are potentially legally problematic and further legal advice may be warranted. The key issues are: (i) Whilst the location of the signs which have been erected are outside the Club’s

lease area, there are provisions in the lease which involve areas outside of the lease area.

Council’s solicitor has advised, in his experience, this is an unusual situation.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


One such provision involves the Club having “the right to sell sponsorship signs and to erect the same on the oval”, although in this case Council’s approval is required. However the issue which arises is that there is no definition of “oval” in the lease. Strictly speaking, it could be held that “oval” means the playing surface. Obviously that would be a nonsense, however another interpretation could involve the spectator fencing around the playing surface, to which signs have always been attached. Another interpretation could involve the whole site, including the oval perimeter area where the signs have been erected, notwithstanding this area is clearly not part of the oval. The CEO requested the Club obtain their own legal advice in the matter, however this has not occurred. The CEO has also approached the WAFL regards whether there are any contractual arrangements between WAFL and the Town, which the CEO is unaware of. A response has not yet been received. In the CEO’s view, with respect to this issue, there seemed little point in incurring further legal costs at this stage in the event Council approved the signs. If Council does not approve the signs, and seeks to initiate removal action, the Club may seek legal recourse regards the proper way to interpret the lease. Notwithstanding the above comments, the CEO’s view, which he has conveyed to the Club, is that he believes Council approval for the signs is required – ie the reference to “oval” in respect of signs refers to the entire site. In the event however that the Club did not accept this position, further legal advice may be necessary. In light of the above, the most expeditious course has been to progress the assessment of an application for planning approval and in so doing, seek community views and the views of the Town Planning Advisory Panel to inform Council’s determination of its position in respect to the proposed works. It should be noted that for the reasons explained above, Council is not the Determining Authority in this instance. Structural Integrity The Structural Condition Survey undertaken by ‘Structerre’ consulting engineers dated 22 May 2013 noted in respect to the sponsorship signs as follows:

“The sponsor signs to the east of the ground have been removed, with the posts remaining. 12.1 Comments and Recommendations With the sponsor signs now removed the wind loading on the remaining posts is negligible. It is recommended that the future use of the ground be considered to determine the outcome of the remaining posts. The posts should either be removed, or alternatively may be repaired and reused for new signage. It is noted that no engineering assessment has been carried out on the posts and footings, and prior to the installation of new signage an engineering review shall be carried out to determine the maximum signage are permitted to be supported by each post.”

The applicant has submitted structural engineering certificates for both the sign board frames and the existing uprights verifying their structural integrity. These engineering assessments meet the assessment requirements specified in the ‘Structerre’ report. The report concludes the signage is structurally viable for at least a 5 year time period. It recommends:

“On match days the weather forecast shall be checked in advance to ensure that wind gusts are not anticipated to exceed 100 km per hour. It is recommended that a flashing or seal plate be fixed to the top of the posts to prevent water ingress into the columns. It is also recommended that a 10mm drainage hole be drilled through the base of the posts near ground level to prevent water from collecting inside.”


1 July 2014 MINUTES


It is considered the above requirements should be included as a condition of any approval. Natural Ventilation and Airflow The subject signs are constructed at a distance of 37m from the nearest house. The signboards are 2.2m above the ground, they extend for 68m and have a total area of 158m². As airflow will ‘bend’ around an object and will pass over and above the signboards, there is no evidence to support the proposition that the sign boards, at this distance from neighbouring properties will impede airflow to any degree other than a minimal degree at best. In any case, any impact would be considerably less than if housing was developed on both sides of Allen Street within a conventional suburban streetscape. Impact upon the Streetscape & Views Streetscape impacts of the signage are restricted to Allen Street and predominantly fall upon 4 houses – Nos. 68 to 74 Allen Street which are immediately opposite the rear of the signage. The following series of photographs were taken from the foot path in front of these houses and indicate the degree of visual impact of the signage.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


The following photographs were taken from the oval boundary and indicate the degree of established planting behind the signs and the view to the streetscape behind.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


In addition to the proposed signage, there are other streetscape elements along Allen Street boundary of the football oval which are consistent with its established use as a WAFL playing venue and its designation as a ‘restricted access’ reserve under the MRS, these include a toilet block, entry gates and turn styles and a score board.

It is noted that the proposed signs, although bigger, are nevertheless similarly located to the previous signage which was removed following the structural assessment report and prior to the start of the current football season. To this extent, the proposal is not out of context with the established streetscape character of this WAFL venue. It is however larger in area and is now a continuous sign board rather the previous series of individual signs. Accordingly the degree of visual impact upon the four houses immediately opposite is increased. It is necessary to consider if the extent of this impact is reasonable within the context of the established streetscape character and use of the site. As can be seen above, the primary streetscape impact of the site from Allen Street immediately adjacent to the signs is the ring lock and barbed wire security fence. Behind this fence is substantial mature vegetation along the boundary. The signs are set back a further ten metres from the boundary fence and generally behind this vegetation canopy. There are several gaps in this vegetation which do afford unobstructed views of the rear of the signage. It is considered that given the separation of the signage (some 68 metres from the building line of the impacted houses), the intervening street trees, the ring-lock security fence and screening vegetation behind, the proposed signage will not result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity due to its visual impact. It is also considered this level of visual impact would be further reduced if additional mature screening vegetation was planted along the boundary. The assessed loss of views for the identified houses is substantially a loss of view of the grass playing surface and the immediate horizon. This loss of view is marginally greater in the present situation without the previous signs than when these signs existed since the previous signs would also have intruded into this view scape (although to a lesser extent). It should also be noted that the screening vegetation and street tree planting also intrudes upon this view scape and views are not unobstructed even without the signage. It is considered the degree to which views are impacted is not unreasonable in comparison to other similar residential streets where residential scale development occurs on both sides of the street. There are numerous SAT decisions which confirm the Planning Precedent that there is ‘no right to a view’ accordingly development cannot be denied on this basis alone. Development within a Regional Recreation Reserve (Restricted Access) & Broader Community Benefit The proposed signage is consistent with the use and development within the MRS ‘Restricted Access’ Reserve. This reserve designation signifies the site as a WAFL venue which will have restricted access to the general public. The proposed signage is


1 July 2014 MINUTES


similar to signage at other WAFL grounds which abut residential areas such as Lathlain Park, Goddard Street, Lathlain and Bassendean ‘Steel Blue’ Oval, Old Perth Road, Bassendean. The location and dimension of the proposed signage provides for the promotion of the EFFC sponsors both to spectators in the grandstands on the opposite side of the oval and on TV broadcasts when games are televised. Such sponsorship and advertising is integral to the operation of all WAFL clubs and is an element at each WAFL venue. Under the lease there is no Council right to gain revenue from such TV based advertising and nor is Council approval required. It is reasonable to conclude that the denial of the proposed sponsorship advertising will impact upon the viability of the Club and potentially the future of the site as a WAFL venue. The retention of the football club at the venue and the sustainable future use of the site as a WAFL venue are considered to be matters of broad community benefit. The dictates of orderly and proper planning require due regard be given to the benefits of the broader community when considering the weight to be given to the dis-benefits identified principally by four adjacent residents. CONCLUSIONS The applicant’s consultant engineers have confirmed the structural integrity of the proposed signage. The proposed signage does not meet the requirements of the Signs Guidelines which is a policy designed to control commercial advertising on buildings within an urban streetscape. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to apply the policy in this instance and to instead consider the general scheme provisions in accordance with clause 5.3 of the Scheme. The site is an established WAFL venue, the existing character and use of the site has been established since 1953. Existing residents have coexisted with this site which has in the past operated at much higher levels of intensity. The current proposal is consistent with the function and use of the site and is integral to the operation of the EFFC and the sites future as a WAFL venue. It is considered the impact of the proposal upon the streetscape, airflow and the views in respect to residences in Allen Street will not result in an unreasonable impact upon residential amenity and is not incompatible with general levels of suburban residential amenity. However it is considered that any approval should be conditioned to require additional mature screening vegetation should be planted by the applicant along the site boundary behind the proposed signage. Post Script Following the finalisation of this report, the EFFC provided supplementary advice that it intended to amend its original design for the signage in response to the submissions received. The amendments to the application which are date stamped received 24 June 2014 (on the day the agenda was finalised) are attached. In essence the revised plans reduce the total area of the signage from 158m² to 115.8m² and provide for a space of 2.2m between each signboard so that the signage is no longer continuous for its length of 66m (although the frame remains unchanged). The Club’s contention that the revised proposal is now more similar to the previously erected signage is accepted. That signage had a gap of 1.5m between each sign board and had an estimated total area of 115.2m². It is considered the above changes will further ameliorate the identified impact of the signage upon neighbours and as such further enhances the assessed merit of the proposal. In short, it is concluded there are no justifiable planning grounds for refusing this application.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised that the Town of East Fremantle supports the application for retrospective planning approval for signage by the East Fremantle Football Club (date stamp received 14 April 2014 and as further amended on 24 June 2014) for signage at the East Fremantle Oval subject to: 1. the submission and implementation of a landscape plan by the applicant to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer (Town of East Fremantle) for the planting of screening vegetation at the rear of the proposed signage.

2. the proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Building Permit and the Building Permit issued in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.

3. a flashing or seal plate be fixed to the top of the posts to prevent water ingress into the columns. It is also recommended that a 10mm drainage hole be drilled through the base of the posts near ground level to prevent water from collecting inside.

4. with regard to the plans submitted with respect to the Building Permit application, changes are not to be made in respect of the plans which have received planning approval, without those changes being specifically marked for Council’s attention.

5. the EFFC shall carry out annual structural inspection and maintenance to ensure the signs structure is adequately maintained so that there is no diminution in its structural integrity from that existing at the date of this approval.

6. public access in the vicinity of the signs shall be denied by the EFFC if weather forecasts predict wind gusts in excess of 100 km per hour within the next 24 hour period. A structural engineering report shall be completed five years from the date of this approval verifying the structural integrity of the signage for future use.

Mrs Suzanne O’Neill (Allen Street resident) addressed the meeting in opposition to the application for retrospective approval for signage at East Fremantle Oval. Mrs O’Neill raised the following issues: - non-compliance with Council’s LPP ‘Design Guidelines – Signage’ - no engineer’s report for existing poles - increase in signage area from 72m² to 115m² - the proposal should have been referred to the Community Reference Group (CRG) - Mrs O’Neill felt this was an opportunity to defer the matter pending a more amicable

solution and in the meantime the signage be removed and any future application for signage be referred to the CRG.

Dr Peter Watson (Allen Street resident) addressed the meeting in opposition to the application for retrospective approval for signage at East Fremantle Oval. Dr Watson raised the following issues: - the signage was in breach of 12 town planning regulations and the WAPC

Development Control Policy 5.4 ‘Advertising on Reserved Land’ - no current engineering report as photos showed corrosion at the base of the poles - signage and framework was larger than what was previously there - the application by the football club provided only a vague description of what was

proposed thereby not allowing residents to make an informed response - the application was not referred to the CRG - the signage has created a visible eyesore with residents missing out on sunsets and

views of the oval - signage should be removed as soon as possible and alternate forms of advertising

signage which meet the guidelines be proposed. Mr Christian Ainslie (Allen Street resident) addressed the meeting in opposition to the application for retrospective approval for signage at East Fremantle Oval. Mr Ainslie raised the following issues: - Mr Ainslie re-iterated the concerns of the previous speakers, Mrs O’Neill and

Dr Watson - the report by the Manager – Planning Services was misleading and factually

inaccurate - residents were concerned that no engineer’s report had been provided for the

signposts


1 July 2014 MINUTES


- the signage failed to meet Part 4 of the LPP, in particular Clause 4.8, as no structural report provided for the existing posts

- the signage was prohibited signage and therefore Council does not have jurisdiction to approve the signage

- whilst he resided opposite and supported the football club Mrs Ainslie believed that the football club could come up with an improved proposal

Ms Danielle Churack (Allen Street resident) addressed the meeting in opposition to the application for retrospective approval for signage at East Fremantle Oval. Ms Churack raised the following issues: - Ms Churack questioned whose insurers would take responsibility should their

properties be damaged if due process was not followed - Ms Churack asked how and by whom the decision would be made on the uniformity

of the signage i.e the spacing between the signs - whilst she supported the football club Ms Churack felt her property was devalued due

to the signage which currently blocked her view of the sunsets and green space. Mr Adam Kelly (CEO – EF Football Club) responded to the residents’ concerns as follows: - a current engineering report was referred to in the Club’s response to submissions - signage plan has been amended hence windload has been reduced (copy circulated) - a 2.2m gap between signs proposed - we have endeavoured to return signage area to what was pre-existing – the amended

proposal has reduced signage to 115m² - Mr Kelly stressed the importance of the revenue that the signage brought to the club,

stating that they need to take these opportunities in order to remain viable and sustainable

- signs were located to one side of the ground due to media coverage and were 0.7m lower than what was there previously

- Mr Kelly advised that they would go back to Structerre with the new proposal and provide an updated engineering report.

The Manager – Planning Services, Jamie Douglas, responded by saying that as the East Fremantle Oval was a Regional Recreation Reserve under the MRS, the Town Planning Scheme and the Local Planning Policy did not apply and could not be applied. Mr Douglas stated that the general principles of the town planning scheme had been applied to the proposal and addressed in his report. Mr Douglas was of the view that the amended option only further enhanced the merit of the proposal. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Cr Collinson – Cr Handcock It is recommended that the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised that the Town of East Fremantle supports the application for retrospective planning approval for signage by the East Fremantle Football Club (date stamp received 14 April 2014 and as further amended on 24 June 2014) for signage at the East Fremantle Oval subject to: 1. the submission and implementation of a landscape plan by the applicant to

the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer (Town of East Fremantle) for the planting of screening vegetation at the rear of the proposed signage.

2. the proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Building Permit and the Building Permit issued in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.

3. a flashing or seal plate be fixed to the top of the posts to prevent water ingress into the columns. It is also recommended that a 10mm drainage hole be drilled through the base of the posts near ground level to prevent water from collecting inside.

4. with regard to the plans submitted with respect to the Building Permit application, changes are not to be made in respect of the plans which have


1 July 2014 MINUTES


received planning approval, without those changes being specifically marked for Council’s attention.

5. the EFFC shall carry out annual structural inspection and maintenance to ensure the signs structure is adequately maintained so that there is no diminution in its structural integrity from that existing at the date of this approval.

6. public access in the vicinity of the signs shall be denied by the EFFC if weather forecasts predict wind gusts in excess of 100 km per hour within the next 24 hour period. A structural engineering report shall be completed five years from the date of this approval verifying the structural integrity of the signage for future use. CARRIED 3:1

Under s.5.21(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, Cr Martin requested that the voting of Council members be recorded. Crs Collinson, Handcock & Martin voted in favour of the recommendation with Cr Amor having voted against the motion.

Mayor O’Neill returned to the meeting at 8:01pm and it should be noted that he neither spoke nor voted on the foregoing item.

Cr Martin made the following impartiality declaration in the matter of 10 Silas Street: “As a consequence of the applicant being known to me due to her being my physiotherapist, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits in terms of the benefit to the Town and vote accordingly”. T73.6 Silas Street No. 10 (Lot 593)

Applicant: C Eardley Owner: Ten Tangents Application No. P56/2014 By Jamie Douglas, Manager Planning Services on 13 June 2014 BACKGROUND Purpose of this Report This report considers an application for signage to be erected on the wall and in the windows of 10 Silas Street. The issue raised by the application which is relevant to the determination is the impact upon the streetscape and the visual appearance of the building – these are considered to be acceptable. The proposal is recommended for conditional approval. Statutory Considerations Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Relevant Council Policies Draft Local Planning Policy – Design Guideline Signage Impact on Public Domain Tree in verge : No impact Light pole : No impact Crossover : No impact Footpath : No impact Streetscape : The proposed signs address the street and accordingly impact upon

the streetscape. Documentation Plans and relevant forms date stamp received on 9 April 2014.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Date Application Received 9 April 2014 CONSULTATION The proposal has not been advertised given the surrounding commercial properties. The proposal was considered by the Town Planning Advisory Panel at its meeting on 27 May 2014. The Panel made the following comments; Panel supports the proposed application for signage. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The application is for the installation of 3 wall signs and 8 vinyl signs affixed to each of the main entry glass doors and the windows. The wall signs contain the business name, the signage on the doors contain the services offered and contact details and business name and the window signs are images of the gym and client treatments and the business name. RELEVANT PLANNING PROVISIONS 1. Town Planning Scheme No. 3

The following clauses of the Scheme apply: 5.9 Advertising Signs 5.9.2 Advertising signs are to be designed and constructed having due regard to

any relevant local government Policy. 5.9.3 In its determination of any application for erection or display of an advertising

sign for which planning approval is required, the local government is to take into consideration the likely impact of the proposal on the safety and amenity of the area.

10.2 Matters to be considered by local government

The local government in considering an application for planning approval is to have due regard to such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the local government relevant to the use or development the subject of the application — (j) the compatibility of a use or development with its setting; (o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality; (p) the relationship of the proposal to 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 proposal;

2. Local Planning Policy – Design Guidelines - Signage

Council adopted the Local Planning Policy – Design Guidelines - Signage (LPP) pursuant with clause 2.4 of TPS No. 3 at its meeting on 21 June 2011. The policy clarifies the range and extent of signage that is allowable within the Town of Fremantle. Under Clause 2.3.2 of the Scheme, Council must have regard to a Policy but is not bound by any provision of a Policy and may vary or disregard a Policy provision where it is considered that it is not inconsistent with the Scheme provisions to do so. The proposed signs are assessed pursuant to the relevant provisions of the LPP as follows: Wall Signs Where multiple wall signs are proposed they are to be considered under the following Alternative Performance Criteria (Discretionary) provisions of the Policy. - Multiple wall signs or wall signs exceeding the acceptable solution provisions

shall only be considered as part of an approved signs regime;


1 July 2014 MINUTES


- Signs must face a primary space; - Maximum height equivalent to 10% of height of building wall or 2 metres,

whichever is greater; and - Maximum length 5 metres. Window Signs To be considered under the following Performance Criteria for discretionary approval: - Signs shall occupy less than 50% of the surface area of a window. The LPP also contains ‘General Requirements For Signage’ (in Section 4) to which all signs must comply. The proposal meets these requirements.

CONSIDERATION A signs regime for the entire building has been submitted. It is considered that the proliferation and size of the proposed wall signs will not conflict with the fabric of the building and will not detract from the streetscape character. Accordingly the proposed wall signs will comply with the Performance Criteria of the Signs Policy. The proposed signage on the glass entry doors and windows of the building do not conform with the Performance Criteria of the Policy because they will exceed 50% coverage of the surface area. However the Policy is designed to encourage street activation for display windows in the front façade of commercial buildings. In this instance the windows are not display windows in the front façade and are setback behind the front canopy. Currently the windows have venetian blinds to provide privacy to the offices behind them. Accordingly it is considered appropriate to exercise a variation to the Policy to allow the proposed window signage in this instance. CONCLUSION It is considered that discretionary approval under the Performance Criteria of the Policy in respect to the proposed wall signs is warranted. A variation in the Policy provisions in respect to the proposed window signs is supported and it is considered that it would be consistent with Clauses 5.9 and 10.2 of the Scheme. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council: (a) exercise its discretion pursuant to the provisions of the Local Planning Policy

‘Design Guideline Signage’ in respect to the proposed wall signs; and (b) vary the requirements of Local Planning Policy ‘Design Guideline Signage’ in

respect to window signs to allow for signage occupying more than 50% of the window surface area;

and grant approval for signage at No. 10 (Lot 593) Canning Highway, East Fremantle in accordance with the Application for Planning Approval received on 9 April 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the Local Planning

Policy ‘Design Guideline Signage’ – Part 4 ‘General Requirements for Signage’. 2. The works are to be constructed in conformity with the written information

accompanying the application for planning approval date stamped ‘received 9 April 2014’ other than where varied in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval or with Council’s further approval.


Footnote: The following is not a condition but a note of advice to the applicant/owner: .. This decision does not include acknowledgement or approval of any unauthorised

development which may be on the site.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Cr Collinson – Cr Handcock It is recommended that Council: (a) exercise its discretion pursuant to the provisions of the Local Planning Policy

‘Design Guideline Signage’ in respect to the proposed wall signs; and (b) vary the requirements of Local Planning Policy ‘Design Guideline Signage’ in

respect to window signs to allow for signage occupying more than 50% of the window surface area;

and grant approval for signage at No. 10 (Lot 593) Canning Highway, East Fremantle in accordance with the Application for Planning Approval received on 9 April 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the Local

Planning Policy ‘Design Guideline Signage’ – Part 4 ‘General Requirements for Signage’.

2. The works are to be constructed in conformity with the written information accompanying the application for planning approval date stamped ‘received 9 April 2014’ other than where varied in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval or with Council’s further approval.


Footnote: The following is not a condition but a note of advice to the applicant/owner: .. This decision does not include acknowledgement or approval of any

unauthorised development which may be on the site. CARRIED 5:0 Note: As 5 Committee members voted in favour of the Reporting Officer’s recommendation, pursuant to Council’s decision regarding delegated decision making made on 18 June 2014, this application is deemed determined, on behalf of Council, under delegated authority.

T73.7 Clayton Street No. 60A (Lot 2)

Applicant: 101 Residential Owner: R J Wynn Application No. P77/14 By Andrew Malone, Senior Town Planner on 12 June 2013 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report considers the proposed development application for a single storey dwelling on a battle-axe rear lot at 60A (Lot 2) Clayton Street, East Fremantle. As an addendum to this development application the applicant have advised that they wish to move the northern retaining wall truncation closer to the boundary (1 metre from the boundary). No revised plans were requested as this amendment is considered minor and has been conditioned in the Officer’s Recommendation. The proposal raises the following key issues with regard to the determination of the application:

· Site fill: 0.9 metres; · Overlooking: compliant with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes but

will be discussed the adjoining neighbour has raised this as a concern; and · variation to side set back : buildings on the boundary.

The proposed new dwelling is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Description of Site The subject site is: - a 505m² rear battle-axe block


1 July 2014 MINUTES


- zoned Residential R12.5 - vacant lot - located in the Richmond Hill Precinct. Statutory Considerations Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) – Residential R12.5 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Relevant Council Policies Local Planning Policy – Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) Impact on Public Domain Tree in verge : No impact. Light pole : No impact. Crossover : No impact. Footpath : No impact. Streetscape : No impact. Documentation Plans and relevant forms date stamp received on 19 May 2014. Date Application Received 19 May 2014 Any Relevant Previous Decisions of Council and/or History of an Issue or Site N/A CONSULTATION Advertising The application was advertised to surrounding neighbours and a sign was erected on-site for a two week period between 20 May 2014 and 3 June 2014. Council has received one submission.


I have inspected the plans and I have a concern of overlooking from the Alfresco due to the 900mm fill required to achieve a level house at this point. The net effect is that the adjacent 1.8m fence becomes a 0.9 m fence. The proximity of the 2 Alfresco areas is only about 4m away from the shared corner boundary. We have no way of screening this as our ground level is 1.4 m lower than the base of the fence and accommodates pool equipment.

While we appreciate the concerns of adjacent neighbour, we have endeavoured as much as reasonably possible to ensure that amount of cut/fill is minimised. As the site slopes down from a high point of 9.76m in the south-west corner down to 8.00m in the north-east corner, it is considered that the proposed FFL of the dwelling and alfresco areas (at -1c) are set at appropriate levels for the site. The example referred to represents the worst case scenario, at the lowest point of the site. We can sympathise with neighbours’ concerns in this regard, we don’t see how it will affect their amenity / use of their backyard, particularly given it’s occupied by a pool and supplies. Additionally the sewer line/easement (running parallel to the rear boundary) limits and somewhat determines the usability of active outdoor entertaining areas. The alfresco areas have been specifically placed on the northern side of the dwelling to maximise exposure to northern light for good solar passive

The comments and amended plans submitted by the applicant suitably address the neighbour’s submission.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


SUBMISSION APPLICANT RESPONSE OFFICER COMMENT design reasons. With the above in mind, we believe that the finished floor level of the dwelling and alfresco areas (at -1c) is already provided at an appropriate level for the site and it is not proposed to amend it at his juncture. Accordingly we ask that the Town exercise discretion in this regard.

Town Planning Advisory Panel Due to the nature (single storey) and proposed location of the dwelling (battle-axe) of the application, the application was not referred to the Town Planning Advisory Panel. The proposed shed does not impact on the streetscape or adjoining neighbours. Site Inspection By Senior Town Planner on 13 and 19 June 2014. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and the Town’s Local Planning Policies. A summary of the assessment is provided in the following tables. Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Assessment


Residential Design Codes Assessment Design Element Required Proposed Status Open Space 55% 57% A Outdoor Living 30sqm 45sqm A Car Parking 2 2 A Site Works Less than 500mm 0.9 metres D Overshadowing 25% Less than 25% A Drainage On-site On-site A

Local Planning Policies Assessment

LPP Residential Design Guidelines Provision Status 3.7.2 Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings N/A 3.7.3 Development of Existing Buildings N/A 3.7.4 Site Works D 3.7.5 Demolition A 3.7.6 Construction of New Buildings A 3.7.7 Building Setbacks and Orientation D 3.7.8 Roof Form and Pitch A 3.7.9 Materials and Colours A 3.7.10 Landscaping A 3.7.11 Front Fences A 3.7.12 Pergolas N/A 3.7.13 Incidental Development Requirements N/A 3.7.14 Footpaths and Crossovers A 3.7.15-20 Precinct Requirements A


1 July 2014 MINUTES


DISCUSSION Site Fill The subject lot has a fall of approximately 1.2 metres from south west to north east and an approximate 1 metre fall over the driveway. The proposed finished floor level (ffl) of the dwelling is 9.035 AHD with proposed retaining walls to 8.9 AHD (setback 1.0 from the northeast corner of the lot). It is the northeast corner of the lot that falls away approximately 0.8 metres from the centre of the site. A truncated retaining wall is proposed with maximum fill of 0.9 metres. A maximum of 0.5 metres of fill is permitted under the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes. The Design Principles of the R-Codes with regard to Element 5.3.7 Site Works states: P7.1 Development that considers and responds to the natural features of the site

and requires minimal excavation/fill. P7.2 Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural

ground level at the lot boundary of the site and as viewed from the street. It is proposed to fill approximately 0.9 metres to the rear of the lot (northeast corner of the lot). The proposed fill will create a larger flat usable open space to facilitate a level ffl for the alfresco areas adjoining the dwelling. The proposed fill is considered to have a minimal impact on the scale and bulk of the proposed single storey dwelling or alfresco area. Concerns have been raised with regard to overlooking from the elevated ffl of the alfresco area. This will be addressed in the next section of the report. It is considered the proposed dwelling and retained garden is consistent with finished floor levels of the dwelling. The proposed fill and retained alfresco area does not have a significant negative impact on the streetscape character or amenity of the neighbours. The overall proposed fill will retain the visual impression of a consistent streetscape and gradient of Clayton Street. The proposed development is considered to comply with the Design Principles of Element 5.3.7 Site Works and therefore can be supported. Based on the above, it is considered the proposal merits approval subject to appropriate conditions. Visual Privacy The ‘Deemed to comply’ provisions for Element 5.4.1 Visual privacy of the R-Codes requires major openings which have their floor level more than 0.5 metre above natural ground level, and positioned so as to overlook any part of any other residential property behind its setback line, to comply with the following: · 4.5 metres in the case of bedrooms and studies; · 6.0 metres in the case of habitable rooms, other than bedrooms and studies; and · 7.5 metres in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces.

The alfresco area located on the AHD 8.5 metre contour line. The proposed alfresco areas are raised less than the 0.5 metre above natural ground level permitted ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes and are therefore considered to comply. The area surrounding the alfresco areas (rear / side garden) are considered to be associated with the alfresco areas but not considered an unenclosed outdoor active habitable space and therefore does not require assessment for overlooking. Notwithstanding the compliance with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes, the area has been assessed under the ‘Design Provisions’ to ensure the neighbour’s amenity is protected.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


The ‘Design Provisions’ of 5.4.1 allows for: 1 Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of

adjacent dwellings achieved through: · building layout, location; · design of major openings; · landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or · location of screening devices.

2 Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as:

· offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is oblique rather than direct;

· building to the boundary where appropriate; · setting back the first floor from the side boundary; · providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or · screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber

screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters). The adjoining properties to the north and northeast (submitter) both have high boundary fences. A site inspection was carried out and it was evident that the lot to the north and northeast of the subject lot have been cut into the lot, minimising direct overlooking into the properties. There are swimming pools located adjoining the proposed alfresco areas. The properties to the east and north also have substantial vegetative screens. There were no clear views into the lots to the north, northeast or east. It is noted that the boundary fence to the east is not a full 1.8 metre high fence and therefore does not provide the full extent of screening that can be utilised between the lots. It is considered there are suitable boundary and / or vegetative screening at the adjoining lots to minimise any potential overlooking. The proposed alfresco areas do not overlook directly into habitable outdoor areas of the adjoining lots. The proposed dwelling and alfresco areas are single storey with the alfresco areas not being raised more than 0.5 metres from natural ground level, therefore the neighbour’s amenity is considered to be substantially protected. It is considered the proposed development can be supported. Side Boundary Setbacks The side boundary setbacks to the north, south and east comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-codes. The garage and dwelling parapet wall (western elevation) is 12.6m in length, which is greater than the 9.0 metre permissible under the ‘Deemed to Comply’ requirements, however the overall height of the garage at 2.6 metres (maximum) and 2.2 metres (minimum) does comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ height requirements for building on the boundary of the R-Codes. The applicant has provided the follow justification for the proposed parapet wall: · The adjacent property (Survey Strata Lot 1) is owned by the same landowner and they

are happy to consent to this proposed variation. · The boundary wall is aligned in a north south direction and is primarily only for the

garage with bed 3 provided with a full size window. Accordingly it is considered that this Bed 3 will be provided with an adequate amount of sun/ ventilation and won’t inhibit access for Survey Strata Lot 1 given the orientation.

· There are no windows on the boundary wall and therefore no overlooking issues. Survey Strata Lot 1 will still retain a sizeable outdoor living/ courtyard on its northern side.

Notwithstanding the above, the garage and bedroom 3 parapet wall boundary setback will be addressed below. The LPP RDG Element 3.7.7 provides performance criteria by which to assess proposed variations to setback requirements. This is summarised below.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


P1.1 The primary street setback of new developments or additions to non-contributory buildings is to match the traditional setback of the immediate locality.

The proposed dwelling is located on a battle-axe lot and will not have any implications to the primary street setback area. P1.2 Additions to existing contributory buildings shall be setback so as to not

adversely affect its visual presence. The subject lot is vacant. The subject lot is not listed on the Town’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. There is no adverse affect to the visual presence of the lot or the streetscape. P1.3 Developments are to have side setbacks complementary with the

predominant streetscape. With regard to the proposed side set back to the garage and bedroom 3, the overall length of the parapet wall is 12.6 metres and therefore does not comply with the overall permitted ‘Deemed to Comply’ parapet wall length of 9 metres. The parapet wall at 2.6 metres and 2.2 metres in height complies with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ maximum parapet wall height. The parapet wall is proposed to abut a simultaneously constructed wall to the west (approximately 5.0 metres in length), therefore the side setback is considered to have a side setback that is complementary with the adjoining dwelling. The parapet wall extends 5.5 metres and 2.0 metres either side of the simultaneously constructed wall. The wall is not considered to impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbour. It is considered the wall is not excessive in height, therefore the neighbour’s amenity is not impacted. The proposed height and length of the wall does not significantly impact on the scale or bulk of the dwelling (single storey), therefore it is also considered the parapet wall has no negative impact to the neighbour. The proposed wall is on a battle-axe lot and cannot be viewed from the street, therefore there is no impact to the streetscape. The proposed parapet wall will not impact on the light or ventilation received by the neighbouring western lot. The proposal does not negatively impact on the streetscape or adjoining neighbours and therefore it is considered the nil side setback for a length of 12.6 metres and to a maximum height of 2.6 metres to the western boundary can be supported by Council. CONCLUSION The proposed single storey dwelling is considered to be consistent and sympathetic streetscape and with the style of development of battle-axe lots within the area. The proposed dwelling is of a similar height, scale, bulk as other dwellings in the area. It is considered acceptable and appropriate to develop a single storey dwelling, thereby reducing the visual impact to adjoining dwellings and maintaining viewing vistas. Whilst it is proposed to fill the north east of the lot, the fill of 0.9 metres, with a single storey dwelling thereby minimising the overall height and bulk the dwelling will present as to surrounding neighbours. The proposed development complies with the privacy requirements of the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes. The application is considered to have had due regard for the Town’s requirements relating to residential developments, as well as the requirements outlined within the R-Codes. Whilst the application does seek some minor variations to the Acceptable Development Criteria and ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions for setback and fill and it is considered the proposal has been designed to minimise impact to adjoining neighbours. The variations are considered to be minor in nature and are recommended to be supported. Based on the above, it is considered the proposal merits approval subject to appropriate conditions.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


RECOMMENDATION That Council exercise its discretion in granting approval for the following: (a) variation to side setback Element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the R-Codes (west

elevation) – required setback 1.5 metres. Proposed setback is nil; (b) variation to Element 5.3.7 Site Works of the Residential Design Codes and Element

3.7.4 of the Residential Design Guidelines Site Works; for a single storey dwelling on a battle-axe rear lot at 60A (Lot 2) Clayton Street, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 19 may 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum top of retaining wall not to exceed AHD 8.9 metres. 2. The retaining wall located to the rear of the lot not to extend into the sewer

easement of the Water Corporation without the prior approval of the Water Corporation.

3. The retaining wall to be a minimum of 1.0 metre (truncated) from the north-eastern and eastern adjoining lots.

4. Finished Floor Level of the alfresco area 1 and 2 not to exceed 0.5 metres in height above the natural ground level of the lot.

5. Applicant to comply with the building requirements of the water corporation and obtain approval for proposed dwelling and retaining walls from the Water Corporation prior to a building Permit being lodged.

6. Crossover to be a maximum width of 3.0 metres. 7. Crossover to be designed and constructed as per Council specifications to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant Council Officers.

8. All parapet walls to be fair faced brickwork or cement rendered to the adjacent property face by way of agreement between the property owners and at the applicant’s expense.



11. The proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Building Permit and the Building Permit issued in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.





16. If requested by Council within the first two years following installation, the roofing to be treated to reduce reflectivity. The treatment to be to the satisfaction of the Chief


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Executive Officer in consultation with relevant officers and all associated costs to be borne by the owner.









(g) the alfresco may not be enclosed without the prior written consent of Council. (h) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act 1961. (i) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from an

air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”.

Cr Handcock – Cr Martin That Council exercise its discretion in granting approval for the following: (a) variation to side setback Element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the R-Codes

(west elevation) – required setback 1.5 metres. Proposed setback is nil; (b) variation to Element 5.3.7 Site Works of the Residential Design Codes and

Element 3.7.4 of the Residential Design Guidelines Site Works; for a single storey dwelling on a battle-axe rear lot at 60A (Lot 2) Clayton Street, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 19 may 2014 subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum top of retaining wall not to exceed AHD 8.9 metres. 2. The retaining wall located to the rear of the lot not to extend into the sewer

easement of the Water Corporation without the prior approval of the Water Corporation.

3. The retaining wall to be a minimum of 1.0 metre (truncated) from the north-eastern and eastern adjoining lots.

4. Finished Floor Level of the alfresco area 1 and 2 not to exceed 0.5 metres in height above the natural ground level of the lot.

5. Applicant to comply with the building requirements of the water corporation and obtain approval for proposed dwelling and retaining walls from the Water Corporation prior to a building Permit being lodged.

6. Crossover to be a maximum width of 3.0 metres. 7. Crossover to be designed and constructed as per Council specifications to

the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with relevant Council Officers.

8. All parapet walls to be fair faced brickwork or cement rendered to the adjacent property face by way of agreement between the property owners and at the


1 July 2014 MINUTES


applicant’s expense. 9. Prior to the installation of externally mounted air-conditioning plant, a

development application, which demonstrates that noise from the air-conditioner will comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997, is to be lodged and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. (refer footnote (i) below)


11. The proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Building Permit and the Building Permit issued in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.













1 July 2014 MINUTES




(g) the alfresco may not be enclosed without the prior written consent of Council. (h) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act

1961. (i) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from

an air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”. CARRIED 5:0


T73.8 Canning Highway No. 101 (Lot 4274) Applicant: Griffiths Architects Owner: Main Road Western Australia Application No. P49/14 By Andrew Malone, Senior Town Planner on 5 June 2014 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report considers an application for Planning Approval for the demolition of existing single storey outbuildings associated with the heritage building (former East Fremantle Post and Telegraph Office) at 101 (Lot 4274) Canning Highway, East Fremantle. The proposal raises the following key issues with regard to the determination of the application: · Demolition of structures associated with the A+ Category Municipal Heritage

Inventory listed property. The proposed demolition is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Description of Site The subject site is: - a 684m² freehold lot - zoned Town Centre - improved with heritage building and associated outbuildings - located in the Richmond Precinct - Management Category A+ on Heritage Survey 2006 and Listed on the Town’s

Heritage List, which states

High heritage significance at a local level, and having potential State Heritage significance; informed consideration sho9.4uld be given to nomination for State Register listing prior to or at the time of consideration for further development, and prior determination of any significant development application for the place. Places to be generally retained and conserved, and worthy of a high level of protection. Conservation Plans may be required depending on relative significance and apparent impact of development on the place; detailed Heritage Assessments otherwise required as corollary to any development application. Strong encouragement to the owner under the Town of East Fremantle Planning Scheme to conserve the


1 July 2014 MINUTES


significance of the place. Incentives to promote heritage conservation should be considered where necessary to achieve desirable conservation outcomes in context of permissible development.

Statutory Considerations Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) – Town Centre – Mixed Use Relevant Council Policies Local Planning Policy 145 – Town Centre Redevelopment Guidelines. Impact on Public Domain Tree in verge : No impact Light pole : No impact Crossover : No impact Footpath : No impact Streetscape : Proposed demolition will have minimal impact with respect to the

Canning Highway / Stirling Highway streetscape. Documentation Plans and relevant forms date stamp received on 27 March 2014 Date Application Received 27 March 2014 CONSULTATION Advertising The application was advertised to surrounding neighbours and a sign located on site for a two week period between 8 April and 21 April 2014 as well as a newspaper notice was placed in a local newspaper. The State Heritage Office was also consulted with respect to the proposal. One submission from the State Heritage Office was received, which stated: · The referral comprises the demolition of rear structures and elements to the former

East Fremantle Post Office, which is part of a precinct of public buildings. The proposal includes removal of fencing, paving, sorting/lunch room, pergola and trees, and construction of a new boundary fence.

· The Statement of Significance and values for the Public Buildings, East Fremantle refer to the landmark quality the group possesses, and focal point and strong aesthetic value the former East Fremantle Post Office's prominent position provides. The sorting room to the rear of the former Post Office is also described as having little significance in the Statement of Significance.

· The Conservation Plan for the Post and Telegraph Office (fmr) identifies all rear elements as having little significance.

· The conservation policy for zones of little significance state that they may be retained or removed depending on future use requirements. Before removal, a comprehensive photographic and written record of the elements should be completed.

Advice The proposed development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is supported subject to the following condition: 1. Photographic archival record of the demolished elements being prepared according to

the Guide to Preparing Archival Records prior to demolition. A condition has been included in the Officer’s Recommendation requiring the applicant to undertake a photographic archival record, as advised by the State Heritage Office. Town Planning Advisory Panel Comments The application was considered by the Town Planning Advisory Panel at its meeting of 9 April 2013. The Panel made the following comments:


1 July 2014 MINUTES


COMMENTS APPLICANT RESPONSE OFFICER COMMENT

Panel notes the outbuildings have little heritage value, therefore the application is supported. Panel also notes the subdivision of land due to the road reservation will land-lock the subject lot, limiting its potential future uses.

No comment. The Panel’s comments are acknowledged and have been considered during the assessment of this application.

Site Inspection By Senior Town Planner on 5 June 2014. DISCUSSION The proposed application is for the demolition of minor structures / outbuildings to the rear of the main building, including the removal of some trees and the erection of a new boundary fence. The outbuildings are located to the rear of the main building and are primarily located in the Stirling Highway Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Primary Regional Road Reserve. The realignment of the lot and the proposed demolition will ensure the road reserve is appropriately separated from the subject lot to facilitate any potential road widening of Stirling Highway. It is also noted Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) also wish to create a separate lot with the heritage building located on it to facilitate the sale of the building and lot. Heritage The subject lot is included in the Town’s Heritage List, on the MHI as an A+ building and on the State Heritage List. The building holds a prominent location within the Town, presenting as an iconic building with social / cultural and architectural heritage merit. Griffiths Architects prepared a conservation plan for the Post and Telegraph Office in 2010. This plan remains current and provides recommendations to guide the conservation of the building. Griffiths Architects have also undertaken a Heritage Impact Statement with regard to the proposed works. The proposed structures to be demolished include a carport, the former mail sorting and amenities building, current fencing and the removal of some trees. The Heritage Impact Statement states:

All of the elements to be removed are noted in the register document and the conservation plan as: The streetscaping works to Canning highway have low significance and the Main Roads direction signage is intrusive. The Post Office sorting room to the rear of the Post Office building has little significance.

The Heritage Impact Statement concludes:

There is no adverse cultural heritage impact on the original Post and Telegraph Office. Both the Heritage Council and the Town of East Fremantle can be comfortable in supporting this scope of work.

The full Heritage Impact Statement is appended to this report. As noted above the State Heritage Council has not objected to the proposal.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Subdivision The proposed removal of the outbuilding and carport and the future subdivision of the lot will separate 273m² of the subject lot through subdivision for potential future road widening of Stirling Highway. The remaining land within the subject lot is surplus to demand by MRWA and will be sold. However it is noted the current lot is land locked by lands owned by the Town of East Fremantle and by the Department of Lands. The future subdivision of the subject lot will further land-lock the subject lot and remove access to the subject lot from the road to the south of Dovenby House. The only vehicular access to the subject lot will require an easement to be established over the Town’s land and the Department of Lands land and may require the removal of structures and or car parking spaces on these lands to facilitate access to the subject lot. This complicates the potential future use of the subject building and will impact on vehicular access and egress and on the potential car parking provided on site. Metropolitan Regional Scheme As the land is partially within the MRS Primary Regional Road, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is required to grant approval to commence development for the purposes of the land which falls within the MRS. As the subject buildings, the purpose of this demolition application, are not wholly within the MRS reserve, the Town is required to grant approval on that area of land outside of the MRS, which is governed by the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme No.3. The Town is required to determine the application of land outside of the MRS and provide a recommendation to the WAPC with regard to the land located within the MRS. CONCLUSION The proposed demolition of the carport, the former mail sorting and amenities building, current fencing and the removal of some trees are considered to comply with the Towns Planning Scheme and the Town Centre Redevelopment Guidelines. The proposed demolition is considered acceptable, considering none of the proposed structures to be demolished have significant heritage significance. The outbuildings have a low level heritage significance and do not impact the heritage value of the existing building fronting Canning highway. It is considered the proposed demolition and erection of new fence can also be supported. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Grant approval for the demolition of carport, the former mail sorting and amenities

building, current fencing and the removal of some trees at 101 (Lot 4274) Canning Highway, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 27 March 2014 subject to the following conditions: (a) The works are to be undertaken in conformity with the drawings and written

information accompanying the application for planning approval other than where varied in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval or with Council’s further approval.

(b) The proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Demolition Permit and the Demolition Permit in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.

(c) This planning approval to remain valid for a period of 24 months from date of this approval.

(d) A photographic archival place record to be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage consultant to include sketch plans and photographic recording of the proposed buildings and surrounding site to be demolished, undertaken prior to demolition to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

(e) The applicant to undertake by a suitably qualified person(s) a Structural Engineer’s dilapidation report, at the applicant’s expense, specifying which structures on the subject lot which may be adversely affected by the proposed


1 July 2014 MINUTES


works and providing a record of the existing condition of the structures. Two copies of each dilapidation report should be lodged with Council and one copy should be given to the owner of any affected property.

2. Recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed demolition of carport, the former mail sorting and amenities building, current fencing and the removal of some trees for the land located within the MRS Primary Road Reserve at 101 (Lot 4274) Canning Highway, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 27 March 2014 be approved subject to the conditions as detailed in condition 1.




(c) all noise levels produced by the construction of the development are to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

(d) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act 1961. (e) under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from an air-

conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”.

Cr Amor – Cr Martin That Council: 1. Grant approval for the demolition of carport, the former mail sorting and

amenities building, current fencing and the removal of some trees at 101 (Lot 4274) Canning Highway, East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 27 March 2014 subject to the following conditions: (a) The works are to be undertaken in conformity with the drawings and

written information accompanying the application for planning approval other than where varied in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval or with Council’s further approval.

(b) The proposed works are not to be commenced until Council has received an application for a Demolition Permit and the Demolition Permit in compliance with the conditions of this planning approval unless otherwise amended by Council.

(c) This planning approval to remain valid for a period of 24 months from date of this approval.

(d) A photographic archival place record to be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage consultant to include sketch plans and photographic recording of the proposed buildings and surrounding site to be demolished, undertaken prior to demolition to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

(e) The applicant to undertake by a suitably qualified person(s) a Structural Engineer’s dilapidation report, at the applicant’s expense, specifying which structures on the subject lot which may be adversely affected by the proposed works and providing a record of the existing condition of the structures. Two copies of each dilapidation report should be lodged with Council and one copy should be given to the owner of any affected property.

2. Recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed demolition of carport, the former mail sorting and amenities building, current fencing and the removal of some trees for the land located within the MRS Primary Road Reserve at 101 (Lot 4274) Canning Highway,


1 July 2014 MINUTES


East Fremantle, in accordance with the plans date stamp received on 27 March 2014 be approved subject to the conditions as detailed in condition 1.




(c) all noise levels produced by the construction of the development are to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

(d) matters relating to dividing fences are subject to the Dividing Fences Act 1961.

(e) under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the noise from an air-conditioner must meet assigned allowable noise levels at all times. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 sets penalties for non-compliance with the Regulations and the installer of a noisy air-conditioner can face penalties of up to $5,000 under Section 80 of the Act. Refer to Department of Environmental Protection document–“An Installers Guide to Air Conditioner Noise”. CARRIED 5:0


T74. REPORTS OF OFFICERS – STRATEGIC PLANNING T74.1 Review of Local Planning Strategy & Town Planning Scheme No. 3

By Jamie Douglas, Manager – Planning Services on 23 June 2014 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report provides advice on the outcomes from the recent Community Engagement Program which was undertaken to gain the community’s views on the Planning Review. The Review consists of two parts:

- Revision of the Local Planning Strategy which is the Town’s principal strategic planning document and

- Amendment 10 to the Town Planning Scheme No.3 which is an omnibus series of amendments to update and revise the statutory planning provisions of the Scheme to give effect to the revised LPS.

The community’s views on the various issues and support/objection to the elements of the revised LPS are summarised and the proposed responses to the various written submissions on Amendment 10 are attached. ATTACHMENTS (1 & 2) BACKGROUND The Commu nity Engagement Program consisted of six key consultative events based around the concept of temporary displays for a two-hour period at various activity nodes throughout East Fremantle or at venues where East Fremantle residents visit from 15 March – 25 March 2014. In addition a variety of media and press advertisements, a printed information brochure and online web presence were available to the community to provide comments until 11 April 2014.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


The Program consisted of: Temporary Displays Manned displays of two hours each occurred at six venues between 15 – 25 March 2014. Communications A variety of communication media was employed as follows: 1. Community Information Brochure | ‘Respecting the Past’ - Insert in Herald

Newspaper 15 March 2014. 2. Community Feedback Form - Available online (download & Survey Monkey link) and

paper forms available from Council Administration and Glyde-In Community Centre. 3. Advertisements - Herald newspaper - 8, 15 & 22 March. Gazette newspaper – 11 &

18 March. 4. Community Letters - Sent to all community groups on 13 March 2013. 5. Web Site (www.eastfremantle.wa.gov.au) - The Town’s website was uploaded with

relevant Reports: Local Planning Strategy, Scheme Amendment 10 & Map available for download from website.

6. Pop Up Banners - Have Your Say - Proposed LPS Map. Results of Community Engagement Program A full report on the Community Engagement Program and its outcomes is attached. The following graphs summarise the outcomes from the response sheets and comments received in respect to the proposed scheme changes and revised LPS. ATTACHMENT (2) A total of 134 responses were received which are summarised as follows:


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Written Submissions to Proposed Scheme Changes A total of nine written submissions were received in respect to the proposed Scheme Amendment 10. The attached table presents a summary of the submissions and the proposed response and further work which will be required. ATTACHMENT (1)


1 July 2014 MINUTES


As can be seen some of the submissions are extensive and have been prepared by Town Planning Consultants on behalf of various landowners. They provide good guidance for additional investigations and analysis to inform the review process. Other town planning issues raised in the Comment forms: 1. Restoration of the Royal George Hotel. Response Analysis of the planning and development requirements for the Hotel site be undertaken with a view of encouraging the refurbishment and re---use of the hotel.

CONCLUSION The initial round of consultation has identified a number of issues for further investigation and analysis. The outcomes from this investigation and analysis and proposed changes to the draft scheme amendment 10 will be the subject of subsequent reports to the Committee. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the report be received.

Mayor O’Neill left the meeting at 8:29pm.

T75. ADJOURNMENT Cr Martin – Cr Handcock That the meeting be adjourned at 8:31pm. CARRIED

T76. RESUMPTION Cr Martin – Cr Handcock That the meeting be resumed at 8:35pm with all those present at the adjournment in attendance including Mayor O’Neill. CARRIED

T77. REPORTS OF OFFICERS – STRATEGIC PLANNING (CONT) T77.1 Review of Local Planning Strategy & Town Planning Scheme No. 3

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Cr Collinson – Cr Amor It is recommended that the report be received. CARRIED

T77.2 Restoration of “Old Police Station”

By Jamie Douglas Manager Planning Services on 6 June 2014 BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the restoration of the former Police Station and consider further work requirements. SCHEDULE OF WORKS Conservation Plan The Conservation Plan undertaken for the place by Phillip Griffiths Architects identified the following Urgent and desired works. Urgent Works (to be undertaken within 1 to 3 years)

Police Station (fmr)

- Strip back all exposed steel lintels, rust treat and repaint.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


- Remove asbestos cement cladding to western verandah and replace with timber weatherboards if enclosure is still required.

- Remove laundry complete, if no longer required, after recording.

- Remove and replace timber panels in front door with matching panels.

- Remove applied repairs to front door sill and repair using traditional methods.

- Remove existing roof sheeting, rainwater goods, roof plumbing, and flashings (if necessary), and replace with like materials (Z600 Custom Orb profile sheeting in short length sheets, Ogee profile gutters, circular downpipes and pgi flashings, etc).

- Remove television aerial from roof.

- Remove roof light, if no longer required.

- Remove air-conditioning ducts from roof, if no longer required.

- Service all windows to working condition, re-putty and repaint on completion.

- Remove two acoustic windows and reinstate double-hung sash windows to west elevation.

- Repair damaged stone near rear of building.

- Strip finishes off all floors, check for termite damage, repair floors, fit missing fillets and quads, and re-finish floors.

- Strip carpets and chipboard lining off walls, repair plaster and repaint.

- Remove bracket over front door in hall.

- Replenish spandrel to front verandah.

- Remove main telephone distribution board in office (Room 5) and make good wall.

Lock Up

- Service Lock Up doors.

Desirable Works – Works to be undertaken within Four to Seven Years : The Place as a Whole

- Complete site landscaping works and replace planting losses.

- Assess effect of site interpretation and upgrade as necessary.

- Complete Interpretation Works. Works Completed

The following is a list of restoration works (drawn from the financial data base) undertaken during the financial year 2013/2014.

- Chimney repointing

- New roof sheeting and associated gutters to police station, rear toilet and cell block

- Renew and re-wire old police station building. Install new switchboard and cabling to entire building. Install smoke alarms

- Clean and restore limestone block work and brickwork and complete re-pointing

- All exterior timber work including removal of existing coatings and repainting

- Interior painting to passage, kitchen and 2 rear rooms


1 July 2014 MINUTES


Works Programmed

The following works are planned or initiated in this financial year.

- Clean and restore limestone block work and brickwork, rear and west wall (underway)

- Reinstate front garden landscaping (commence June/July)

Outstanding Works Identified in the Conservation Plan and/or Necessary to Complete Fit-out for Occupation

- Repair broken plaster and re-plaster walls and ceilings (2) front rooms and rear storage room – apply coatings

- Remove sound proofing materials and patch walls in the old radio room – apply coatings

- Install lights in unfinished rooms – (2) front rooms and old radio room and fit out electrics and computer network (as required)

- Renew cistern in rear toilet

- Repair floor and replace coverings as indicated

- Fit out and furnish to address identified future use

- Remove bracket over front door DISCUSSION The urgent and priority works identified in the Conservation Plan have now been completed. The old Police Station building is now weather tight and secure and identified hazards have been addressed and alarms installed. The external aesthetics of the building have been substantially improved by the cleaning of the limestone, re-pointing, repainting and re-roofing. The landscape works which will include the construction of a picket fence to replace the existing ring lock one and the establishment of a cottage garden will further improve the appearance and implement identified conservation works. It is appropriate at this time to consider the programming of further works in light of the existing use of the building, the potential amalgamation and possible future uses of the building. A budget allocation of $150,000 is proposed for fiscal 2014/15 to complete the outstanding works and fit out. The building is currently used for file archives and storage. The file archive consists mainly of building and planning files and accordingly it is necessary they be reasonably accessible to Council offices as archive searches are routinely requested by property owners and developers. There is no readily available area for storage of these files within the Town Hall. For further internal works to occur it will be necessary to empty the building. As there is no ready alternative storage available at this time and given the probable pending amalgamation it seems impractical to move these files twice within a twelve month period. In short, it is considered appropriate to defer further works pending the amalgamation decision, noting that it is that decision which will identify the probable future use of the building which is necessary in order to inform the fit out of the building. CONCLUSION In light of the following it is considered that further works (that are not already programmed) on the building should not proceed at this time. Accordingly the residual and planned budget allocations should be redirected to other capital works.

· External works and selected internal works identified as priorities in the Conservation Plan are complete.

· It will be necessary to empty the building to allow further internal works. No ready practical storage alternative exists at this time.


1 July 2014 MINUTES


· The probable amalgamation will impact upon the future use of the Town Hall/Police Station Precinct.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and that further internal works on the former Police Station should not proceed at this time. The residual and planned budget allocations should be redirected to other capital works projects. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Cr Collinson – Cr Amor It is recommended that the officer’s report be received and the matter be listed for discussion at the September meeting of the Town Planning & Building Committee following a decision on Amalgamation. CARRIED

T78. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Nil.

T79. URGENT BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE BY PERMISSION OF THE MEETING Nil.

T80. CLOSURE OF MEETING There being no further business the meeting closed at 8:51pm.

I hereby certify that the Minutes of the meeting of the Town Planning & Building Committee of the Town of East Fremantle, held on 1 July 2014, Minute Book reference T66. to T80. were confirmed at the meeting of the Committee on

.................................................. Presiding Member

town planning & building committee · cr amor made the following impartiality declaration in...

Documents