minute manager 2 - home | city of fremantle - psc... · confidential matters 54 ... summary guide...

City of Fremantle

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 March 2010 6.00 pm

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mayor Brad Pettitt Cr Tim Grey-Smith City Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr John Dowson East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Cr Robert Fittock North Ward

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 3

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PSC1002-17 MARINE TERRACE NO. 88 (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MATTER - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (SS DA52/08) 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 15

PSC1003-47 DOURO RD NO. 48A (LOT 2 ON SP23157) SOUTH FREMANTLE - UNCOMPLETED BUILDING (IT) 15

PSC1003-46 MORAN STREET NO. 20 (LOT 1 ON SP25587), BEACONSFIELD - DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE - KB 18

PSC1003-48 DOEPEL STREET NO. 2 (LOT 28) NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL FEE REFUND REQUEST - MULTI STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - (KB DA0533/09) 24

PSC1003-49 CURTIN AVENUE LOT 6, NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PLANNING APPROVAL FOR FIVE STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT - (BC VA0002/10) 29

PSC1003-50 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 35

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 36

PSC1003-51 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 2.12 - PLANNING APPLICATIONS IMPACTING UPON VERGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND VERGE TREES - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING 36

PSC1003-52 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.10 - LANDSCAPING OF DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING VEGETATION ON DEVELOPMENT SITES - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING 43

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (committee delegation)

PSC1003-53 SNOOK CRESCENT NO. 79A (LOT 2 ON SP56861), HILTON - PLANNING FEE WAIVER (KB) 50

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 54

CLOSURE OF MEETING 54

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 55

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 60

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 3 March 2010

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 3 March 2010 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.01 pm.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward (Presiding Member) Cr Robert Fittock North Ward (Deputy Presiding Member) Cr Tim Grey-Smith City Ward Cr John Dowson East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Ms Kathy Bonus Manager Development Services Mr Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects and Policy Mr Steve Sullivan Statutory Planning Coordinator Mr Ian Townson Principal Building Surveyor Mrs Tanya Toon-Poynton Minute Secretary There were approximately 9 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Summary of Questions by Kathy Anketell in relation to asbestos in Booyembarra Park

When was Senior Management Group first aware that there is asbestos in Booyembarra Park? When Senior Management Group became aware of the asbestos what was the agreed action? Explain why no action was take until Friday, if Senior Management Group knew of the issue of asbestos in October 2009? What was the decision of SMG and are you satisfied the action taken meets legislative requirements? Summary of Response from Philip St John, Director Planning and Development Services

Questions taken on notice.

Summary of Questions by Kathy Anketell to Philip St John

Were you aware there was asbestos in Booyembarra Park last week? Summary of Response from Philip St John

Yes Summary of Question by Kathy Anketell to Philip St John

Is there a culture in this organisation where officers don’t inform elected members of important matters such as this?

Summary of Response from Philip St John

No Summary of Question by Kathy Anketell to Philip St John Why did Council suggest the Farmers Market could use the affected area for the Market, when they knew of the contamination? Summary of Response from Philip St John and Cr Andrew Sullivan

The matter went directly to the Council meeting. The council decision is not Planning Approval.


Page 3

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-17: Kerry Parsons The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1002-17: Phillip Bairstow Mary Bairstow Cat Dillon Denise Winton

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Nil

LATE ITEMS NOTED

PSC1003-53 – 79a Snook Crescent Hilton – Planning Fee Waiver

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 17 February 2010 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 24 February 2010 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Robert Fittock Cr John Dowson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Nil


Page 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1002-17 MARINE TERRACE NO. 88 (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MATTER - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (SS DA52/08)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA556/05 Attachments: 1 - Revised development plans – received 21 Dec 2009

2 – Revised Development Plans date stamped 22 February 2010

Date Received: 29 August 2008 Owner Name: Kerry Investments Pty Ltd Submitted by: Kerry Investments Pty Ltd Scheme: Mixed Use – R35 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Office, Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: Office (P) Tourist Accommodation (A) Multiple Dwellings

(A)


Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council, at its meeting of 16 December 2009, resolved to refer the application for Planning Approval to the Planning Services Committee meeting of 3 February 2010 following a request from the owner. This would allow time for the owner to conduct further discussions with property owners that had originally objected to the proposed development. Further, the owner also requested the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to reschedule the Direction hearing scheduled for 18 December 2009 to 5 February 2010. The request for review to SAT was based on a deemed refusal of the application, as a determination has not been made on the application within 90 days of lodgement. The application is for the demolition of the existing single storey single house located at No. 88 Marine Terrace, Fremantle and the construction of a three storey mixed use building containing one office tenancy, two multiple dwellings and one short stay accommodation unit. The subject site is zoned Mixed Use R35 and is within the Fremantle Local Planning Area as prescribed by the City of Fremantle (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory. The proposed development requires the discretion of Council relating to the proposed Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwelling uses. Performance based assessments against the relevant Residential Design Code provisions relating to mixed use developments and overshadowing are also required. In addition, regard is to be had to the relevant policy provisions contained within D.G.F16: Marine Terrace Policy, D.G.F29: Suffolk to South Streets Local Area and L.P.P2.8: Fences Policy. The basis for the City recommending approval of the original application is found in item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda. This report is an assessment of the latest set of revised plans submitted by the applicant. Having regard to the City’s original report to the 19 August 2009 PSC meeting, the additional information requested by Council at its 26 August 2009 meeting and the assessment undertaken of the revised plans, it is considered that the proposal is still consistent with the previous position taken by the City. Overall, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions within LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant City of Fremantle policies. Consequently, the proposed development, based on the revised plans received on the 21 December 2009, is recommended for approval.


Page 6

BACKGROUND

This matter was referred to the 19 August 2009 PSC. The City recommended approval, subject to various conditions of approval and the PSC adopted the City’s recommendation at that meeting, which is shown below: 1 The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the approved

plans dated 25 November 2008, incorporating the conditions listed in this approval. 2 All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3 The northern boundary fence shall be no higher than 1.8m above natural ground

level. 4 Prior to occupation, details of the “Lumisty” Directional Privacy Window Film

screening treatment to be installed on the upper level windows on the northern and southern elevations to be obscured to a height of 1.6m above the upper floor level are to be submitted for the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.

5 Prior to occupation, the screening treatment approved under Condition 4 shall be

implemented, maintained and the windows shall be fixed closed. 6 Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area/obscured balustrading to a minimum

height of 1.6m above floor level shall be provided to the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the proposed balconies in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes.

7 Revised plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer,

such plans shall incorporate the following changes, the: a) minimum ground level shall be 1.7m above AHD; b) minimum floor level shall be 2.2m above AHD; c) proposed development shall not exceed 10m above ground level; d) proposed development, apart from the proposed boundary walls and front

setback, shall comply with the required setbacks in accordance with the Residential Design Codes 2008 – Variation 1; and

e) provision of a bike rack. The number of PSC Councillors voting in support of the City’s recommendation did not cross the threshold to allow the matter to be determined by the PSC under delegated authority from Council. Consequently, the matter with a recommendation of approval was referred to the Council meeting held on the 26 August 2009 where Council resolved as follows: The item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee pending redrawn plans incorporating officer’s conditions and agreed amendments between the applicant and affected neighbours. Also streetscape elevation drawings are to be provided. On the 22 October 2009, the applicant submitted revised plans and documentation in response to Council’s resolution.


Page 7

The revised plans were referred to the PSC meeting of 2 December 2009 where the PSC recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. Due to a lack of voting numbers, the matter was referred to the Council meeting of 16 December. The applicant exercised his right to request the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to review Council’s decision not to make a determination on the application within 90 days of receipt of the application. A Directions Hearing was held on 16 October 2009 and the SAT resolved to adjourn the matter until 18 December 2009 and requested Council to re-consider it decision (to defer consideration of the application) under Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. This would allow Council the time to make a determination on any revised plans submitted to Council, as per the 26 August 2009 resolution of Council. The applicant submitted a request to the Council meeting of 16 December 2009 that consideration of the matter be deferred to the PSC meeting of 3 February 2010 to allow for more time to progress a neighbour consultative process which could result in the submission of further revised plans. At the same time, the applicant requested the SAT to vacate the hearing scheduled for 18 December to a date after the 3 February 2010 PSC meeting. The SAT hearing has now been set for 5 February 2010. Following consultation with the neighbours, the applicant submitted several sets of revised plans. It is the latest set of plans that were submitted on 21 December 2009 that are being referred to the PSC for consideration. DETAILS Planning approval is sought to demolish the existing single storey single house located at No. 88 Marine Terrace, Fremantle and to construct a three storey mixed use building to contain one office tenancy, two multiple dwellings and one short stay accommodation unit. The ground floor level is to contain the office tenancy, car parking area for eight vehicles and storage units for the multiple dwellings. The first floor level is to contain a three bedroom multiple dwelling (Unit 1) and a two bedroom short stay accommodation unit (Unit 2) as well as one bedroom of Unit 3 (Multiple Dwelling). The third floor level of the building is to contain the remainder of Unit 3. Item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda and PSC0912-220 of the 2 December 2009 PSC Agenda will provide the background to this application. This report will focus on the revised plans submitted on the 21 December 2009. The following major changes have been identified between the 22 October 2009 plans and the 21 December 2009 plans: Height of development ● height of building has been lowered from 10.0m to 9.725m; ● increase in the floor to ceiling height of the ground and first floor levels from 2.4m to

2.743m;


Page 8

Second Floor level ● reduced side setback of rear balcony to southern boundary from 2.4m to 1.5m; ● increased height of screen walls from 1.65m to 1.8m above the floor level of the

rear balcony; ● increased setback between the rear boundary and the face of the rear balcony –

from 2.6m to 3m; ● increased setback between the rear boundary and the roof to the balcony – from

3.6m to 4m; ● increased setback between the northern side boundary and face of the balcony –

from 1.9m to 3.8m; ● increased setback of northern walls of the building from 1.2m to 2.2m; ● increased setback of the front balcony to the northern boundary – from 1.7m to

3.8m; First floor level ● reduced side setback between the southern side boundary and face of the balcony

– from 2.4m to 1.5m; ● increased side setback between the northern side boundary and face of the balcony

– from 1.9m to 2.2m; ● increased setback of the front balcony to the northern boundary – from 1.7m to

2.2m; ● increased height of screen walls from 1.65m to 1.8m above the floor level of the

rear balcony; Ground Floor Level ● The boundary wall along the north boundary has been modified to reflect condition

3 of the PSC resolution of the 19 August 2009. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda provides the statutory background to this application under LPS4. The only variation to this section as a consequence of the revised plans relates to car parking. The proposed development requires seven car parking bays, one delivery bay and one bike rack. The proposed development provides eight parking bays and now includes a bike bay and therefore, the proposed development complies with the requirements of LPS4 and the Residential Design Codes with respect to car parking. State Administrative Tribunal Act On 6 November 2009 the SAT requested Council to re-consider its decision made in relation to this matter under section 31(1) of the Act. In this situation, it is a decision not to have made a determination of approval, approval with conditions or refusal on the application within 90 days. As such, the application is deemed to have been refused. Section 31 of the Act is reproduced below: 31. Tribunal may invite decision-maker to reconsider


Page 9

(1) At any stage of a proceeding for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may invite the decision-maker to reconsider the decision.

(2) Upon being invited by the Tribunal to reconsider the reviewable decision, the decision-maker may — (a) affirm the decision; (b) vary the decision; or (c) set aside the decision and substitute its new decision.

(3) If the decision-maker varies the decision or sets it aside and substitutes a new

decision, unless the proceeding for a review is withdrawn it is taken to be for the review of the decision as varied or the substituted decision

The SAT have agreed to reschedule the Directions Hearing to 5 February 2010 to allow Council the time to make a determination on the application. CONSULTATION

Community The development application was required under Clause 9.4 of LPS4 to be advertised. At the conclusion of the advertising period being 10 July 2008, five submissions were received. Item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda contains more information on those submissions. The major points outlined within these submissions are highlighted below: ● Height ● Overshadowing ● Privacy ● Bulk and Scale ● Streetscape ● Demolition ● Use ● Precedent ● Noise In response to the concerns outlined by the submitters and the City, the applicant submitted amended development plans dated 29 August 2008 which reduced the overall height of the development and amended the boundary setbacks to satisfy the requirements of the Residential Design Codes. Subsequent amended plans were submitted on 25 November 2008 further addressing boundary setback distances. The amendments to the development plans were considered to reduce the impact of the proposed development. Accordingly, the amended development plans were not required to be advertised under City of Fremantle policy L.P.P1.3: Public notification of Planning Approvals. The City has arranged meetings with ● the applicant; ● the applicant and neighbours that had made submissions against the application; ● neighbours that had made submissions against the application; and


Page 10

● individual meetings with neighbours that had made submissions against the application.

In addition, the City has now received a submission from the owner of 2A Russel Street during mid-December 2009. This owner, who did not lodge a submission during the initial submission period in June 2008, has now expressed concern in relation to: ● bulk; ● overshadowing; and ● potential noise from the car parking area and balconies. PLANNING COMMENT

The following assessment is based on the revised plans received on the 21 December 2009 which replace the previously submitted plans. Redrawn plans incorporating Officer’s conditions The City’s recommendation to the 19 August 2009 PSC meeting on this matter included 7 proposed conditions of approval (Refer to Background Section of this report). Council’s resolution required the plans to be amended to incorporate the City’s proposed conditions of approval. The latest set of revised plans address the City’s proposed conditions as follow: ● Condition 1 is a standard condition of approval and will be amended to reflect the

date of the revised plans, if the application is approved. ● Condition 2 was not addressed and will still be included as a proposed condition of

approval. This is not seen as a major issue now that the proposed ground and floor levels have been raised to address condition 7.

● Condition 3 has now been met. ● Conditions 4 and 5 are now no longer relevant as the applicant has opted for

highlight windows in lieu of the use of the film to address privacy. ● Condition 6 is to be retained to ensure that the final detail of the screens meet the

R-Codes. ● Condition 7a) – c) and e) have been met having regard to the revised plans. By

complying with conditions 7a) – c), the proposed development has addressed potential flooding issues by raising the proposed finished ground and floor levels, whilst still complying with the height restriction. By complying with these conditions, the application has also provided a much improved interface between the proposed development and the street.

● Condition 7 d) will be discussed separately below. The plans submitted to the PSC on the 2 December 2009 sought 9 setback variations. The latest revised plans now only have 7 setback variations which are highlighted below:


Page 11

Variation No.

Wall type Required Setback

Proposed Setback

Variation

Second Floor Plan

A Southern side - Kitchen/Dining 1.7 1.2 0.5

B Southern side – Family meals 3.8 3.1 0.7

C Northern side – Balcony 4.0m 3.8m 0.2m

D Northern side – Study 4.1m 3m 1.1m

First Floor Plan

E Southern side – rear balcony 1.7m 1.5m 0.2m

F Northern side – front balcony 2.8m 2.3m 0.5m

G Northern side - rear balcony 2.8m 2.2m 0.6m

The Performance Criteria for the R-Codes in relation to setbacks from the side and rear boundary is shown below: P1 Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;

ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;

provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;

assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;

assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and

assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. The proposed setback variations of the proposed development satisfies dot points 1, 3 and 6 of the above performance criteria. The exception relates to dot point 6 for setback variations identified in this report as Variation F, which is discussed in further detail below. Setback variations A and B These setback variations align with the non-residential development at No. 90 Marine Terrace and to a lesser extent No 2A Russel Street. The development at No. 90 Marine Terrace is a non-residential building, is built to the common boundary with a two level boundary wall and occupies most of the site. The existing development, due to its design, does not provide for dot points 2, 4 and 5. As such, it is considered that the proposed setback variation A would not result in any detrimental impact on the adjoining property. As such, it is considered that setback variation A would meet the Performance criteria of this design element. Setback variation B is considered a minor variation. If the overall length of the building was reduced by 0.62m, the required setback would be 3.1m, which is the actual setback. Further, the variation occurs at the intersection of No. 90 Marine Terrace (which has a boundary wall abutting half of this opening) and 2A Russell Street. It is considered that variation B meets dot points 2, 4 and 5 and as such, is supported.


Page 12

Setback Variations C and D The design of the proposed development along the northern boundary consists of a number of indentations to provide a break in the massing and bulk of the development. further, the building has been modified so that is steps back from the northern side boundary. The existing dwelling to the north (86 Marine Terrace) is built in very close proximity to the common boundary. As such, the bulk of the proposed development will only be readily perceptible from the front and rear courtyards of the adjoining property, which is further alleviated by the provision of balconies. Setback variations C is a minor setback variation (0.2m) and as it is a balcony, would be minimal in terms of building bulk. Variation D is located in the centre of the building and as such, meets performance criteria 1-4 and 6 of the Performance criteria. As stated earlier, the mass and bulk of the building is ameliorated by the breaking of the mass along each level as well as the stepping back of the building. It is considered that these two variations meet the Performance criteria of this design element. Setback Variation E The setback for this part of the building is based on the overall length of the building . However, half of the building is blocked form view of 2A Russell Street due toe the two storey boundary wall on No. 90 Marine Terrace. Having regard to this aspect and the minor variation, the variation is supported. Setback Variations F and G The comments made in relation to Setback variations C and D are applicable in this instance. As such, the variations are considered to meet the performance criteria of the R-Codes. Design for Climate The Acceptable Development criteria of the R-Codes allow developments to overshadow up to 35% of the site area of adjoining R30 coded property at 12pm, 21 June. The revised plans received on the 21 December 2009 will result in approximately 20.3% (previously 22%) overshadowing of 2A and 2B Russell Street and approximately 88% (previously 100%) of No. 90 Marine Terrace. Having regard to the further reductions in the overshadowing levels between the two development proposals, the comments made in item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda are still applicable on this matter.


Page 13

L.P.P2.8: Fences Policy Side boundary fences are proposed for the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site. The boundary fence along the northern boundary has been amended to reflect the requirements of Condition 3. Further, the columns to support the development have been positioned so that they are not directly located outside one of the three windows of No. 86 Marine Terrace that face the common boundary. It is considered that this condition has now been met. CONCLUSION The revised plans submitted by the applicant have met the major conditions of planning approval recommended to the 19 August 2009 meeting of the PSC. Further, the applicants have also undertaken further changes to help address the concerns of the abutting owners directly to the north and east of the development site. In lowering the overall height of the proposed development, changing the setbacks to the development in various areas and the location/design of the roof to the top level balcony, the applicant has further reduced the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining properties. It is noted that the streetscape elevation submitted by the applicant provides a streetscape of different viewpoints/perspectives of the existing buildings. However, the change to the building form of the development and reduction of overall height provides for a development that is considered to be in keeping with the desired streetscape proposed under LPS4. Overall, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions within LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant City of Fremantle policies. As a result the proposed development is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of standard and special conditions of approval. Having regard to this planning application now being the subject of the SAT process, the decision of Council should be sent to the SAT informing them of Council’s position in relation to this matter.


Page 14

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 24 FEBRUARY 2010 Amended plans have been received which incorporate the modifications required as part of the Planning Services Committee recommendation of 3 February 2010. The recommendation below reflects this change. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council, in response to the request by the State Administrative Tribunal be to review its decision under Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, sets aside it previous decision under Section 31(2)(c) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act and substitutes the following decision: 1. That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Mixed Use Development (Office, Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwellings) at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

a) The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

the approved plans dated 21 December 2009, and revised building/roof plan dated 22 February 2010 incorporating the conditions listed in this approval.

b) All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. c) Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area/obscured balustrading to a

minimum height of 1.8m above floor level shall be provided to the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the proposed balconies in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes.

CARRIED: 5/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr John Dowson Cr Josh Wilson


Page 15

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr R Fittock vacated the chamber at 6.38 pm. Cr R Fittock returned to the meeting at 6.39 pm.

PSC1003-47 DOURO RD NO. 48A (LOT 2 ON SP23157) SOUTH FREMANTLE - UNCOMPLETED BUILDING (IT)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: nil Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Principal Building Surveyor Decision Making Authority: Planning Services Committee Previous Item: N/A Attachments: Related correspondence Owner Name: Peter Carrabino Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Residential


Page 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s decision on the future of an uncompleted building at 48/A Douro Road, South Fremantle. It is recommended that notice be served on the owner pursuant to S409A (1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring him to show cause, why the building should not be demolished and removed. It is further recommended, in case the owner fails to respond to the notice, that Council grant delegated authority to the Principal Building Surveyor to serve an order on the owner pursuant to S409A (2)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring him to demolish and remove the uncompleted building within 4 months. BACKGROUND

On the 2 April 1992, a building licence was issued for the construction of a residence at the subject property. It is understood that construction commenced in that year and has been left incomplete since that time. Another building licence was issued in 2001 in an effort to achieve a completion of the residence. On 7 March 2007 the Planning Services Committee resolved to issue a notice on the owner pursuant to S409A (1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring him to show cause, why the building should not be demolished and removed. Having considered the owners response to the above notice Council resolved on 27 June 2007 to issue another building licence. This licence was issued on 5 December 2007 and became invalid on 5 December 2009 due to the expiration of the two year licence. Despite several letters being forwarded to the landowner since the issue of the last licence little work has occurred on the residence. The construction is at the stage where the brickwork is finished with the next stage being the construction of the roof frame. The landowner recently met with officers to discuss his intentions for this site. The landowner raised issues of ill health and other constraints for not finishing the residence in accordance with his previous undertakings to the City. A letter outlining his position and making a commitment to finish the residence by March 2011 has been received (refer to Attachment 1). Officers have little confidence that the undertakings will be achieved given the past record of progress on this site.


Page 17

COUNCIL’S OPTIONS S409A of the Act provides the City with the option to take action, however if it sees fit, the Council may resolve to take no further action. Further, if a notice is served pursuant to S409A the City is not obligated to continue to the next step of issuing an order. Once an order has been served, the owner has the normal right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal who may confirm the order, extend the specified time for compliance or set aside the order. If the owner fails to comply with the order, the City has the option to demolish and remove the uncompleted building and recover its costs incurred on account of the demolition and removal as a debt due to it. If at any time, the City is presented with an application for building licence or development approval, it will then have the option to approve or refuse the completion of the building at that time. CONCLUSION

Whilst it would be preferable to have the building completed, the incomplete building is visible from Douro and Daly Streets and given the level of concern in the local community, it is considered reasonable for Council to apply its discretion to commence formal action to remove the uncompleted building. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: 1. Serve notice on the owner of 48A Douro Road, South Fremantle pursuant to

S409A (1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring him to show cause within 60 days, why the building should not be demolished and removed.

2. Where the owner fails to respond to the notice (referred to above), serve an

order on the owner pursuant to S409A (2)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 requiring him to demolish and remove the uncompleted building within 4 months.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 18

PSC1003-46 MORAN STREET NO. 20 (LOT 1 ON SP25587), BEACONSFIELD - DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE - KB

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Development Compliance Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: nil Attachments: Photograph dated 30 December 2009 Owner Name: Jan Ter Horst Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Heritage List; MHI Level 2 Existing Landuse: Residential Use Permissibility: P


Page 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received complaints that an alleged “hangman’s noose” has been erected on the roof of the dwelling at 20 Moran Court Beaconsfield. An investigation by officers has revealed that there is a structure on the roof of the dwelling but there is no evidence of a noose attached to the structure. The purpose or use of the structure is unknown and is not able to be discerned from the street view. The matter is referred to Committee for determination on whether it is required to be dealt with as a compliance issue under the City’s policy LPP1.5. BACKGROUND

There is an extensive and complicated history on this site particularly regarding the signage on the dwelling including a prolonged legal dispute with the landowner. However more recently, in September 2009 the Council resolved as follows with regard to the signage issue:

1. That no further action be taken against Mr Ter Horst in relation to the signage on his house, unless in accordance with a further resolution of Council, and

2. The City of Fremantle waives any fines and fees regarding the matter.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 The structure which has been erected on the roof of the dwelling does not fit into any of the definitions contained in Schedule 1 of the Scheme. Of the types of development contained within the Scheme, it could best be described as either a ‘flagpole’ (which is not defined under the Scheme) or as an ‘external fixture’ which is defined as follows:

items attached to (or emerging from) buildings including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, external hot water heater systems, gas cylinders, plumbing vents, solar panels, satellite dishes, aerials, basketball and netball hoops, outdoor lighting, and TV and radio antennae, but not including air conditioning units.

Clause 8.1 of the Scheme states that all development on land zoned or reserved under the Scheme requires the prior approval of Council with the exception of the development permitted without planning approval by clause 8.2. The structure is not a development that is listed under clause 8.2. Clause 8.2(l) also refers to the minor development listed in Schedule 15 and therefore the type of development becomes important in considering this Schedule. Should the development be one that cannot be undertaken without planning approval, then the Council must consider the development to be unauthorised. The Council would then be required to exercise its discretion and consider whether compliance action is necessary.


Page 20

LPP1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy The policy outlines the circumstances where the Council may consider it to be uncertain that a matter is compliant with planning or building regulations (clauses 2.3 and 2.5) and criteria for determining that a non-compliance is insignificant or trivial (clauses 2.4 and 2.5). All other matters of non-compliance should be dealt with in accordance with the policy unless the Council resolves otherwise. It should be noted that enforcement options available to Council are discretionary and that the Council is not obliged to pursue any matter further. COMMENT It is the opinion of officers that the structure on the roof could not reasonably be considered a ‘flagpole’ as referred to in Schedule 15 of the Scheme. It may be considered an ‘external fixture’ which (for a property on the Heritage List) does not require planning approval in the following circumstances:

Where: 1) not exceeding 1.8m in height and fixed to a wall of a building which faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding walls facing secondary streets), or 2) fixed to a plane of the roof of a building which faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding roof planes facing secondary streets), or to a flat roof, and projecting no more than 1m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point and no greater than 2m wide, or projecting no more than 2m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point in the case of an aerial or antenna. In all circumstances the maximum diameter of a satellite antenna or dish permitted without planning approval is 2m.

The structure is erected on a flat roof and, while it is difficult to determine the height above the roof, it is unlikely that it projects less than 1 metre. While the Council is not obliged to pursue every issue of non-compliance, it must have regard to all of the circumstances when considering whether or not to take action. Legal advice sought in the development of LPP1.5 was that five ‘important matters’ had been identified by the State Administrative Tribunal for consideration in compliance matters. These matters were included in policy LPP1.5 as part of clause 2.5 and are:

(a) Whether it is in the public interest of the proper and orderly development and use

of land that planning law should generally be complied with; (b) The impact of the contravention of the Scheme on the affected 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 Scheme took place; (d) The time which has elapsed since development was undertaken in contravention

of the Scheme; and


Page 21

(e) The expense and inconvenience which would be involved in remedying the contravention of the Scheme.

It is clear that there is a broad public interest in ensuring that all development undertaken within the City of Fremantle is compliant with the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme and any approvals that are issued. The local community has raised concerns with the structure indicating that the impact of this contravention of the Scheme does, in the community’s view, have a detrimental visual impact. In this case, the breach cannot be considered to be purely technical as it is noticeable to the casual observer. However, it is noted that there are also a number of other structures and fixtures on the roof of this particular dwelling (including mobile phone towers, aerials and antennae) and it may be argued that the removal of this particular structure could be almost insignificant in terms of improving the overall visual aesthetics of the streetscape. The factual circumstances of this matter are unknown as officers are not aware of the situation under which the structure was erected although it is clear that the local community are not comfortable with its presence. The time that has elapsed is also unknown. The local community raised a concern about a “hangman’s noose” on the roof of the dwelling in late 2009. Since then, officers have observed the site from the adjacent street several times (23 December and 30 December). During these observations, a wooden frame on the roof of the building with a long rope attached and tied back has been evident (refer to the photograph at Attachment 1) but a “noose” has not been sighted. The expense and inconvenience of rectifying the non compliance (ie removal of the structure) is unlikely to be significant as the structure appears to be relatively small and simple in design. Council may determine that the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the procedures outlined in LPP1.5. This would commence with a letter to the property owner advising of the unauthorised development and requesting that the property be brought into compliance with the Scheme within 28 days of the date of that letter. Compliance may be achieved by removing the unauthorised development, or, where it may be possible to obtain planning approval retrospectively, the owner is advised that a complete planning application must be submitted within the 28 day period. If such an application is received, further action is deferred until such time as the application has been determined. However, if the structure remains and no such planning application is received, further action is then commenced automatically. CONCLUSION

The structure on the roof of the dwelling at 20 Moran Court has not been the subject of a planning approval to date. It is considered that the structure constitutes development for the purposes of the Scheme and that it is not exempt from the requirement for planning approval under clause 8.2 and Schedule 15. Consequently, planning approval is required.


Page 22

It is open to the Council in the exercise its discretion with respect to enforcement matters to either initiate enforcement action in accordance with the procedures outlined in LPP1.5 or to take no such action.’ The options available to the Council are as follows: Option 1 Should the Council determine to deal with that matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in LPP1.5, it could resolve as follows:

That Council with regard to unauthorised structure on the roof of the dwelling at No. 20 (Lot 1 on SP25587) Moran Court, Beaconsfield advise the landowner that:

1. The unauthorised structure is required to be removed within twenty eight (28) days of the notification of Council’s decision. Alternatively, the owner must submit a complete planning application within this time period.

2. If further action is required following the expiration of this time

period, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to commence action in accordance with Local Planning Policy LPP1.5 ‘Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy’ against the owner of No. 20 (Lot 1 on SP25587) Moran Court, Beaconsfield, (Jan ter Horst) to rectify the non-compliance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

Option 2 Should the Council determine that it is not appropriate to take further action in this matter having had regard to the circumstances and the matters outlined in clause 2.5 of LPP1.5, it could resolve as follows:

That Council with regard to unauthorised structure on the roof of the dwelling at No. 20 (Lot 1 on SP25587) Moran Court, Beaconsfield:

1. form the view that the non-compliance is trivial or insignificant in terms of its planning impact having had regard to clause 2.5 of Local Planning Policy LPP1.5 ‘Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy’ and take no further action with regard to the non-compliance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Submitted for consideration.


Page 23

COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

That Council with regard to unauthorised structure on the roof of the dwelling at No. 20 (Lot 1 on SP25587) Moran Court, Beaconsfield:

1. form the view that the non-compliance is trivial or insignificant in terms of its planning impact having had regard to clause 2.5 of Local Planning Policy LPP1.5 ‘Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy’ and take no further action with regard to the non-compliance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 24

PSC1003-48 DOEPEL STREET NO. 2 (LOT 28) NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL FEE REFUND REQUEST - MULTI STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - (KB DA0533/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Manager Development Services Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC0911-198 Attachments: 1. Letter from landowner

Date Received: 15 February 2010 Owner Name: Northbank Bridges Pty Ltd and Rivershores JV Pty Ltd Submitted by: Watersun Property Group on behalf of the owners Scheme: Development Area – DA16 Heritage Listing: Not listed


Page 25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item is before Council as the applicant is requesting a partial refund (fifty percent) of the planning application fee paid in October 2009 for the assessment of DA0533/09. It is not within the authority delegated to officers to determine such a request however it is a discretionary decision of the Council. In November 2009, the Planning Services Committee approved an application for a mixed use development of a maximum five storeys comprising 58 Multiple Dwellings and a 130m2 Restaurant (Café) with 146 basement level car parking bays. The application was identical to that which was approved by Council in August 2007, and subsequently amended in September 2008. BACKGROUND

In August 2007, the Planning Services Committee (PSC) approved under the provisions of LPS4 a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) and an application for a mixed use development comprising 60 Multiple Dwellings, and a Restaurant (refer DA02/07). The proposed development and Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for the site were approved in one sitting, via a two stage resolution, firstly resolving to approve the proposed plans as a DAP for the site and then to approve the development. In September 2008 the City granted approval (refer VA13/08) for variations to the 2007 approval. The variations approved included a minor reduction in the number of apartment proposed, a reduction in car parking bays, and some cosmetic changes to the building. The September 2008 decision was determined having regard to provisions in clause 8.3 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 – ‘Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals’. The decision was a decision to vary the previous approval, and did not alter the original terms of the approval with the exception of those variations sought. The development approval was not enacted and subsequently expired. However, the owner’s consultants contended that the two year period within which the approved development must commence was extended by virtue of the 2008 variation approval. Officers subsequently sought legal advice which affirmed the City’s position that the approval expired in August 2009. A new planning application which was identical to the previous approved development including variations was subsequently lodged and this was approved by the PSC in November 2009 subject to similar conditions that had been imposed on the previous approval. In February 2010, the owner lodged a request for a partial refund of the application fee (refer to Attachment 1).


Page 26


Planning and Development (Local Government Planning Fees) Regulations 2000 Planning fees are imposed in accordance with Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 of the Planning and Development (Local Government Planning Fees) Regulations 2000. The prescribed fees are a maximum amount which may be reduced in accordance with regulation 7 or waived or refunded (in whole or part) under regulation 14. LPP 1.2 - Refunding and Waiving/Reducing of Planning and Building Fees This policy deals with reductions or refunds of planning fees in sections 3 and 4 as follows: 3. Reduction of Planning Fees An application for a reduction in planning fees by 50% may be approved under the following circumstances:

(a) Where the development is of less than $50,000 in value and the application is, in the opinion of the Manager Development Services, similar to a previous application determined during the preceding year to the point where previous assessment work can significantly contribute to the assessment of the new application.

OR (b) Where the applicant is a “not for profit” organisation and has obtained an

income tax exemption status from the Australian Taxation Office. OR (c) Where the application is for a home occupation only under the Federal

Government’s New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS). Where an application for a fee reduction is made under (b) or (c) above, the applicant will be required to provide sufficient proof at the time of submitting the request. 4. Refund of Planning Fees The City will consider a written request for the refund of planning fees where the application is withdrawn prior to a determination being issued only in the following circumstances:

(a) Where, in the opinion of the Manager Development Services, no assessment work has been undertaken by the City and the application is subsequently withdrawn in writing within seven (7) days of the date of application, 90% of application fee may be refunded.

(b) Where assessment work has commenced by the City, a refund of 50% of the

application fee may be approved where: (i) The application has not been advertised; and (ii) The application is withdrawn in writing by the applicant within twenty one (21) days of lodgement of the application.

COMMENT

This is an unusual circumstance for a number of reasons and it is not a circumstance which is contemplated by the policy.


Page 27

The applicant contends that the variation to the original approval granted in September 2008 had the effect of extending the validity of the planning approval until September 2010 and had predicated a number of decisions on this basis. The applicant had sought their own legal opinion which confirmed this view. The basis for this view was that the format in which the approval for the variation had been issued was identical to the form of the original approval. The City’s legal advice differed for a number of reasons, and essentially was that this approval was only for the variation. Given the level of confusion surrounding this and the prospect of lengthy delays and considerable costs if the matter were to be determined via the legal system, the applicant lodged a fresh application for approval and was required to pay the full application fee at the time of lodgement ($31,000). The request for a partial refund relates only to this fee and not to application fees that have been paid previously. Council has previously dealt with a similar request. In August 2008, a request was received from the owners of the Elders Woolstores in Cantonment Street to reduce the planning application fee of $31,000 by two thirds (to $10,000). This request was submitted prior to any application being lodged or discussed with the City. The following resolution was carried:

That Council advise MMAGS Holdings Pty Ltd that the City is prepared to reduce the planning application fee by fifty percent subject to the application being identical to the Application VA03/07 previously approved.

The application for 2 Doepel Street meets the criteria applied in the decision regarding the MMAGS Holdings request in August 2008 in that the application was identical to that previously approved by Council. The requests differ in that the original approvals granted for 2 Doepel Street were done under an identical planning regime (Scheme and policies) whereas the Elders Woolstores application was originally determined under Town Planning Scheme No. 3 which set a quite different planning framework meaning that a fresh application, even if identical to the previous application, would bring with it a considerably higher workload requirement for assessment. CONCLUSION

The application is identical to that which was approved in 2007, and subsequently varied in 2008. Given that Council has previously approved a reduction of fifty percent of the planning application fee in a similar situation, it is open to the Council to also grant the same discretion in this case. However, given that the Council’s policy on fee refunds supports this occurring in a limited number of circumstances, it is recommended that on balance, the application for a fee refund of fifty percent nor be supported.


Page 28

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council advise Watersun Property Pty Ltd that the City is not prepared to refund fifty percent of the planning application fee paid for the assessment of the application for 2 Doepel Street, North Fremantle (DA0533/09) in October 2009 as requested in the correspondence dated 12 February 2010. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 29

PSC1003-49 CURTIN AVENUE LOT 6, NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PLANNING APPROVAL FOR FIVE STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT - (BC VA0002/10)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC0812-337 Attachments: Development plans Date Received: 13 January 2010 Owner Name: Rockingham Park Pty Ltd Submitted by: Cox Howlett & Bailey Woodland Scheme: Development Zone (DA 5 / DP 17) Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Vacant land Use Class: Multiple Dwellings


Page 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee for determination as the original Planning Approval was determined by the Committee. The applicant is seeking to vary a Planning Approval for 51 Multiple Dwellings within a five storey development at Lot 6 Curtin Avenue, North Fremantle. The amended development is proposing an additional 16 Multiple Dwellings within the five storey development, bringing the total number of Multiple Dwelling units to 67. The amended development proposal is considered to remain the same in substance as the original proposal and is therefore considered to satisfy the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and local planning policy, LPP1.1 Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals. Accordingly the application is recommended to be approved, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at Lot 6 Curtin Avenue, North Fremantle, which is located within the Leighton Beach Development Area. Lot 6 is situated at the south-eastern corner of the broader Leighton Beach development site and is currently vacant. The site has frontage to Curtin Avenue and Walter Place. 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’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The property is not listed on the City’s Heritage List. On 9 December 2008 Planning Approval was granted for 51 Multiple Dwellings within a five storey development at the subject site (refer DA532/08, PSC0812-337). Construction of this development has not commenced. DETAILS The applicant is seeking to vary the original Planning Approval for 51 Multiple Dwellings at the subject site. The proposed variations are detailed as follows:

- 16 additional Multiple Dwellings – increasing the total number of dwellings from 51 to 67.

o Changing the original 6 penthouse suites to 11 smaller apartments.

o Constructing four storeys where the original ground floor pool area was

and providing an open pool area on the fifth storey. - Providing 16 additional store rooms for the additional Multiple Dwellings. - Redesign of the basement car parking to provide 108 car bays.

o 1 less car bay than originally provided.


Page 31


Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Pursuant to Clause 8.3 of LPS4 the Council may, on written application from the owner of land in respect of which planning approval has been granted, revoke or amend the planning approval, prior to the commencement of the use or development the subject of the planning approval. The development site is located within Development Area 5 – Leighton Marshalling Yards as described in Schedule 11 of LPS4. Schedule 11 of LPS4 states that all development shall be subject to the provisions of Development Plan 17 (DP17) contained in Schedule 14 of LPS4. The Leighton Development Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) is incorporated within DP17, with development required to be consistent with the provisions therein. Lot 6 is located within precinct DP4 of the Structure Plan. Local Planning Policies LPP1.1 Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals The City’s local planning policy, LPP1.1 Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals, provides criteria for assessing a proposed variation to a previous development approval. This policy states:

In determining whether to allow the amendment of a planning approval, Council will consider whether the nature and extent of the proposal amendment is such that the use or development the subject of the planning approval:

(a) remains, in substance, the same; or (b) is changed so a new and different use or development is proposed.

CONSULTATION

The application for the variation to Planning Approval is not required to be advertised under the provisions of LPS4 or local planning policy LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. PLANNING COMMENT

The essential components of the proposed amendments to the original Planning Approval are discussed as follows: Land Use The Multiple Dwelling (residential) land use of the amended proposal remains the same as originally proposed.


Page 32

Building Height The overall building height of the amended proposal is consistent with the overall height of the original proposal (five storeys). Plot Ratio The plot ratio of the amended proposal is 2.34:1 which is considered comparable to the plot ratio of the original proposal that was 1.84:1. The plot ratio of the amended proposal complies with the requirements of LPS4, which allows for a maximum plot ratio of 3:1 for the subject site. General Design The general design (setbacks, visual permeability and shadow generation) and building materials of the amended proposal are consistent with the general design and materials of the original proposal. Car Parking The original development proposal provided 109 on-site car bays, inclusive of 9 visitor bays, which represented a surplus of 32 on-site car bays as required under LPS4. The amended proposal requires the provision of 101 on-site car bays, inclusive of 11 visitor bays, as per LPS4. The amended development proposes 108 on-site cays, with 9 bays designated as visitor bays. Even though the amended development provides an overall surplus of on-site car parking of 7 bays, it is recommended that an additional condition of approval be included requiring 11 car bays be designated for visitor bays as per the requirements of LPS4. Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) requirements The amended proposal complies with the relevant requirements of the R-Codes pertaining to open space, visual privacy and incidental development. The proposed amendments to the original Planning Approval are not considered to substantially alter the essence, or substance, of the original development, for the reasons outlined above. CONCLUSION The amended development proposal designates 9 on-site car bays for visitor parking, representing a shortfall of 2 bays as per the requirements of LPS4. Whilst the overall on-site car parking exceeds that required under LPS4, it is recommended that an additional condition of approval be included requiring 11 on-site car bays be designated for visitor parking.


Page 33

Overall the proposed amendments to the approved development proposal at Lot 6 Curtin Avenue, North Fremantle are not considered to substantially alter the essence, or substance, of the original development. The proposed amendments are therefore considered to satisfy the requirements of the City’s local planning policy, LPP1.1 Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval. It is therefore recommended that Council grant approval to the variations to the Planning Approval granted in on 9 December 2008. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the Variation to Planning Approval be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Five Storey Multiple Dwelling Development at Lot 6, Curtin Avenue, North Fremantle, as detailed on development plans dated 13 January 2010, subject to the same terms and conditions as those included within Planning Approval 532/08 dated 9 December 2008 and including the following amended condition(s): A. Condition 1 of the Planning Approval dated 9 December 2008, be deleted and

replaced with the following condition:

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the approved plans dated 13 January 2010.

B. Condition 9 of the Planning Approval dated 9 December 2008, be deleted and

replaced with the following condition:

9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the sustainability initiatives listed within the document ‘Sustainable Design Lot 6, Leighton Beach Brookfield Multiplex’ dated 8 October 2008 within the development application document dated 13 January 2010, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

C. Condition 12 be added to the Planning Approval dated 9 December 2008, to read:

Eleven (11) designated visitor car parking bays shall be provided on-site on an on-going basis.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete Part C. CARRIED: 6/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr John Dowson


Page 34

COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the Variation to Planning Approval be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Five Storey Multiple Dwelling Development at Lot 6, Curtin Avenue, North Fremantle, as detailed on development plans dated 13 January 2010, subject to the same terms and conditions as those included within Planning Approval 532/08 dated 9 December 2008 and including the following amended condition(s):

A. Condition 1 of the Planning Approval dated 9 December 2008, be deleted and replaced with the following condition:

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance

with the approved plans dated 13 January 2010. B. Condition 9 of the Planning Approval dated 9 December 2008, be deleted

and replaced with the following condition:

9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the sustainability initiatives listed within the document ‘Sustainable Design Lot 6, Leighton Beach Brookfield Multiplex’ dated 8 October 2008 within the development application document dated 13 January 2010, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr John Dowson


Page 35

PSC1003-50 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/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 36

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1003-51 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 2.12 - PLANNING APPLICATIONS IMPACTING UPON VERGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND VERGE TREES - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 117/042 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: Draft Local Planning Policy No. 2.12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council adopt a draft version of Local Planning Policy No. 2.12 - ‘Planning Applications Impacting on Verge Infrastructure and Verge Trees’. The objective the local planning policy is to provide guidance in assessing planning applications that include new crossovers, or require removal or modification to existing verge infrastructure and/or verge tress. It is recommended that the draft local planning policy be adopted and advertised for public comment in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. BACKGROUND

Planning applications generally relate to land use and/or development on individual property, access to the property weather it be vehicular or pedestrian is required and obtained through public land, such as a verge. Although planning proposals can impact upon verges and the Planning and Development Act 2005 does not provide a mechanism or control works within the road reserve which includes infrastructure in the verge. The verge is that part of the road reserve between the road and property boundary and contains a wide range of infrastructure including verge trees, bus stops and light poles. Responsibility for verge infrastructure is undertaken by local and state government departments and services authorities for the delivery, maintenance, removal or relocation of verge infrastructure. Currently the City has no planning policy as to how officers progress with planning applications which require the removal or relocation of verge infrastructure due to the location of vehicular access. The draft policy seeks to provide a consistent approach by clarifying the process for proceeding with planning applications which affect verge infrastructure.


Page 37

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 The Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 provide that no damage or alteration may occur to any infrastructure on Council property unless the approval for the Council is first granted. State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes Clause 6.5.4 of the Residential Design Codes includes Acceptable Development provisions relating to the distances of driveways to side boundaries, street poles, intersections, angle of driveways to the street and avoiding street trees. Local Planning Scheme No.4: Local Planning Policies Clause 2.2.1 of the City’s Scheme empowers the Council to prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area. Clause 2.3.1 of the City’s Scheme states that if the provisions of a local planning policy are inconsistent with the Scheme, the Scheme prevails. Clause 2.3.2 of the City’s Scheme states that while Council is not bound by the provisions contained within a local planning policy, however Council is to have due regard to the objectives and provisions contained within a local planning policy before making its determination. Clause 2.4 of the City’s Scheme outlines the procedures for preparing and adopting a local planning policy. Verge Trees and Infrastructure Clause 10.2.1 of the City’s Scheme empower the Council to have due regard and may attach conditions relating to, a number of matters including ”whether adequate provision has been made of the landscaping of the land to which the planning application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved including adjacent verge trees”. CONSULTATION

If Council resolves to adopt the draft local planning policy recommended in this report, the local planning policy will be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with the requirements set out in clause 2.4.1 of LPS 4 and local planning policy No. 1.3 ‘Public Notification of Planning Approvals.


Page 38

PLANNING COMMENT

The objective of draft local planning policy ‘No. 2.12 - Planning Applications impacting on verge infrastructure and verge trees’ is to provide guidance in assessing planning applications that include new crossovers, or require removal or modification to existing verge infrastructure and or verge trees. Planning applications relate to a piece of land however vehicular access to a property results in a crossover being constructed within the verge. Verge areas contain a variety of public infrastructure such as footpaths, electrical lines, bus stops, light poles, street trees and the like. It is important that when considering a planning application that consideration of the location of the vehicular crossover and its impact upon verge infrastructure, if any exists. Sometimes when planning applications are lodged the locations of the crossover and verge infrastructure are not shown in sufficient detail which causes difficulty in properly assessing the proposal. The draft policy seeks to address this by clearly stipulating the information required as part of the applications. CONCLUSION

The proposed local planning policy will provide guidance in assessing planning applications that include new crossovers, or require removal or modification to existing verge infrastructure and/or verge trees. It is therefore recommended that the draft policy be advertised for public comment, after which it will be reported back to Council for further consideration.


Page 39

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Adopt the following draft Local Planning Policy for the purpose of advertising for public submissions:

____________________________________

CITY OF FREMANTLE Local Planning Policy 2.12 - Planning Applications Impacting on Verge Infrastructure and Verge Trees ADOPTION DATE: DRAFT AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO 4

Statutory background Clause 10.2.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 empowers the Council to have due regard and may attach conditions relating to, a number of matters including "whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the planning application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved including adjacent verge trees". The Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 provide that no damage or alteration may occur to any infrastructure on Council property unless the approval of the Council is first granted. Clause 6.5.4 of the Residential Design Codes includes Acceptable Development provisions relating to the distances of driveways to side boundaries, street poles, intersections, angle of driveways to the street and avoiding street trees. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance in assessing planning applications that include new crossovers, or require removal or modification to existing verge infrastructure and/or verge trees.

For the purposes of this local planning policy verge infrastructure includes verge trees, street lighting, speed bumps, bus stops, directional and traffic signs.

Policy 1. Street infrastructure - Appropriate clearances 1.1 This policy relates to all infrastructure and vegetation constructed above

ground within road reserves and includes street trees, power poles, road, name and directional signs, benches, bus shelters, drain side-entries, service pit covers and traffic management devices.


Page 40

1.2 All applications for Planning Approval which incorporate a new or amended

vehicular crossover are required to show:

a) The application must include correct levels proportions of any verge trees (diameter of trunk at ground level and width of canopy)

b) All existing verge infrastructure and verge trees abutting the subject site including existing and proposed finished levels within 5 metres of the property frontage

Where verge infrastructure is omitted from an application, or is not accurately portrayed as part of an application, the applicant is responsible for any resulting modifications and costs associated. In cases where new crossovers have been approved and verge infrastructure retained under this policy, the following footnote shall be included on all Planning Approvals; "The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either (a) submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or (b) submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

1.3 All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated from any verge

infrastructure by:

(a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees (b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic

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

directional signs. 1.4 Council may grant approval to a lesser dimension in cases where written

justification is provided by the applicant, and Council is satisfied that:

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


Page 41

1.5 Council will support the truncation or modification of crossovers within the

verge area to achieve the necessary setback distances where it is satisfied that:

(a) it can be demonstrated that a vehicle can manoeuvre between the

property and the street in such a manner that is safe in use, or (b) the public street to which the property connects is classified as a

local road, and (c) safe and adequate traffic sight distances are maintained, and (d) the modification of the crossover will not have any adverse impact on

any existing footpath or otherwise impair the movement of pedestrians.

2. Street infrastructure - removal or modification required as result of a planning

application. 2.1 The Council will grant planning approval for development which requires the

removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees where it is satisfied that:

(a) prior approval from the relevant service agency has been obtained,

and (b) no reasonable or practical alternative exists, and (c) the infrastructure can be replaced in such a manner that is safe and

fully functional, and (d) in the case of street trees, can be replaced in such a manner that is

consistent with the streetscape, character and amenity of the locality or otherwise in accordance with the City’s policies.

2.2 Planning applications requiring the removal or modification of verge

infrastructure and/or verge trees where approval has not been obtained from the relevant service agency will be requested to amend the plans to prevent the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees.

Where the applicant does not amend plans to prevent the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees and the proposed development is otherwise deemed acceptable on planning grounds approval will be granted and the following advisory note placed on the approval: “This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences.” In addition to the advisory note above, the following advisory note will also be placed on the planning approval to address incidents where approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority:


Page 42

"In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation”.

____________________________________

2. Advertise the draft Local Planning Policy for public comment for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

3. Require the preparation of a report summarising public submissions for

consideration prior to final adoption of the draft Local Planning Policy. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 43

PSC1003-52 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.10 - LANDSCAPING OF DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING VEGETATION ON DEVELOPMENT SITES - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 117/040 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: Draft Local Planning Policy No. 2.10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council adopt a draft version of Local Planning Policy No. 2.10 - ‘Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites’. The objective the local planning policy is to provide guidance on the requirement for and assessment of landscape plans and situations where Scheme and Policy requirements can be varied in relation to planning applications which affect tree(s) and vegetation considered worthy of conservation. It is recommended that the draft local planning policy be adopted and advertised for public comment in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 44

BACKGROUND

In 1997 under Town Planning Scheme No. 3, the City adopted local planning policy DBH4 Landscaping/Tree Preservation within Development Proposals (DBH 4) to guide the assessment of planning applications for development or use which required landscaping, specifically guidelines for the submission and consideration of landscaping plans and ongoing preservation of existing landscaped areas and trees. In 2007 Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS 4) was gazetted and although a local planning policy to guide the submission and consideration of landscaping plans is still required the existing local planning policy requires modifications to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in implementation, as well as consistency with LPS 4. Draft ‘Local Planning Policy 2.10 - Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites’ was developed by officers to overcome these issues allowing for improvement in the processing of landscaping plans and consideration of development applications which involve tree(s) and vegetation areas identified as significant. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Local Planning Scheme No. 4: Local Planning Policies Clause 2.2.1 of the City’s Scheme empowers the Council to prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area. Clause 2.3.1 of the City’s Scheme states that if the provisions of a local planning policy are inconsistent with the Scheme, the Scheme prevails. Clause 2.3.2 of the City’s Scheme states that while Council is not bound by the provisions contained within a local planning policy, however Council is to have due regard to the objectives and provisions contained within a local planning policy before making its determination. Clause 2.4 of the City’s Scheme outlines the procedures for preparing and adopting a local planning policy. Tree provisions Clause 7.6 of the City’s Scheme contains provisions to establish and maintain a register of significant trees and outlines what is to be considered in a proposal to include a place on the register of significant trees. Clause 8.2 Permitted Developments states that the “following development does not require planning approval of the Council – (k) removal of trees or vegetation areas except where trees and vegetation areas are identified in the register of significant trees or vegetation areas”. Therefore requiring planning approval is to be sought to remove a tree(s) or vegetation area listed on the register of significant trees or vegetation.


Page 45

CONSULTATION

If Council resolves to adopt the draft local planning policy recommended in this report, the local planning policy will

minute manager 2 - home | city of fremantle - psc... · confidential matters 54 ... summary guide...

Documents