PSC Agenda 03 August 2011 · 2018. 3. 8. · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 3 August 2011 Page 3 On 27 July 2011, the item was presented before a full Council who resolved to

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 August 2011,6.00 pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

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

Wednesday, 3 August 2011 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street,

Fremantle (access via stairs, opposite Myer) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Philip St John DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 29 July 2011

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 20 July 2011 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1108-138 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEFERRED ITEM - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (JWJ DA0071/11) 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 8

PSC1107-139 HIGH STREET NO.59 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE – CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR AND INTERNAL ALTERAITONS TO AN EXISTING SHOP (MS DA0165/11) 8

PSC1107-140 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARDENO.11 (LOO 1), NORTH FREMANTLE – AMENDMENT TO PLANNING CONDITION NO.9 FOR DA715/07 (JL DA0154/11) 18

PSC1107-141 SHEPHERD STREET NO.83 (LOT 65), BEACONSFIELD – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0283/11) 29

PSC1107-142 STIRLING HIGHWAY NO.108 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE – REBUILDING AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING LIMESTONE WALL (JL DA0258/11) 34

PSC1107-143 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 43

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 44

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 44

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1108-138 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEFERRED ITEM - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (JWJ DA0071/11) 3

PSC1107-139 HIGH STREET NO.59 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE – CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR AND INTERNAL ALTERAITONS TO AN EXISTING SHOP (MS DA0165/11) 9

PSC1107-140 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARDENO.11 (LOO 1), NORTH FREMANTLE – AMENDMENT TO PLANNING CONDITION NO.9 FOR DA715/07 (JL DA0154/11) 17

PSC1107-141 SHEPHERD STREET NO.83 (LOT 65), BEACONSFIELD – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0283/11) 35

PSC1107-142 STIRLING HIGHWAY NO.108 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE – REBUILDING AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING LIMESTONE WALL (JL DA0258/11) 40

PSC1107-143 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 66

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 3 August 2011

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1108-138 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEFERRED ITEM - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (JWJ DA0071/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2011 Planning Service Committee Meeting

(previously considered on the 20 July 2011 and 27 July 2001 Planning Service Committee Meeting and Council Meeting)

Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1007-136 (July 2010) - Restaurant Attachment 1: Development Plans (February & April 2011) Date Received: 15 February 2011 Owner Name: Umberto Ricciardi Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted by: L & N Ford Scheme: Mixed Use R30 Heritage Listing: Historic / Archaeological Site - Demolished Existing Landuse: Entertainment Use Class: Restaurant Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its ordinary meeting dated 27 July 2011, Council resolved to defer this application. The application is again presented before Planning Services Committee (the Committee) as the City has received submissions against the development which have raised concerns that cannot be dealt with via planning conditions. The applicant is proposing the: Relocation of the unauthorised exhaust fan from the centre of eastern facing

roof plane to northern Silver Street side; Exhaust fan to be 2.38m in height above the roof and be 900mm wide at top; Proposed coffee roaster flue approximately 1.5m in height above the roof

located on south eastern side of roof; Proposed 3 x exhaust outlets for new ablutions approximately 400mm in height

outlets located on south eastern corner of roof; Internal alterations to the existing building; Modifications to existing cool room. The application is considered to satisfy the objectives of the ‘Mixed Use’ zone and is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Mixed Use in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R30. The site is located within Sub Area 4.3.4 of South Fremantle Local Planning Area in accordance with Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Historic / Archaeological Site relating to a previously demolished building. The site is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Precinct which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The site is improved by an existing single storey commercial building which currently incorporates an approved Restaurant use (refer DA0196/10 & VA0023/10). Vehicle access and parking is provided to the site from Silver Street (secondary street) to the rear. In January 2011, the City received complaints from adjoining residents regarding noise and odour emitted from the Restaurant operating on site. The complaints related to an unauthorised exhaust fan located in the centre of the eastern facing roof plane of the building. The applicant was subsequently advised that a planning application was required to be submitted to the City pertaining to the exhaust fan. Subsequently a planning application was received by the City on 15 February 2011 seeking retrospective approval for the unauthorised exhaust fan to the existing Restaurant. On 20 July 2011 the application was presented before PSC meeting which resolved to put the report to full Council with an additional advice note, inviting the applicant to consider increasing the height of the subject exhaust fan.


Page 3

On 27 July 2011, the item was presented before a full Council who resolved to defer the item in order to consider increasing the height of the exhaust. The applicant advised on 28 July 2011 that they were not willing to increase the height of the exhaust. DETAILS On 15 February 2011, the City received an application for retrospective approval for unauthorised exhaust fan addition to the eastern roof plane of the existing building at No. 258 South Terrace, South Fremantle. On 20 April 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans to relocate the unauthorised exhaust fan closer to Silver Street (north) subsequent to discussions with the City officers. The proposal incorporates the following: Relocation of the unauthorised exhaust fan from centre of eastern facing roof plane to

northern Silver Street side; Exhaust fan to be 2.38m in height above the roof and be 900mm wide at top; Proposed coffee roaster flue approximately 1.5m in height above the roof located on

south eastern side of roof; Proposed 3 x exhaust outlets for new ablutions approximately 400mm in height

outlets located on south eastern corner of roof; Internal alterations to the existing building; Modifications to existing cool room. Since the applicant has submitted the planning application for the above works, a separate application has been received for a partial change of use to ‘Light Industry’ (Coffee Roasting) and the associated position of the coffee flue. On this basis, a condition will be included recommending the coffee roaster be deleted from this proposal and determined as a separate matter. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to the report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 May 2011, the City had received four submissions. The following issues were raised: Objection to existing location of exhaust fan: Odours emitted from exhaust fan impact on amenity of southern adjoining properties

(residential and commercial complex); Exhaust fan in line with balconies; ‘Sticky substance’ film on balconies;


Page 4

Proposed relocation of exhaust fan to Silver Street side of roof supported:

However, relocation not considered to make sufficient difference from odours emitted; Suggest height of exhaust fan be increased so not as same level as balconies on

southern adjoining properties;

Objection to current noise emission from cool room motor Request sound reduction or relocation due to noise levels emitted at night;

Objection to noise emitted from kitchen exhaust when not turned off at close of business at night. Environmental Health Concerns were received regarding the potential issues associated with noise from the operation of the premise and further noise and fumes associated with the exhaust fan located on site. With concerns of this nature it should be noted that there are inherent environmental health regulations that the premise is required to adhere to, thereby should issues arise the operation will be monitored to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations. Notwithstanding, the proposal was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department in order to identify and ameliorate the possibility of any ongoing matters in relation to noise and dour. The Environmental Health department indicated the existing location and proposed relocation of the exhaust fan is consistent with the relevant Environmental Health requirements in regard to odour; furthermore the relocation will significantly reduce any impacts associated with noise emitting from the exhaust fan. It was further indicated that noise associated with the cool room will be attenuated through the enclosure of this area proposed as a part of this application. Accordingly no issues were identified in relation to the relevant Environmental Health requirements associated with the proposal.


Page 5

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 Permitted Development External fixtures such as exhaust fans or exhaust outlets are classified ‘Permitted Development’ in accordance with Schedule 15 of LPS4 in circumstances where fixed to a plane of the roof facing a rear or side boundary (excluding a secondary street) and not projecting more than 1m above the roof where it is fixed, and not more than 2m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point. On this basis, the exhaust outlets located on the south eastern corner of the roof constitute ‘Permitted Development’ and do not require the approval of Council. The exhaust fan proposed to be relocated to the northern side of the eastern facing roof plane is not permitted under schedule 15 of LPS4, and requires the approval of the council. Objectives of the Mixed Use zone The proposed relocation of the existing exhaust fan along with the proposed exhaust outlets are to satisfy the objectives of the mixed use zone. The objectives of the mixed use zone are as follows:

Development within the mixed use zone shall—

(i) provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (ie. showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation,

(ii) ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area,

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

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

Note: Objective (iv) derived from Part 4.2 B1.1 of Fremantle Planning Strategy.

The assessment against the objectives of the Mixed Use zone will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 6

Local Planning Policy L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Clause 4.5 of L.P.P1.5 states that in addition to the City giving a written warning pertaining to unauthorised works, (Clause 4.2), ‘an infringement notice shall be issued as soon as possible after the offence has been committed, but in any event, must be given within 6 months after the alleged offence is believed to have been committed’. As it has been more than 6 months since the City was made aware of the unauthorised exhaust fan Council cannot issue an infringement notice in accordance with Section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, as prescribed by Council’s L.P.P1.5. PLANNING COMMENT

Of the objectives of the Mixed Use zone, it is considered that the Council be satisfied that the proposal satisfy the following objective of the Mixed Use Zone.

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

Given that the application has arisen as a result of complaints received by the adjoining properties, along with comment being provided raising points of concern throughout the consultation period, it is important Council is satisfied that the proposal satisfied this objective of the Mixed Use Zone. As discussed previously, the City’s Environmental Health Department have reviewed the proposed relation of the exhaust fan, along with the other alterations proposed as a part of this proposal and have indicated that the proposal is compliant with the relevant environmental health standards. Furthermore, given the exhaust fan is being relocated further from the closest adjoining property it is considered that any existing impacts on the adjoining properties will be minimised.


Page 7

CONCLUSION Whilst a number of concerns have been conveyed in relation potential for issues arising as a result of the proposed relocation of the exhaust fan, it is important to note that there is an existing regulatory framework external to planning control to deal issues such as odour and noise. As previously discussed, concerns raised in respect to issues that are not matters that relate to planning are dealt with through other statutory frameworks. To this end, it is fundamental that the Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone and that the proposal is not likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. Given such fixtures are mandatory in the operation of a premises of this nature, and that such premises is considered to be synonymous with a Mixed Use zone it is considered that the proposal in its current form, being satisfactory to the City’s Environmental Health Services is a positive outcome. The proposal will alleviate detriment to the adjoining properties whilst maintaining the operation of the premises in accordance with the appropriate environmental health standards. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Relocation of unauthorised exhaust fan to Existing Restaurant at No. 258 (Lot 309) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the Relocation of unauthorised exhaust fan to

Existing Restaurant as indicated on the approved plans dated 15 February 2011 and 21 April 2011 with only such minor modifications as approved by the Manager Development Services. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The ‘Coffee Roaster Flue” indicated on the proposed plans does not form part

of this approval. 3. The relocation of the exhaust fan is to be undertaken within 60 days from the

date of the approval letter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 8

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1107-139 HIGH STREET NO.59 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE – CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR AND INTERNAL ALTERAITONS TO AN EXISTING SHOP (MS DA0165/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2011 – Planning Services Committee Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Advice Date Received: 9 April 2011 Owner Name: Rely Investments Pty Ltd Submitted by: As Above Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Management Category Level 2 Existing Landuse: Shop Proposed Use: Small Bar Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before Planning Services Committee as a number of submissions have been received throughout the consultation raising concern in relation to the proposal that are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for Alterations and Additions to an existing Shop and for a change of use to a ‘Small Bar’ at No.59 High Street, Fremantle. The proposal has been referred to external Heritage Consultants and the City’s Environmental Health Department for comment. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located on the south-western side of the intersection of High Street Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The site is comprised of a two storey heritage listed premises which is currently used for the purpose of a shop. The site is zoned City Centre under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area. The site listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 2, and is further located within West End Conservation Area, which a designated Heritage Area in accordance with Clause 7.2 of LPS4. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for a change of use to a ‘Small Bar’, which is to operate from No.59 High Street, Fremantle. The application does not involve any structural changes to the building but will include internal fit-out for the ground floor of the premises, along with the addition of external fixtures to the southern elevation of the building. The proposed Small Bar is to operate from 6:00am till 12:00pm. A ‘Small Bar’ license differs from hotel and tavern licenses by conditions imposed by the Department of Liquor Racing and Gaming to restrict such a use. Restrictions include the prohibition of the sale of packaged liquor and a limitation on the number of people who may be on the premises at any one time to a maximum of 120. The applicant is also proposing the service of food to accompany the service of alcohol. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 10

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Change of Use A small bar is an ‘A’ use in the city centre zone, which means that the use is not permitted unless the council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving notice in accordance with clause 9.4 of Local Planning Scheme No.4. Car Parking In accordance with the City’s LPS4, there are no specific parking requirements for the use of a ‘Small Bar’. As a result, Clause 5.7.1(c) states that ‘where parking provisions are not prescribed for a particular use the requirement will be determined by Council’. The parking standard used in the determination of previous applications for a Small Bar is as per the requirements of a hotel/ tavern and restaurant, being one bay per five square metres of lounge area (see Table 3 of LPS4). The patron area of the proposed Small Bar is 76m2 therefore the required car parking provision is 16 bays in accordance with Table 3 of LPS4. The applicant is has not proposed any parking to be provided on site in association with the proposed use. Accordingly the proposed shortfall of parking bays will be assessed against the criteria of Clause 5.7.3. D.B.U6 Late Night Entertainment Venues Serving Alcohol In regard to the location of late night venues, the City’s D.B.U6 states that the: “Proximity of proposed late night entertainment facilities (serving alcohol) to residential development shall form a significant part of the assessment of the applications as, in general, Council does not support proposals which may encourage conflict between land uses”. The location of the proposed small bar is within close proximity to a number of residential units, therefore in order for the use to satisfy the objectives of D.B.U6, any potential between the proposed use and the adjacent residential uses should be mitigated. Clause 1.3 of D.B.U6 states that the use of late night facilities shall have condition included pertaining the to the proposal satisfying the Environmental Health and Noise Abatement regulations so as to circumvent conflict between uses of this nature and residential uses. The Environmental Health requirements in regard to noise abatement are inherent for any use, therefore it is considered that the application of a planning condition is not appropriate in this circumstance.


Page 11

CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period being the 8 July 2011, 10 submitters provided comment in relation to the proposal. Of the submissions, eight raised concerns with the proposal, two were in support of the proposal. The content of the submissions is summarised below: Submissions objecting to the proposal:

Strong objection to the operating hours of the business, not encouraging foot traffic

for High Street during daytime business hours and therefore resulting in a negative impact on local retail;

Concerns associated with parking; Negative impact with the removal of streetscape interaction until 6pm; Potential non-compliance with the Environmental Health Regulations in relation to

noise, particularly in relation for the absence of acoustic treatment between proposed site and first floor residential uses of the subject site (note that a submitter has provided an independent acoustic report that has been reviewed by the City’s Environmental Health Services. Detailed comment on this issue is provided in the “submitter concerns’ section of this report);

Proposed use incongruent with the predominant residential development of Pakenham Street and surrounds;

Concerns regarding anti social behavior (Damage to property, Vomiting, Urination); Concern in relation to rubbish disposal; Submissions in support of the proposal:

In principle support expressed for the use subject to daytime operation; In principle for the proposed use subject to the proposal satisfying the Environmental

Health Act pertaining to noise along with the City’s D.B.U6 Late Night Entertainment Venues Serving Alcohol;

Proposal to bring diversity to area and increase activation of the street. The content of the enclosed submissions is discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 12

Heritage The proposal was referred to an external heritage consultant for comment as per the City’s Local Planning Policy L.P.P1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments the external consultant provided the following comment in relation to the proposal: “The proposed changes will have no impact on the heritage significance either positive or negative. The change is unlikely to have a permanent negative impact on the heritage values. Though construction drawings have not been viewed the general approach seems to be aimed at low impact and reversibility”. The content of the expert heritage advice is discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT Change of Use The objectives of the City Centre zone are outlined below: Development within the city centre zone shall – (i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation,

entertainment, and community services, consistent with the region serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of Schedule 12, (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development. The objective of the zone specifically identifies the need for office, social and entertainment uses within the city centre to contribute to its region serving role. The scheme further serves to ensure that a proposal contribute to the diversity of uses within the city centre. It is considered that the proposal will offer greater diversity to the existing entertainment venues on offer within the City Centre and thereby anticipated to make a contribution to the regional serving role of the City. The proposal does not involve any increase in height to the existing building, being consistent with the height requirements outlined within planning area 1 of Schedule 12; furthermore, the proposal has been supported on heritage ground (see above). On this basis, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the City Centre Zone.


Page 13

Parking As discussed previously, the applicant is proposing a shortfall of 16 parking bays. As a result, the parking shortfall is required to be assessed in accordance with clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Clause 5.7.3 states that Council may waive or reduce the standard parking requirements outlined in Table 3 on the basis of the proposal satisfying one or more of the criteria outlined within clause 5.7.3(a). Of the criteria listed within clause 5.7.3, the proposal is considered to satisfy a number of criteria, particularly sub-clause (ii) which states as follows: “the availability of parking within the locality, including street parking” Within close proximity to the subject site are two parking areas located on Pakenham Street, there are also a number of street bays along Pakenham and High Street and the subject site is within close proximity to the parking complex located on Collie Street. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is also located within close proximity to Fremantle Train Station (approximately 500m walking distance) and is also located within close proximity to stop 21 of the Fremantle CAT service. In regard to the provision of Cash in lieu of car parking, DBM7 Cash-in-lieu of car parking policy (DBM 7) contains provisions where a portion or the entire car-parking requirement is: not proposed to be provided on site; or is deemed by Council to be inappropriate (having regard to clause 60 of the

rescinded Town Planning Scheme 3 (TPS3);

‘the developer shall be required to provide cash-in-lieu of car parking for the number of parking bays not provided on the development site.’

Clause 60 of TPS3 states:

‘Before deciding to vary the car parking requirements the Council shall take into consideration:

(a) the effect of the proposed development on parking demand in the locality,

having due regard to the availability of alternative parking space and possible future developments;

(b) any unusual or irregular condition relating to the shape or size of the subject lot or any adjoining lot; and

(c) the effect on buildings and objects worthy of conservation, and on the streetscape.’

As mentioned previously, the effect of the proposed change of use is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality in relation to car parking. There is a significant amount of alternative parking available within the direct proximity to the site.


Page 14

Given the proposal satisfies a number of alternative criteria outlined within clause 5.7.3, cash in lieu for car parking contribution is not recommended to be included as a condition of Planning Approval in this instance. Accordingly the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Submitter concerns Whilst a number of concerns have been raised in regard to the proposal, it is important that a distinction is made between matters that are dealt with through planning, and those that are dealt with through other regulatory practice. The concerns raised in respect to the proposal are addressed below: Environmental Health Issues (noise, odours, waste management and patron numbers) Concerns were received regarding the potential issues with noise from the operation of the premise, further noise and fumes associated with the exhaust fan located on site, patron numbers and the waste management of the premise. With concerns of this nature should it be noted that there are inherent environmental health regulations that the premise is required to adhere to, thereby should issues arise the operation will be monitored to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations. Furthermore, the application was referred internally to the City’s Environmental Health Department who provided the following comments: That in the current form of the application, and with information already submitted in

relation to acoustics, the business will not be able to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

That in the current form of the application to be compliant with the Environmental

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, it would require extensive works in acoustic panelling, sound attenuation both internally and externally and include vibration protection and attenuation,

Similar issues have and are currently being undertaken where noise from businesses

in lower floors are impacting heavily with upper floor residencies due to activities as slight as walking on wooden floors,

With the area of the bin store, if it was to be located externally to the building it will

required to have a constructed bin store as per the requirements of the Health Local Laws (eg constructed bin store) or if located internally it will be required to be constructed in accordance with AS 4674:2004, this would require the bin store to be constructed to a high standard similar to that of a coolroom and be able to be sealed off from the rest of the business and drained to sewer, and

With this in mind the application if passed by Council, will not be passed by Health

Services or receive a building licence without Health Services approval.


Page 15

In its current form, if the application were to be approved by Council, alterations would need to be carried out in order for the development to comply with the prescribed environmental health regulations regarding noise and waste management. Therefore taking the above comments into consideration, Council could be inclined to defer the application requiring further amendments and additional information to address these environmental health issues. If Council believe the application is generally supportable in its current form a planning condition could be imposed on this approval requiring the applicant to submit a subsequent planning application under clause 10.8 of LPS4, outlining detailed design amendments and additional information addressing the City’s above environmental health department concerns. An appropriate advice note is also included requiring that the applicant liaise with the City’s Environmental Health Department in regard to the above. Alternatively if Council consider that the environmental health issues are too significant to warrant approving the application in its current form, the proposal could be refused. For the reasons stated above however, it is considered that the environmental health concerns can be overcome through appropriate design modifications therefore condition approval is recommended. Anti Social Behaviour A number of concerns have been received in regard to anti social behaviour that may be associated with the premise. The applicant, should the change of use be approved, is likely to apply for a Liquor License for a Small Bar. Through the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor (DRGL), there are a number of conditions that will be imposed on the service of alcohol that are more onerous than those associated with a venue like a tavern or nightclub. Likewise there are inherent regulations that a licensee is to observe, should issues arise associated with the service of alcohol, the Department of Liquor Racing and Gaming will deal them with under the Liquor Licensing Act. Strata Issues The applicant has not gained strata approval from the body corporate for the services that are proposed on the external southern elevation of the building on site that protrude into the common property access area or the proposed external bin storage area located within the common property at the rear of site. Given the necessary strata approvals have not been sought for these services and additions a condition of approval will be included deleting these components from the proposal. Other issues Some issues raised in submissions are not matters relevant to the consideration of a development application. These include: functionality of adjoining properties balconies and terraces, and future change of ownership


Page 16

CONCLUSION Whilst a number of concerns have been conveyed in relation potential for issues arising as a result of the proposed change of use, it is important to note that there is an existing regulatory framework external to planning control to deal issues such as noise, antisocial behaviour and waste management. Accordingly it is imperative that the requirements be observed in order to avert future issues arising from the premises. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the planning requirements encompassed within the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. It is considered proposal will act to strengthen the region serving role of the city centre in providing for a type of use that is largely underrepresented within the West End, facilitating a more comprehensive array of uses which will in turn contribute to the vitality of the City Centre as a whole. On this basis, it is considered that a refusal is not warranted in this circumstance. Based on concerns related to noise, a condition of approval will be included to require that the applicant submit a subsequent planning application to the City in accordance with Clause 10.8 of Local Planning Scheme No.4, to detail the internal alterations required for the proposed internal bin storage area, detail associated with noise attenuation measures, including a qualified Noise Consultants report confirming compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and internal/external design measures proposed to address sound attenuation both internally and externally and to include vibration protection and attenuation. If these matters can be resolved prior to the commencement of works, the potential issues associated with environmental health requirements can be mitigated.

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to Small Bar and Internal Alterations to existing Shop at No.59 (Lot 8) High Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

development plans dated 9 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The Small Bar hours of operation are limited between 6:00 am to 12:00 midnight.

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

4. This approval does not include the minor structures on the external southern elevation or any building on site or any development, including external bin storage area within common property areas of site.

5. Prior to commencement of works, the applicant shall submit a subsequent planning application to the City of Fremantle for approval in accordance with


Page 17

Clause 10.8 of Local Planning Scheme No.4, that addresses the following matters:

a) Internal alterations for the proposed internal bin storage area,

b) Noise attenuation measures, including a qualified Noise Consultants report confirming compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and

c) Internal and external design measures proposed to address sound attenuation both internally and externally and include vibration protection and attenuation.

Advice Note(s):

i. The applicant is advised to liaise with the City of Fremantle, Environmental Health Department regarding specific noise and waste management requirements in relation to condition No.5.


Page 18

PSC1107-140 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARDENO.11 (LOO 1), NORTH FREMANTLE – AMENDMENT TO PLANNING CONDITION NO.9 FOR DA715/07 (JL DA0154/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Planning Service Committee (PSC) Meeting 3 August

2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA715/07 – PSC Meeting 5 March 2008 Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Applicants Justification Attachment 3: Leighton Design Advisory Committee Comments Date Received: 1 April 2011 Owner Name: Leighton Shores Pty Ltd Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Development Zone / Development Area 5 Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Multiple Dwelling


Page 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The matter is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as it involves varying conditions associated with a development previously approved by PSC and due to requirements of LPP 1.5 – Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance that requires a resolution of the Committee to not take any further compliance action. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for amendments to condition No.6 and 9 for DA715/07. The application includes the relocation of air-conditioning condensing units to the roof top of the existing building and variations to several ‘Sustainable Design Initiatives’ approved as part of original approved development on site (DA715/07). The proposal is considered consistent with the relevant provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes 2010 (RDC) and Council’s relevant local planning policies. In relation to compliance action, it is considered that the matter generally meets the 3 criteria of the Compliance Policy (LPP1.5) detailing the circumstances where Council may take no further compliance action (uncertainty, insignificant and other). On this basis it is recommended that Council not pursue the matter further. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Development Zone – Development Area 5 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The property is not listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Precinct which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 6533m2 and is located at No. 11 (No. 1) Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle. The site is located within the Leighton Beach Development Area. A review of the property file has found the following relevant planning background: On 12 March 2008, the City granted Planning Approval for the construction of a Three Storey Multiple Dwelling Development at No. 3 (Lot 1) Walter Place, North Fremantle (DA715/07), which is currently under construction. In mid August 2010, the applicants contacted the City of Fremantle regarding possible variations regarding conditions No.6 and 9 for DA715/07. Conditions No.6 & 9 reads as follows:

6. All air conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment shall be located to be not visible from the adjoining streets and open space.


Page 20

9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the sustainability initiatives listed within the document ‘Leighton Shores lot 1 – Review of environmental sustainable design initiatives’ date stamped 1 February 2008 and within the development application document dated December 2007, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

The City liaised with the Leighton Design Advisory Committee (LDRC) regarding the proposed variations, and LDRC raised numerous concerns regarding compliance matters with the above conditions of DA715/07. Early November, the applicant was advised that a formal planning application would need to be submitted for the proposed variations. DETAIL OF WORKS On 1 April 2011, the applicant lodged a planning application seeking Council’s approval to vary 5 of the approved ‘Environmental Sustainability Design Initiatives dated 1 February 2008, forming part of DA715/07. All ‘Environmental Sustainability Design Initiatives’ approved as part of DA715/07 have been complied with apart from the following: Initiative Number

Description

3 Position air conditioning condensing units in basement 4 Inclusion of high level vents per apartment to assist with cross ventilation 5 Automation of cross ventilation vents on time activated switch 6 Painting of basement car park in white paint to reduce car parking lighting

requirements 22 Gas instantaneous hot water systems On 8 July 2011, the applicant submitted additional information justifying the above variations from the approved ‘Environmental Sustainability Design Initiatives’. See ‘Attachment 2’ of the report for a copy of the applicant justification. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

City of Fremantle Planning Scheme No. 4 Clause 11.4.1 states that:

A person must not contravene or fail to comply with the provisions of the Scheme LPP 1.5 – Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance (the policy)


Page 21

Clause 1.1 of the policy states:

In addition to the specific criteria set out in this policy, Council, in determining whether to take compliance action, shall have regard to the following general criteria: (a) Whether it is in the public interest of the proper and orderly development

and use of land that the applicable law(s) should generally be complied with;

(b) the impact of the contravention of the law on the effected locality and environment. This includes a consideration of whether the breach complained of is purely technical in nature which is unnoticeable other than to a person well versed in the relevant law;

(c) those factual circumstances in which the contravention of the law took place;

(d) the time which has elapsed since development was undertaken in contravention of the law, and

(e) the expense and inconvenience. Clause 2.3.1 - Uncertainty of Compliance, states that;

Where, after reasonable investigation, it is uncertain that a matter is compliant with planning or building requirements, or it is uncertain whether it is capable of enforcement owing to: (a) a lack of precision in the plans / documents of any relevant approval, or (b) a lack of certainty at the time of development as to the legal status of the

development or the requirement to obtain approval, or (c) any other legal consideration.

Clause 2.3.2 Matters considered Trivial or Insignificant, states that Council may, having regard to any legal or technical advice resolve to take no further compliance action in the following circumstances:

Where there is a breach of planning or building requirements and the matter may reasonably be considered trivial or insignificant. For the purposes of this policy, a matter will be considered to be trivial or insignificant only where the extent of the non-compliance is very minor to the point where the distinction between complying and not complying with the relevant legislation would be almost indistinguishable.

Clause 2.3.3 Other Circumstances, states that;

Where it has been established that a breach of planning or building requirements has occurred and that the breach is neither trivial nor insignificant, Council

following the consideration of a report, may determine not to take action where a matter meets all of the following criteria:


Page 22

(a) The breach is in relation to a fence, outbuilding, shade structure, external

fixture, air conditioner, or minor structure as defined in Schedule 1 of LPS4; and

(b) It can be established that the development the subject of the breach has been in existence for a substantial time period; and

(c) The development has no apparent impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, the streetscape, or the locality; and

(d) The development is, in the opinion of the Principal Building Surveyor, structurally sound.

In all other cases, compliance action will proceed in accordance with this policy and without further referral to Council.

Clause 4.6 states that:

(b) where an offence has occurred and a retrospective application for planning approval has been submitted within the required timeframe and subsequently approved.

An infringement notice shall be issued as soon as possible after the offence has been committed but in any event, must be given within 6 months after the alleged offence is believed to have been committed.

Where in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action instead of issuing an infringement notice, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution.

CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy. The proposal was not required to be advertised as the application did not meet the criteria outlined in L.P.P1.3 that determines if the application is considered ‘significant’. As the proposal did not meet this criteria, it was not required to be advertised. Leighton Design Advisory Committee (LDRC) The application was required to be referred to the Leighton Design Review Committee (LDRC) for comment. On 14 July 2011, LDRC responded with the following comments:


Page 23

History ‘During the early planning stages of the project, the LDRC & Multiplex compiled a list of 27 “Sustainable Design Initiatives” (SDI) for the development. Subsequent negotiations deleted 3 of these conditions, Items 10 (Grey water recycling) 11 (Fly ash in concrete) and 15 (Minimum use of aluminium) because they were unfeasible. Additionally an alternative solution to Item 11 (Positioning air conditioning condensing units in basement) has been determined at a later date, leaving 23 valid SDI,’ which has been considered acceptable by LDRC.

The comments below relate to the remaining 23 “Sustainable Design Initiatives” and how Multiplex has addressed these requirements

LDRC Response After consideration of the relevant 23 “Sustainable Design Initiatives” the LDRC is satisfied that Multiplex has generally complied with the identified conditions. Find attached a detailed response incorporating the Multiplex and LDRC reply to the SDI.

Non-compliant Items There are 4 items that have not achieved compliance. Whilst 3 of the 4 items offer acceptable solutions, there was concern about the omission of instantaneous gas HWS on the project. The LDRC chair has requested that where non-compliant, some form of ESD compensation offset the omitted items. The LDRC request the FCC to consider the matter. Find attached a detailed response incorporating the Multiplex and LDRC reply to the SDI, as part of ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

In summary, the applicant is seeking Council discretion to either delete or vary 5 (initiatives 3, 4, 5, 6 and 22) of the original approved 27 Sustainability Initiative as part of Condition No.9 for DA715/07. The applicant is proposing to delete initiative’s 4, 5 and 6, and vary initiative’s 3 and 22. As mentioned previously, 3 (initiative 10, 11 and 15) of the original approved 27 initiatives, based on further investigation were considered by LDRC to be ‘unfeasible’. For clarity purposes each sustainability initiative proposed to be varied will be assessed individually below. Condition No.6 for DA715/07 & Initiative No.3 – Position air conditioning condensing units in basement This initiative required the applicant to locate all air-conditioning condenser units to the basement floor of the original approved development. The applicant contacted the City August 2010 seeking advice as to the feasibility of locating the air conditioning units to the roof top of the development instead of the basement. The applicant argued at the time that by locating these units to the roof top there are significant energy efficient benefits, by reducing condenser pressure, fan power and reduced pipe work length. Overall it’s was estimated by the project engineers that the, ‘energy reduction over the life time of the system would be in the region of 10% with the roof location’. The air-


Page 24

conditioning condenser units have been relocated on the roof top and as such the applicant is seeking approval for this element of the development. This initiative is also directly associated with condition no.6 of DA715/07 which reads as follows: 6. All air conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and

equipment shall be located to be not visible from the adjoining streets and open space.

As part of the August 2010 correspondence between the City, LDRC and the applicant, visual sightline diagrams were submitted by the applicant in order to demonstrate compliance with condition no.6 of DA715/07. As result of preliminary discussion with the City and LDRC, the air conditioning units were not supported in their original configuration. Mid February 2011, the applicant met again with LDRC and the City to discuss possible alternatives regarding this matter. Concluding from the discussions a suitable option was agreed upon between LDRC and the applicant, which was to amalgamate the air-conditioning plant equipment to the roof on Block A and slightly recess the plant on the roof of Block B (refer Attachment 1 - Development Roof Plans). The air-conditioning units reside in this configuration today. LDRC have reviewed the development plans and, ‘whilst LDRC where concerned over the nature and circumstances that has lead the developers to request a change to their previous commitments the LDRC acknowledge the actual visual impact will be negligible to the overall outcome.’ However LDRC did recommend that the units be, ‘clustered together along the spine of the building with suitable vertical screening’. It is also important to note that these works are classified as ‘Permitted Development’ under the provisions of Clause 8.2 (n) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme (LPS4), and apart from needing to comply with previous conditions of planning approval for DA715/07, the prior approval of Council is not required. In relation to compliance with condition No.6 of DA715/07, a site inspection has confirmed to City Officers that these additions are not visible from adjoining streets and open space reserves. Additionally, with the installation of the proposed vertical screening, the level of visual impact on the immediate surroundings in-particular the adjoining southern property is considered to be minimal. Therefore, it’s considered that the development will comply with the provision of condition No.6 of DA715/07. Initiative No.4 – Inclusion of High level vents per apartment to assist with cross ventilation & Initiative No.5 – Full automation of cross ventilation vents on time activated switch


Page 25

In relation to these two initiatives the applicant argues that:

‘A controllable, automatic cross ventilation at high level was deemed a risk by the design and construction team in terms of local, prevailing conditions (wind and weather ingress). The intention of the sustainable initiative was hence developed by manually operable dual aspect arrangements to the apartments, providing a high level of reduced reliance on mechanical cooling coupled with excellent cross ventilation whilst offering occupants individual natural ventilation control of their own environment.’ ‘The manual operable control was deemed essential when consideration of local conditions were assessed and the design and construction team concurred that an effective natural ventilation solution provided a superior product in terms of energy efficiency, occupant comfort and improved internal environment quality.’

LDRC commented that although the alternative deign was not compliant with condition No.9 of DA715/07, the alternative measures were considered acceptable, as the majority of units have dual frontages and opening of the windows allowing adequate cross ventilation. Initiative No.6 – Painting of basement car park in white paint to reduce car parking lighting requirements In relation to this initiative the applicant argues that:

‘The basement lighting layout is generally based on a standard grid layout that would not have been altered should the walls have been painted white. For this reason and to significantly reduce the ongoing maintenance requirements, attention and action was focused on procuring low voltage luminaries which have now been adopted.’

Again LDRC commented stated that whilst not compliant the proposed works are an acceptable solution, ‘as painting the basement white would add significant maintenance requirements and painting the walls white alone would provide minimal reduction to the lighting requirement’. Furthermore, LDRC stated that, ‘painting the basement white is not a practical solution for the ongoing management/ maintenance of the building’. This initiative can be satisfied, if Council were of the opinion that it is needed. However taking the above comments into consideration, very little if any energy efficient gain is anticipated should this initiative be required. Initiative No.22 – Instantaneous Gas Hot Water Systems In relation to this initiative the applicant provided the following comments:

‘The use of Gas as a medium for heating water through the use of Gas Instantaneous Hot Water Units (IGHWS), is a more environmentally preferred option than the use of Electricity.


Page 26

In the Leighton Shores Apartment Complex, the issue of Instantaneous Gas Hot Water Units vs Electric Hot Water Units was thoroughly discussed but was eventually discarded for the following reasons;

The biggest obstacle to overcome with Gas Instantaneous Hot Water Units is Ventilation & Flueing of these units, particularly in multi-storey apartment buildings.

The location of these units proved challenging, once again due to ventilation & flueing – If located internally maximum length of flue is 9mtrs with a maximum of 3 bends on the flue. The HWU have a ‘power flue’ which must vent to atmosphere (incorporating all the venting/flue termination requirements of AS5601.1-2010.

The end of the Flue shall be a minimum of 500mm above the nearest part of the roof, at least 1.5mtrs from an opening into the building and at least 200mm from another flue (if the flue is penetrating a roof design for personal or public use the flue shall terminate at least 2mtrs above roof level).

The installation of these units on balconies is both aesthetically unpleasing, space consuming and there are also issues with flueing (in particular with balconies above).

There was the opportunity to provide the upper level apartments with Gas Instantaneous Hot Water Units but issues arose with sealing (weatherproofing) flues through the concrete roof.

LDRC commented stating that this is not compliant and ultimately is a less efficient outcome for the overall development. LDRC argue that the original design may have been able to ‘retrofit’ IGHWS’s, however the following constraints would have applied:

Increased installation costs, If positioned internally, an IGHWS unit requires venting & flueing with the duct

taking up apartment space. Furthermore, the various penetrations required for venting and flueing can create long term maintenance issues.

If positioned externally an IGHWS unit is likely to appear unsightly. Additionally most IGHWS manufactures recommend against external installation in a marine environment,

Additionally, there are statutory requirements that limit where these units can be installed.

LDRC concluded that IGHWS could have easily been incorporated in to the proposed design if taken into consideration prior to the commencement of works. Furthermore, LDRC stated that the most suitable Energy Sustainability Design (ESD) solution would have been to include a central gas fired plant with individual metering to units, however this is generally economical in development of 80 plus units. It must also be noted that this system is unable to be retro fitted into buildings. The chair of LDRC has requested that due to the non-compliance with this initiative, the City request some form of Energy Sustainability Design compensation to offset the omitted item. If Council is in agreement with the chair of LDRC, Council could impose a condition requiring the applicant to submit a subsequent planning application under the provision of Clause 10.8.1 of LPS4, proposing an alternative sustainability initiative in compensation for this variation or alternatively, Council could approve the development in its current form.


Page 27

However, as the applicant has failed to comply and provide a acceptable alternative sustainability initiative for item No.22 it recommended that Council require the applicant under Clause 10.8.1 to submit a subsequent planning application which includes a suitable alternative sustainability initiative in compensation for this variation. Furthermore, the applicant will be advised to liaise with City Officers and LDRC as to what alterative sustainability design solution is considered appropriate. Compliance Matters As stated previously, Council’s L.P.P1.5 policy states that a ‘trivial or insignificant’ matter is where the extent of the non-compliance is very minor to the point where the distinction between complying and not complying with the relevant legislation would be almost indistinguishable. Apart from the air-conditioning sustainability initiative No.3 of condition No.9 for DA715/07, all other requirements (Sustainability Initiatives 4, 5, 6 & 22) have either not been erected to date or are located internal to the development and consist of minor structures, making it very difficult to distinguish between compliance and not compliance with the original planning approval for DA0715/07 from the outside of the building. Furthermore, due to the ambiguous wording used for condition No.9 of DA715/07, it’s unknown as to what stage of the development these approved Energy Sustainability Design initiatives associated with condition No.9 are to be completed by. Therefore, it’s uncertain at this stage of the development, if a breach of the planning approval has occurred or not given the development is not completed nor currently occupied. Furthermore, the development could be considered to satisfy the specific requirements of Clause 2.3.3 of L.P.P1.5 as the potential planning breach is in relation to either air conditioners or minor structures, these structures have resided on site between 1 to 2 years, they are also not considered to have any amenity impacts on adjoining properties, the streetscape or the immediate locality of North Fremantle, and the development is considered to be structurally sound by the city. On this basis it is considered that the matter generally meets the 3 criteria of the Compliance Policy detailing the circumstances where Council may take no further compliance action. Therefore it is recommended that no further action be taken. Notwithstanding the above, Council may initiate legal action in accordance with Council’s L.P.P1.5 policy as initiatives 3, 4, 5 and 22 of condition No.9 have not yet been complied and are unlikely to be complied with in the future. However, as it’s uncertain as to whether or not a breach of planning approval has occurred in this instance, it’s not recommended that Council initiate legal action in this circumstance. If Council is of the opinion that non compliance has occurred and warrants legal action, the following is recommended to be included in Council’s resolution: B) AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle to issue an infringement

notice to the alleged offender in accordance with Councils L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance.


Page 28

CONCLUSION The development has been assessed against and is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Polices. In relation to compliance, the development is considered to meet the specific criteria of L.P.P1.5 clause 2.3.3, and therefore on this basis it’s recommended that Council take no further compliance action regarding these matters. The application is recommended for conditional approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

A) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Amendments to Planning Approval Condition No.9 for DA715/07 (Three Storey Multiple Dwelling Development) at No. 11 (Lot 1) Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

the approved plans dated 1 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Planning Approval Condition No.9 for DA715/07 granted 12 March 2008,

be deleted and the following condition be substituted in lieu thereof:

9. Except for item numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15 and 22, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the sustainability initiatives listed within the document ‘Leighton Shores lot 1 – Review of environmental sustainable design initiatives’ date stamped 1 February 2008 and within the development application document dated December 2007, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, prior to occupation.


4. Prior to any occupation of the development, the applicant shall submit a

subsequent planning application which includes an alternative sustainability design initiative for the deleted initiative No.22 of planning condition No.9 for DA715/07 to the City of Fremantle for approval in accordance with clause 10.8 of Local Planning Scheme No.4.


Page 29

PSC1107-141 SHEPHERD STREET NO.83 (LOT 65), BEACONSFIELD – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0283/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: Development Plans Date Received: 17 June 2011 Owner Name: Penelope Jane Bovell Submitted by: Earthhouse Design Office Scheme: R20/25 Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented to Planning Services Committee for determination as concerns were raised by a submitter during the advertising process that cannot be resolved via conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking alterations and additions to the existing Single House at 83 Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield. The application has been assessed against the requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes) and the City’s relevant Local Planning Policies and requires discretionary decisions with respect to: Vehicle site lines Buildings on boundary Design of parking spaces Privacy The development is considered to satisfy the requirements and performance criteria set out within the R-Codes. Consequently, the application is recommended for conditional Approval. BACKGROUND No.83 Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield is 936m2 in area located on the eastern side of Shepherd Street and consists of an existing single storey Single House. The subject site is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance under the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of the City’s LPS4 with a split density coding of R20/25 and is located within the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area. DETAIL On the 17 June 2011 the City received an application proposing alterations and additions to the existing single house at No.83 Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield. The proposal consists of a new single storey studio addition to the front of the existing dwelling, a single storey rear addition to the rear of the existing residence, a carport replacement to the existing garage featuring a boundary wall to the south, an outdoor shower with a separate boundary wall to the south, new courtyards to the south and north and a raised decking area around to the east of the new studio. The proposed development will involve the removal of existing rear outbuildings, removal of the existing unapproved rear patio, a gazebo and garage. Amended plans were submitted on the 14 July 2011 superseding the prior and addressing requests for a rear truncation, demonstrating overshadowing, fill heights and an additional window to the front of the proposed dwelling.


Page 31

CONSULTATION COMMUNITY The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 June 2011, the City had received one submission. The following issues were raised: Boundary Wall (Southern Boundary) The submitter raised concerns that the proposed carport boundary wall might increase overshadowing upon their pool and outdoor living area. Privacy (South) The submitter also objected to the southern portions of the proposed studio having windows, with their concern being privacy for their pool and outdoor living area. The submitter also raised concern about the proposed southern courtyard worried once again about privacy for their pool and outdoor living area. These comments are addressed in the Planning Comment section below. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The development has been assessed against the relevant scheme, policy and R Code provisions. Variations to these requirements are discussed below. PLANNING COMMENT The application has been assessed against the requirements of the City’s LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council Local Planning Policies and requires a discretionary decision with respect to: Site lines at street corners Buildings on boundary Design of parking spaces Privacy Sight Lines at Vehicle Access Points Required Provided Variation Walls and fences truncated or reduced to no higher that 0.75m within 1.5m of where a driveway meets a public street

1.2m high solid front fence, which is visually permeable above to 1.8m, on northern side of driveway

0.45m height within 1.5m of driveway

The variation is not supported as safety would be compromised. On this basis it is recommended that the following condition be included which would bring the development into compliance: Prior to occupation the front fence on the northern side of the driveway shall be truncated or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of the vehicle access point in order to provide


Page 32

adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 6.2.6 of the Residential Design Codes. Buildings on boundary Required Provided Variation Boundary walls to abut existing walls, non-residential land use or be constructed on a property with a frontage of less than 10m.

Two separate boundary walls to the southern boundary. One of these elements comprises an open carport structure with a height from 2.55m to 2.75m and length at 6.3m and the other a wall built to the south of the proposed outdoor shower with a height at 2.1m and length at 1.3m.

Not to abut any existing walls of greater or similar dimension. Adjoining land use at 16a Warren Street, Beaconsfield is Residential. Lot frontage of subject site is greater than 10m

In accordance with L.P.P 2.4 a performance based assessment is required and the variations are supported for the following reasons: The carport variation is considered to make effective use of space on site and is a light weight, unenclosed structure which is not considered to add to a sense of confinement for the adjoining property owner at No.16a Warren Street, Beaconsfield. The outdoor shower boundary wall is considered to enhance privacy for the subject site and is not considered to be excessive in length or height and as such would not significantly impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property in regard to building bulk. Upon submission from the adjoining land owner concern was raised regarding the boundary wall’s impact upon their pool and outdoor living area’s direct access to sunlight. The variation is considered supportable as whilst the winter solstice would shadow over 50% of the southern adjoining property’s pool, the summer, spring and autumn solstices would overshadow little to none of the pool area (as provided for in the overshadowing diagram provided by the applicant). Access to direct sunlight to the pool area is only limited to the winter months and therefore considered insignificant. Further the proposal provides for overshadowing to the southern adjoining property that is significantly lower than the maximum %25 percent as provided by the R-Codes (total provided overshadowing to rear adjoining property is 9.3%. Design of parking spaces Required Provided Variation 3m width for one car bay (Spaces in accordance with AS2890.1)

2.6m at western most narrow end of carport

0.4m

This variation is supported for the following reason: The proposed carport variation is not considered to impact upon the visual amenity of the streetscape and is considered secure and safe.


Page 33

Visual Privacy Required Provided Variation 7.5m cone of vision from unenclosed outdoor living areas

Cone of vision from ground floor of northern courtyard (small portion is 0.5m above natural ground level) projects up to 4.5m into northern adjoining property

3.5m

This variation is not supported as it could potentially compromise the privacy of the adjoining property. On this basis it is recommended that the following condition be included which will bring the development into compliance: Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area / obscured balustrading to a minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level shall be provided to the northern elevation of the proposed northern courtyard in accordance with clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Issues regarding visual privacy were raised in the submission with the southern adjoining landowner concerned about overlooking from southern studio windows into the northern pool area of their property. The bottom of these windows are 1.9m above the studio floor level and also 2.7m away from the boundary at the shortest point and therefore comply with privacy requirements. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the alterations and additions to existing Single House at No.83 (Lot 65) Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 14 July 2011, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 14 July 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area / obscured balustrading to a minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level shall be provided to the northern elevation of the proposed northern courtyard in accordance with clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the outdoor shower boundary wall located on the northern side boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

4. Prior to occupation the front fence on the northern side of the driveway shall be truncated or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of the vehicle access point in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 6.2.6 of the Residential Design Codes.

5. That the eastern front gate be constructed in material which is visually permeable as defined in the Residential Design Codes.



Page 34

PSC1107-142 STIRLING HIGHWAY NO.108 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE – REBUILDING AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING LIMESTONE WALL (JL DA0258/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Planning Service Committee Meeting 3 August 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA302/07 Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment – Palassis Architects Attachment 3: MBSE Structural Engineers Report Attachment 4: Occupational Health and Safety – Industrial Safe Report Date Received: 21 June 2011 Owner Name: Sivan Kandiah & Deborah Lee Friedmann Submitted by: Chappell Lambert Everett Scheme: Mixed Use R25 Heritage Listing: Limestone Features Existing Landuse: Shop (Pharmacy) & Single House Use Permissibility: A & A


Page 35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) for determination as the proposal involves the partial demolition, rebuild and relocation of a limestone feature that is listed on the City’s Heritage List. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as having ‘Limestone Features’. At its meeting on 5 September 2007, the Committee refused to grant Planning Approval for the same development (refer PSC0709-248). The applicant provided the City with a structural engineers report at the time of assessment of this application, stating that this wall should be demolished and rebuilt due to the level of deterioration and more importantly restriction of access for fire service’. However no information was submitted with the application regarding the possible rebuild and relocation of the existing retaining wall to enable retention of some of its cultural heritage significance. Since this determination, the owner has monitored and recorded the deteriorated status of the wall, whilst seeking further professional structural engineers and stonemasonry advice, regarding the longevity and future works needed to prevent further dilapidation of the existing limestone wall. As a result of the findings an onsite inspection was conducted early March 2011, between the owner, the owner’s planning consultant, owner’s structural engineer and City Officers (Planning Officers and the Principal Building Surveyor). The inspection conducted found that the existing limestone wall has deteriorated further since the City’s last inspection of the wall (August 2007), with the walls existing northern lean increasing (by approx. 50mm as inspected and measured in August 2007 by City Officers) and the structural pine bracing, significantly bowing and showing signs of severe weathering. Whilst the applicant has provided appropriate professional advice stating the walls lack of structural integrity, and the City’s Building Staff reviewing and concurring with the provided advice, the application is again recommended for refusal for consistency purposes with Council’s previous determination regarding this matter.


Page 36

BACKGROUND The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) for determination as the proposal involves the demolition, rebuild and relocation of a limestone wall that is listed on the City’s Heritage List, as a ‘Limestone Feature’. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as having ‘Limestone Features’. At its meeting on 5 September 2007, the Committee refused to grant Planning Approval for a similar development (refer PSC0709-248 – DA302/07). The Committee reason for refusal was as follows:

‘The proposed demolition is inconsistent to the objectives outlined in Clauses 1.6.1(f) and 4.2.1(a) (v) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme (No.4), adversely impacting the urban streetscape character and cultural heritage significance of the locality.’

The applicant provided the City with a structural engineers report at the time of assessment of the original application, stating that based the walls obvious deterioration and more importantly, ‘the current restriction of access for fire fighting’, it was ‘recommended that the wall be demolished and rebuilt’ on site. Additionally, the City’s then Principal Building Surveyor also provided comment regarding the structural integrity of the existing wall stating that,

‘it is my view that the wall is unsafe and needs urgent attention. There are a few options: Repair the wall and re-construct it in its current form, or reduce the height of the wall to its original height and restore it so that it is structurally adequate‘

Since 2007, the owner of site has been monitoring the structural integrity of the existing wall and been consulting with numerous relevant professionals as to future options for the dilapidated limestone wall. Again, the applicant has submitted another structural engineer’s report which states, ‘that the wall does not possess adequate structural capacity and should be removed’. In 2007, the City’s then Principal Building Surveyor inspected the site and recorded that the wall at this time leaned approximately 350mm to the north , at the top, and the bottom retaining section was leaning northwards around 60mm at the 600mm above ground level on the low side. In order to confirm if further dilapidation had occurred since 2007 the City’s current Principal Building Surveyor conducted a site inspection IN March 2011, and confirmed that the wall has increased its lean to approximately 400mm to the north, and therefore it is considered structurally unsound and its demolition is required to ensure public safety.


Page 37

DETAILS The proposed development includes partial removal, rebuild and relocation of the existing limestone wall/ fence on the southern side of site. The applicant is proposing to remove the middle southern portion of the existing limestone wall (line marked in red on development plans), relocate it approximately 400mm south of its current position and rebuild this portion of wall using recycled limestone rubble materials of the existing wall (line marked in blue), leaving the existing truncation element (line marked in green) of the limestone wall in situ (South eastern corner). The key difference between this application and the 2007 application is this development relates only to the middle southern portion of the existing retaining wall and includes the rebuild and relocation of this wall, where as the 2007 application only involved the complete demolition of the wall. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) Clause 10.2.1 lists the matters to be considered by the Council that in the opinion of the Council are relevant to the use or development the subject of the application

(i) the compatibility of a use or development within its setting, (k) the cultural significance of any place or area affected by the development,

including but not limited to provision for the preservation, incorporation or recording (by means including public art works) and significant cultural values of the site,

(zd) whether adequate provision has been made for access by persons with

disabilities. The subject property is listed on the Heritage List and the MHI as ’Limestone Feature’. CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application involved the permanent impact on a heritage listed feature. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 30 June 2011, the City had received no submissions.


Page 38

Heritage Assessment The City requested a Heritage Assessment for this application in accordance with Council L.P.P1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments policy. Overall, the report found the existing Limestone Feature to be of ‘some’ to ‘little’ significance. Although it was found to have some ‘Aesthetic’ and ‘Historic’ heritage values, as a remnant ‘Limestone Feature’ it retains a low degree of authenticity, which continues to diminish due to salt attack, erosion and structural dilapidation. In terms of how the proposal development impacts the heritage significance of the place the following comments were made, Overall the proposal will result in a minor degree of positive impact in terms of the heritage significance of the place. Original fabric will be conserved, albeit in a slightly different location, and serious structural defects will be corrected. The report recommended that should Council be supportive of the proposal, prior to any dismantle works occurring the original configuration and alignment should be accurately surveyed in plan and elevations and submitted for City records. Additional the report recommended that Council may also wish to impose a condition, requiring the interpretation of the original alignment of the wall in the adjacent footpath. In essence, the report also found that, ‘there will be no perceivable change to the local architectural patterns or siting. Furthermore, the report concluded that there may be some difficulty in sourcing limestone rubble that closely matches the existing, it was recommended that a skilled stonemasonry be sought to ensure a harmonious integration of old and new material within the reconstructed wall. In terms of degree of impact on the important public views, vistas, landmarks, landscape features, the report concluded that, ‘there will be a neutral to slightly positive degree of impact on this public vista through the improved aesthetic appearance of the wall resulting from its reconstruction’. See ‘Attachment 2’ of this report for a complete copy of the Heritage assessment undertaken for the proposed works.


Page 39

Building Department Comments The City’s Principal Building Surveyor, recently inspected the heritage limestone wall located adjacent to the southern boundary at 108 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. At the time of the inspection the subject wall was leaning approximately 400mm towards the existing building on the lot. The City Building Surveyor provided the following comments regarding the existing wall:

Whilst the wall has existed for many years, the wall has degraded to the point where It could collapse at any time, which may result in a person being crushed between the wall and the existing building. The fill on the adjacent car park to the south has contributed to the demise of the wall. The previous Principal Building Surveyor, Mr Rodney Byl, had the same conclusion regarding this wall in 2007.

Although the wall is supported by a timber frame brace (located between the wall and the existing brick building) along the upper portion, upon closer inspection, limestone and mortar on the mid section of the north facing portion has severely eroded, causing it to be potentially unsafe. The timber brace is also beginning to deteriorate and give way.

Subsequently, it is our opinion that the subject limestone wall is dangerous, and should be taken down as soon as practicably possible.

Other External Consultant Comment The applicant submitted a report from “Industrial Safe’ providing expert Occupational Health and Safety advice regarding the safety issues relating to the subject limestone wall. In essence, the report comments on the structural safety access elements regarding the subject site. The report concludes that the structure is a significant risk to the health and safety of tenants, customers, owners and members of the public, and that the existing wall should be removed as a soon as practicable. See ‘Attachment 4’ for a copy of this report. PLANNING COMMENT Approval is sought for the partial demolition, partial rebuild and partial relocation of the southern portion of limestone wall at the abovementioned address. As stated in the 2007 Committee report, the applicants structural engineer’s report was considered not conclusive regarding the safety of the wall as the report apparently failed to certify that the wall was in an unsafe condition and beyond repair (within reason), and ultimately the original application was refused on this basis. Since this report, the applicant has monitored the level of deterioration of the subject limestone wall and sought additional expert advice from several professional fields, including two Stonemason’s, a Structural Engineer and Occupational Health and Safety personnel, with all advice provided supporting the proposed works due to the walls current poor structural state.


Page 40

The City has also undertaken another site inspection confirming that whilst the existing wood bracing system remaining in situ, the existing northern lean of the wall has increased by 50m as measured in 2007. Furthermore, it is visually apparent that the existing wall has weathered and eroded further since the 2007 determination. The applicant’s stonemasons stated that the, ‘wall has deteriorated to such an extent that it will eventually collapse’. Additionally, the applicant’s structural engineer’s report found the wall to be structurally unsafe, as well as indicating that due to the walls proximity and lean into the existing building onsite, there was also a considerable restriction of access for fire fighting and other emergency services. As indicated in the 2007 Committee report and as reiterated by the City’s current Principal Building Surveyor, the wall in its current state is considered dangerous and its partial demolition is again recommended. In regards to heritage matters, the City’s previous internal heritage comments regarding the application in 2007 stated that,

‘In assessing the proposed demolition of the wall with the heritage significance of the wall, it is considered that the wall should be conserved and retained on a heritage basis.

However, the City’s previous internal heritage assessment stated that the structural safety of the wall was not evaluated and that, certification as to the safety of the wall would need to be determined by a qualified structural engineer. Furthermore, the City’s Heritage Staff stated that In the event that all or part of the wall is deemed to be unsafe, it is recommended that it be reconstructed using as many of the original limestone blocks as possible using rubble construction and lime mortar as originally used.’ As part of this application, the applicant proposes to salvage as much existing limestone rubble from the portion of removed wall and reinstate this fabric back into the proposed rebuild. Furthermore the applicant has stated that were this be unable to occur, they intend to source local limestone rubble to match the existing fabric. The City’s recent external heritage consultants report found that, ‘overall the existing limestone wall has some to little cultural heritage significance’. Additionally, the report stated that the wall has a moderate to low degree of authenticity, ‘which continues to diminish due to salt attack, erosion and structural dilapidation’. The report also stated that, ‘Overall the proposal will result in a minor degree of positive impact in terms of the heritage significance of the place’ as the ‘Original fabric will be conserved, albeit in a slightly different location, and serious structural defects will be corrected. Taking all of the above into account, Council could request the owner to remove the existing bracing system, repair the wall with similar material and reinstate a more suitable bracing system, slowing any further leaning of the wall, however this measure is considered only short term, and ultimately in order for these works to occur the wall would need to be completely demolished and rebuilt, which also is considered to significantly impact the existing cultural heritage significance of the subject wall. Additionally, it must be noted that in doing such works, it’s unknown as to what level of cultural heritage significant fabric would be retained, as it’s estimated in heritage


Page 41

consultant’s report that up to 50% replacement fabric would be needed due to the extremely poor and friable condition of the existing limestone rubble. Alternatively, as the wall has dilapidated further since the 2007 application, and the additional professional advice (Heritage Consultants, Stonemasons, Occupational Health and Safety and Structural Engineers Advice) sought by the City and provided by the applicant clearly states, that the wall in its current form is structurally unsafe, Council could consider the application supportable as its partial removal is vital to ensure public safety. Furthermore if this option is supported, Council may also want to entertain the proposed partial relocation (approximately 400mm south) as it would allow for future adequate disabled access, whilst providing appropriate access for future emergency services. Should it be considered however that the development is supportable, the following without prejudice approval conditions are recommended: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial demolition, partial reconstruction and relocation of the Heritage Rubble Limestone Wall at No. 108 (Lot 1) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 6 June 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

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

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

3. Prior to commencement a detailed archival record of the structure is to be

submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle for approval and shall include:

a) A site plan prepared at 1:200 scale, and four elevations prepared at

1:100 scale.

b) Digital photographs taken of the structure to include:

i) A general/ overall photo of the building to be demolished; ii) Photos of each of the four elevations; iii) Photos of any special architectural feature.

4. Prior to any demolition works, an interpretive plan which outlining the original

alignment of the limestone wall in the adjacent footpath shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and these works shall be undertaken within 90 days from the date of this approval to commence development letter.


Page 42

Advisory Notes (i) It is advised that the replacement limestone wall should be built utilising as many of

the existing limestone rubble from the demolition wall as possible in order to retain some of the heritage significant fabric of the wall.

B) That Council Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to serve a Notice on the owner

requiring:

a) the limestone wall, located on the southern side of site as marked red on the approved planning approved plans, dated 6 June 2011, to be demolished within 21 days of this approval letter, and

b) The reconstruction of the replacement limestone wall as marked

blue on the approved planning approved plans, dated 6 June 2011, to be completed within 90 days of the serving of the Notice.

However, whilst City Officer see considerable merit in the proposed partial demolition, rebuild and relocation of the limestone wall, for consistency purposes alone, Council’s previous adopted resolution to refuse the application is recommended. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

1. That the application be refused under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial demolition, partial reconstruction and relocation of the heritage rubble limestone wall at No. 108 (Lot 1) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 6 June 2011, for the following reasons:

a. The proposed demolition is inconsistent to the objectives outlined in

Clauses 1.6.1(f) and 4.2.1(a) (v) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme (No.4), adversely impacting the urban streetscape character and cultural heritage significance of the locality.

2. That the Principal Building Surveyor, serve a Notice requiring the wall to be

repaired, using similar materials with the existing bracing retained within 90 days of this letter.

3. That the works referred to in Part 2 above be considered to be necessary for

public safety under Clause 8.2 (l) of LPS4 and permitted without planning approval of Council.


Page 43

PSC1107-143 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

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

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the information is noted.


Page 44

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 45

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 46


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

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

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

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

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

City officers must be impartial 10.

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

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

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


Page 47


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

12.

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

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

13.

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

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

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

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

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


Page 48

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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


Page 49

Documents

PSC Agenda 03 August 2011 · 2018. 3. 8. · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 3 August 2011 Page 3 On 27 July 2011, the item was presented before a full Council who resolved to