MINUTES - City of Fremantle · Recommendation for item C1605-1: Brett Endebsby Nic Preston Vernon...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 3

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 5

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 5

TABLED DOCUMENTS 5

LATE ITEMS NOTED 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS 6

COUNCIL ITEMS 6

C1605-1 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO 8 (LOT 310), FREMANTLE - FORTY TWO (42) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL TENANCY (OFFICE, SHOP, SMALL BAR AND RESTAURANT) - (CJ DAP001/16) 6

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 4 MAY 2016 40

PC1605-4 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 88 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO SHOP (MASSAGE PARLOUR) - (SP DA0071/16) 40

PC1605-8 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 68 - MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE 48

PC1605-9 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.14 - ADVERTISEMENT POLICY - FINAL ADOPTION 54

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2016 67

FPOL1605-1 INFORMATION REPORT - MAY 2016 67

FPOL1605-2 WRITE OFF OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MAY 2016 72

FPOL1605-3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - APRIL 2016 77

FPOL1605-6 FREMANTLE ARTS CENTRE CURATOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL 86

FPOL1605-7 EXPOSURE TO BROADSPECTRUM LTD AND WILSON SECURITY PTY LTD 89

FPOL1605-4 FINAL APPROVAL OF LEASE FOR ENKEL - NAVAL STORES, CANTONMENT HILL 94

FPOL1605-5 APPROVAL REQUEST FOR OFFICER AND MAYOR ATTENDANCE AT RMW CONFERENCE IN BIRMINGHAM UK 110

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 11 MAY 2016 113

SPD1605-1 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLAN UPDATE 113

SPD1605-2 PROPOSED ENGAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DIVERSE HOUSING PROJECT - ADOPTION 118

LIBRAry advisory COMMITTEE 11 MAY 2016 125

LAC1605-1 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - JANUARY - MARCH 2016 125

LAC1605-2 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - JANUARY - MARCH 2016 135

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2016 139

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 139

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 139

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 139

COUNCIL ITEMS 139

C1605-2 TYRONE STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DAP007/15

(TWENTY TWO (22) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (CJ DAPV002/16) 139

C1605-3 COUNCIL INFORMATION REPORT - MAY 2016 147

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 148

CLOSURE OF MEETING 148

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation 149

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 154

155

156

Minutes – Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 May 2016

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 25 May 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.03 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

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

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward (departed 6.45pm) Mr Phil St John Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Lionel Nicholson Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Mrs Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Approvals Ms Nadine Weller Property Services Administrator Ms Sharne Bruere Acting Manager Strategic Planning Mr Domenic Snellgrove Chairman Design Advisory Committee Mr Alan Kelsall Heritage Coordinator Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary


Page 2

There were approximately 20 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Bryn Jones North Ward

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item C1605-1: Brett Endebsby Nic Preston Vernon Butterly tabled a document by Griffiths Architects at the meeting and are attached to the minutes. The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1605-4: Ljiljauna Ravlich Stuart Heath The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1605-4: Lily Wu The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item FPOL1605-4: Adam Jorley

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

At 6.32 pm Cr J Strachan declared a impartiality interest in item number FPOL1605-5 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr J Strachan advised the Council his partner may be perceived as having an association with Enkel. At 6.33 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1605-5 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.


Page 3

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr D Thompson request for a leave of absence from 30 June to 10 July 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr J McDonald request for a leave of absence from 25 May to 5 June 2016 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 4

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr Josh Wilson travelled to Japan 11 April 2016 on behalf of the Council and Mayor, Brad Pettitt to attend the Mayor for Peace. Cr J Wilson visited Nagasaki, Japan and spoke with former victims who survived the second atomic bomb. Cr J Wilson highlighted the importance of the relationship with the sister city and The City of Fremantle and appreciated the traditions, customs and culture of its Sister City Yokosuka Japan. Cr J Wilson thanked the Mayor of Yokosuka’s for the lovely platter, and a crystal bell gifts to the City of Fremantle. The Deputy Mayor from Indonesia visited sister city, City of Fremantle and Mayor, Brad Pettitt and Cr J Strachan this week. On behalf of the sister city Indonesia, a book titled Potencies and Investment Opportunities in Padang City and DVD, Indonesian snacks, and a trophy with the Padang logo was presented to the City. Mayor, Brad Pettitt paid tribute to Cr Josh Wilson as he formally resigned as Deputy Mayor this evening. Mayor, Brad Pettitt thanked Cr J Wilson for all his time and effort as Deputy Mayor and acknowledged his travel to Japan was timely and how important the role of as Deputy Mayor is. Mayor, Brad Pettitt noted that it is a loss to the Council however if Cr J Wilson is elected in the Federal election he will be a very articulate leader for this region. Cr J Wilson left the meeting at 6.45 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 27 April 2016 and Special Council meeting held on 3 February 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton


Page 5

Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents Special Meeting of Council Agenda – Thursday 26 May 2016

LATE ITEMS NOTED


Page 6

COMMITTEE REPORTS

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1605-1 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO 8 (LOT 310), FREMANTLE - FORTY TWO (42) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL TENANCY (OFFICE, SHOP, SMALL BAR AND RESTAURANT) - (CJ DAP001/16)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 8 (Lot 310) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Forty two (42) Multiple Dwellings and Commercial Tenancy (Office, Shop, Small Bar and Restaurant)

DAP Name: Metro South West (JDAP)

Applicant: Whelan’s Town Planning

Owner: The Fremantle Foundry & Engineering Co Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP001/16

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/16/990

Report Date: 12 May 2016

Application Receipt Date: 12 February 2016

Application Process Days: 90 Days (+ extension of time)

Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans (DA00, DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA08, DA09, DA10, DA11, DA12, DA13, DA14, DA15, DA18, DA19, DA20, DA21, DA22, DA23, DA24, DA25, DA26) 2: Schedule of submissions 3: DAC Minutes 4: Heritage Comment

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/16/990 and accompanying plans DA00, DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA08, DA09, DA10, DA11, DA12, DA13, DA14, DA15, DA18, DA19, DA20, DA21, DA22, DA23, DA24, DA25, DA26 in accordance with City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons: Reasons


Page 7

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the permitted building height criteria in Schedule 12 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for sub area 2.3.1.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the vision for Precinct 3, as outlined by Local Planning Policy 3.1.3 Precinct 3.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 8 (Lot 310) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City

TPS: Mixed Use

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwelling

Office

Shop

Small Bar

Restaurant

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No.4

Insert Lot Size: 1216sqm

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant

Value of Development: $12 million

No. 8 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle is located on the western side of Queen Victoria Street in sub area 2.3.1 of the Fremantle Local Planning Area under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is zoned Central City under the MRS, and Mixed Use under LPS4. The street block is bound by Beach Street to the west, Parry Street to the south, Queen Victoria Street to the east and James Street to the north. The site is not on the City’s Heritage List nor is it located within a Heritage Area under LPS4, however there are a number of Heritage Listed properties in the immediate vicinity. There is no development currently occupying the site. Planning history for the site is as follows –


Page 8

DA0155/13 (July 2013) - – Demolition of Office and Industrial General buildings and structures.

Details: outline of development application On 12 February 2016, the City received an application for the addition of forty two (42) Multiple Dwellings and a 120sqm Commercial tenancy (Office, Shop, Small Bar and Restaurant). The proposal includes the following -

Basement

o 48 car bays in car stacker formation;

o 2 x at grade car bays;

o 19x storerooms (ranging in size from 1.6sqm to 4sqm)

o 20 x bicycle racks;

o Water pumps;

o Fire pump room.

Ground floor

o 20 x car bays in car stacker formation;

o 3 x at grade car bays;

o 23 x storerooms (ranging in size from 1.9sqm to 4sqm);

o Transformer room;

o Bin store;

o Entrance and lobby; and

o Commercial tenancy (120sqm).

Level 1

o 8x two bedroom Multiple Dwellings;

o Communal courtyard.

Level 2

o 8 x two bedroom Multiple Dwellings;

o Two lift lobbies.

Level 3


o Two lift lobbies.

Level 4


o Two lift lobbies.

Level 5


o 2 x three bedroom Multiple Dwellings;


Page 9

o Two lift lobbies.

Level 6


o Roof terrace;

o 2 x lift lobbies.

On 26 April 2016, the City received a set of revised plans, prepared by the applicant to address Heritage issues with the application. Changes to the plans related solely to the façade and its materials, and did not alter floor plans or height. Subsequent meetings with DAC, Heritage and City Officers, led the applicant to elect to remain with their originally submitted plans dated 12 February 2016. These plans are presented to Council and JDAP for consideration. Development plans are included as attachment 1. Legislation & policy: Legislation and policy applicable to this application are as follows: Legislation Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Deemed provisions for local planning schemes – Clause 67 Matters to be considered by local government

State Government Policies

State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Clause 1.6 The Aims of the Scheme

Clause 4.2.1 (e) Objectives for Mixed use zone

Table 1 – Zoning

Table 2 – Car parking

Clause 5.4.5 – Dwelling Mix

Clause 5.8.1 Variations to site and development standards and requirements

Clause 5.16 End of Trip Facilities

Clause 6.5.3.2 Development referral areas Area 2

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of Applications

Clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Development requirements - Local Planning Area 2 Fremantle – Sub area 2.3.1

Local Policies The following local planning policies are applicable to the development –


Page 10

Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals;

Local Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design;

Local Planning Policy 1.10 – Construction Sites;

Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines;

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements

Local Planning Policy 2.19 - Contribution for Public Art/and or Heritage Works; and

Local Planning Policy 3.1.3 - Precinct 3. Consultation: Public Consultation In accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, a significant application is required to be advertised for a period of 28 days. Clause 10 requires that when an application’s notice period falls within the week before or after Easter Sunday, an additional 14 days is to be added. The application was therefore advertised for a period of 42 days in the following manner -

2 x newspaper notices;

Sign on site;

Notice to owners and occupiers in 100m radius;

Notice on the City’s website;

Notice to precinct groups; and

Community information session 30 March 2016 (attended by three members of the public ,two Elected Members and City planning staff).

At the close of the advertising period, being 12 April 2016, six (6) submissions had been received by the City that raised the following issues:

Building does not fit with the Fremantle aesthetic and greater thought should be given to materials;

Looking forward to construction on a vacant site;

Concern about retail access for new residents;

No affordable housing and limited dwelling mix;

No awning over footpath. A full schedule of submissions received is included as attachment2. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Fremantle Ports The application was referred to Fremantle Ports (FP) for comment in accordance with Clause 6.5.3.2a) of LPS4, as the subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Ports Buffer Area. The following comment was received:


Page 11

The subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. The requirements of the City’s local planning policy LPP 2.3 Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (LPP 2.3) for Area 2 will be applicable to the development; specifically in regard to the built form of the development and the registration of a notification or memorial on the title of the subject lot. It would be appreciated if these requirements could be included as conditions of approval. As such, conditions of approval are included in the alternate recommendation in regards to the built form requirements of LPP 2.3. Department of Environment Regulation As the site is listed as Contaminated- Restricted Use, the development plans were forwarded to the Department of Environment Regulation for comment. In summary, the following comments were received:

Recommendation that contaminated condition EN9 and advice ENa2 should be applied to the approval (as per Model Conditions Schedule – WAPC)

An accredited contaminated sites auditor has been engaged to assist with the redevelopment of the site for residential use.

In the instance approval was recommended conditions of approval could be included as requested by DER. Infrastructure and Project Delivery – The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team, who provided the following comments -

The location of the hydrant / booster is situated to avoid loss of either parking bays or street trees.

- Planning Officer comment - There is no hydrant or booster proposed in the

road reserve on the current version of the plans. In the instance approval was recommended, a standard advice note relating works in the verge could be applied.

Trees & tree infrastructure is to be bonded as part of verge obstruction permit

- Planning Officer comment- In the instance approval was recommended, a standard advice note regarding verge trees/work in the verge could be included.

Trees are to be maintained & protected to Australian Standard 4970 -2009 protection of trees on development sites for the duration of the works.


Page 12

- Planning Officer comment- In the instance approval was recommended, a standard advice note regarding verge trees/work in the verge could be included.

Request that the awning is constructed around the street tree canopy. alternatively street trees will require pruning prior to construction works. the pruning work is to be carried out by the City of Fremantle. The developer is to contact parks & landscape department to organise for work to be carried out. a minimum of 1 weeks notice is required.

- Planning officer comment – The awning is a requirement under LPP 3.1.3 and is not recommended to be cut back. In the instance approval was recommended, a standard advice note regarding verge trees/work in the verge would be included.

Use of Beach St car park to supplement development site not supported. Carpark 12b operated by CoF on Department of Transport land. Carpark 12b closes at midnight and reopens at 6am daily. Suggest not preferred parking for visitors.

- Planning officer comment – Given the land uses proposed for the Commercial component, visitors are unlikely to drive to the site outside of these hours. For overnight visitors to the Multiple Dwellings, there are additional bays provided on site, which the residents can let their visitors into.

Pedestrian access to entrance to 8 Queen Victoria St not direct from Beach St carpark. Display Level of Servicefor pedestrians particularly at night.

- Planning officer comment – As footpaths and roads are the City’s responsibility, it is not considered to be appropriate to require the applicant to address this.

Demonstrate the effect of right turns into the development from Queen Victoria St during peak times. i.e.: holding vehicles in right turn lane for signalised intersection, westbound. Left in left out scenario would be the best solution. A median strip would require road widening and wouldn’t be achievable in the road reserve.

- Planning officer comment – In the instance approval was recommended a condition to detail safe traffic movement using a left in left out or alternative to the City’s satisfaction could be included.

Pedestrian access into Fremantle needs to be detailed. This is justified due to the proximity of the development to the Fremantle activity centre – walking will be an option for a proportion of occupants.

- Planning officer comment – As footpaths and roads are the City’s responsibility, it is not considered to be appropriate to require the applicant to address this..


Page 13

Loading area for service vehicle to the commercial premises needs to be provided. Beach St would not be a viable option.

- Planning officer comment – The lack of provision of a delivery bay has been supported against the requirements of the Scheme. See parking discussion below.

Provided 3 bays for commercial tenancy may satisfy staff however to ensure the viability of future tenancies here, provision for at least the minimum parking should be provided.

- Planning Officer comment – commercial viability of a business is not a relevant planning concern. Number of bays provided is discussed in the Planning Assessment section of the report below.

Design Advisory Committee In accordance with Clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 and LPP 1.9 Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design, the proposed development was referred to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on the following occasions – Pre DA lodgement –

Meeting – 9 November 2015

Workshop – 1 December 2015

Meeting – 14 December 2015

Workshop – 23 December 2015

Workshop – 20 January 2015 Post DA lodgement –

Meeting – 14 March 2016

Meeting - 9 May 2016 As of the meeting on 14th March, the DAC supported the proposed development subject to a condition of approval requiring minor alterations and confirmation of materials prior to the issue of a building permit. The minutes state: The design has clearly improved since the first proposal presented to the DAC and, while some improvements are needed in the façade design, they can be resolved through a condition of planning approval. For the design improvement to be sustained, it is imperative that the use of high quality façade materials, as proposed, is retained through to building permit stage and construction completion. From a statutory planning perspective it is understood that there are still issues with the proposed height as it relates to the scheme provisions and the significantly lower height


Page 14

of the adjoining heritage buildings. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

There is a relationship between the design and materials of the approved 1 Beach Street development and this adjoining development.

An additional floor had earlier been proposed to the Queen Victoria Street block. The deletion of this additional floor, as recommended by the DAC, reduces the visual dominance of the building when viewed from further away and results in a better proportional relationship between the solid façade and the lighter, more lantern-like top of the building.

Use of quality materials

Façade composition in terms of placement of openings

Apartment plans that are well considered in terms of noise transfer from facing rooms, cross ventilation, no internalised bedrooms, and the placement of bathroom doors so they are not entered off living spaces.

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Enhancements to the ground floor façade to increase surface articulation, the depth of reveals to openings, differentiation between the apartment entry and the entry to the commercial space.

The planters on the roof deck to be moved to the edges of the roof deck to obscure views directly onto the metal roof and apartment decks below and to increase the flexibility of use of the deck.

Relationship between the openings on the ground floor and openings above to be more considered in terms of overall composition and continuity of alignment. For example the openings above the ground floor are regular and symmetrical while the ground floor opening locations are driven more by functionality.

1.0m of clearance to be taken from the high volume over the car park ramp in order to improve the depth of the planting areas to the courtyard above and allow for deeper root planting zones.

RECOMMENDATION The design is supported subject to the above matters being addressed and the following planning approval condition: Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle having regard to further advice from the Design Advisory Committee relating to:

a. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement of final façade finishes.


Page 15

b. Matters raised in the Design Advisory Committee Minutes of 14 March 2016 under the heading “how can the proposal be improved.”

On further discussion with Heritage, the applicant elected to provide further revisions to the plans, being minor alterations to the façade and the colour of the terracotta tiling externally. These were reviewed at DAC on 9 May 2016, with DAC advising the following - DRAFT GENERAL COMMENTS In review of the most recent alternative Queen Victoria Street façade cladding/ treatments perspective drawings, the DAC would first like to thanks the applicant for investigating and exploring alternative cladding colour options. However, in reviewing these amended perspectives the DAC reinforces its recommendation made at its meeting held 14 March 2016 and still conditionally supports the proposed development plans and Queen Victoria Street façade treatments provided at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION 1. At its meeting held 14 March 2016 DAC recommended: The design is supported subject to the above matters being addressed and the following planning approval condition: Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle having regard to further advice from the Design Advisory Committee relating to:

a. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement of final façade finishes.

b. Matters raised in the Design Advisory Committee Minutes of 14 March 2016 under the heading “how can the proposal be improved.”

In relation to part )b of the above DAC recommendation the following is related: HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Enhancements to the ground floor façade to increase surface articulation, the depth of reveals to openings, differentiation between the apartment entry and the entry to the commercial space.

The planters on the roof deck to be moved to the edges of the roof deck to obscure views directly onto the metal roof and apartment decks below and to increase the flexibility of use of the deck.

Relationship between the openings on the ground floor and openings above to be more considered in terms of overall composition and continuity of alignment. For example the openings above the ground floor are regular and


Page 16

symmetrical while the ground floor opening locations are driven more by functionality.

1.0m of clearance to be taken from the high volume over the car park ramp in order to improve the depth of the planting areas to the courtyard above and allow for deeper root planting zones.

In response to this, the applicant elected to remain with the 12 February 2016 plans, and the revised plans are no longer relevant. At the time of writing this report, the finalised minutes for the May DAC were not finalised, however will be circulated to Council prior to the meeting, and included in the RAR prior to lodgement. Meeting and workshop minutes from the DAC are included as attachment 3. Heritage The application has been referred to the City’s Heritage Coordinator for comment, particularly having regard to the proposed developments impact on the heritage listed properties in the streetscape. The following comments (excerpt) were received - The combined effect of the height and bulk of the proposed development is similar to the massing of existing buildings along the west side of Precinct 3 and it is therefore consistent with the desired character of the broader context in this respect. However it is not consistent with the predominant height patterns of the neighbouring heritage properties. Apart from its general massing, the proposed new development does not reflect either the aesthetic characteristics of the area’s retained c1890 to 1920 heritage buildings or the robust, industrial character of the later port-related heritage buildings, expressed most prominently in the Federation Warehouse style former Dalgety’s Woolstores building. The proposed development is therefore considered unsupportable. It is considered that the challenges arising from the disparate character of the site’s immediate context would be reconciled if the new development were to be designed in accord with the desired character of the broader context. In this way the new large-scale development would share the characteristics of the existing larger buildings and thus strengthen the area’s sense of identity, while also providing a coherent, contrasting backdrop for the smaller scaled heritage listed buildings. It is therefore recommended that the facades of the proposed building be redesigned to respond to, without imitation, the identified aesthetic characteristics of a refined version of the Federation Warehouse style. An informed judgement on whether or not the design has succeeded in getting the right balance between the requirement to reflect the area’s robust industrial character, while also being sympathetic to the area’s retained heritage, cannot be made until the facades


Page 17

have been redesigned and the proposal is shown in its context. Full comment is included as attachment 4. Urban Design The application was referred to the City’s Urban Designer, specifically for comment on how the proposed development responds to the Local Planning policy and scheme provisions. The following comments were received –

It is considered from an urban design point of view that the proposal’s frontage height to Queen Victoria Street is too high for this location. The site is within Area 8 in Sub Area 1 of Local Planning Area 2, which was the subject of Amendment 38. Particular attention was given during the urban design study and subsequent planning scheme amendment process to the appropriate heights of new buildings in Area 8 to ensure they are consistent in scale with adjoining properties at the southern end of Queen Victoria Street and the nearby Princess May Park precinct. The report on Amendment 38 identified that “most of the study area’s heritage sites that are listed on the Municipal Inventory are in this area (Area 8) and therefore acceptable built form needs to be determined in more detail on a site by site basis”. The subject site is on the western side of Queen Victoria Street. During the amendment’s public comment stage, the advertised amendment would permit development to 18 metres on the eastern side of Queen Victoria Street opposite Area 8. As a result of comments received, Council subsequently resolved to reduce the maximum permitted height on the eastern side of Queen Victoria Street to 15 metres. The item to Council at the time reported that:

“The street block to the south of Fort Knox (Area 8) generally contains lower rise buildings that should be retained and redeveloped by adaptive reuse and sympathetic extensions and infill, however the advertised amendment would permit development to 18 metres in the part of Area 4 on the eastern side of Queen Victoria St and opposite Area 8. Building heights on the western side of Queen Victoria St in Area 8 are unlikely to change significantly and therefore it is considered that a 15 metre frontage height in this part of Area 4 (to become Area 4b in the adopted amendment) would be more compatible with the existing and likely scale of development on the opposite side of Queen Victoria St.”

It is therefore considered that a more appropriate frontage height to 8 Queen Victoria Street should be a maximum of 15 metres so that it would be similar to future development on the opposite side of Queen Victoria Street. The lower height would also be more consistent with existing buildings within Area 8 and the nearby Princess May Park precinct.


Page 18

Planning assessment: The application received the following relevant planning submissions –

Planning Issue Assessment

Design not harmonious with existing architecture.

Design and impact on amenity of streetscape is a relevant consideration in a number of design elements discussed below.

Dwelling mix not provided Dwelling mix has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and is supported.

A full schedule of submissions is included as attachment 2. The following section of the report outlines the statutory planning assessment for the application.


Page 19

Land use

Proposed Land Use LPS4 Permissibility Discretionary assessment

Multiple Dwelling A Required

Office P Not required

Shop A Required

Small Bar A Required

Restaurant A Required

With the exception of the ground floor commercial tenancy, the remainder of the floors are occupied by Multiple Dwellings. The applicant is proposing multiple land uses for the ground floor, as at this stage of development a tenant has not been confirmed. The approach is supported by the City to avoid Change of Use applications at a later date. In regards to the permissibility outlined in the table above –

‘P’ means the use is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme

‘A’ means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4

The proposed discretionary land uses are supported against the objectives of the Mixed Use zone as follows –

i. Provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones, Given the proposed development is predominantly residential, it is not considered that as a whole the development will be detrimental to the viability of businesses in the City Centre. Rather, given the site is on the fringe of the City Centre zone, the increased residential population is expected to increase patronage to businesses in this area and support the City Centre in becoming a primary centre. This approach is supported by the precinct vision outlined in LPP 3.1.3. Additionally, as the proposed commercial tenancy is 120sqm, it is considered to be of a sufficient size to contribute to additional activity in the Mixed Use zone, and provide a service or entertainment use for local residents, while not drawing focus from the City Centre zone nearby. The proposed commercial uses are also considered to be compatible and complimentary with the existing surrounding land uses which include the following –

Shop;


Page 20

Community Purpose;

Multiple Dwellings;

Health Studio;

Office.

ii. Provide for residential at upper level, and also at ground level providing the residential component is designed to contribute positively to an active public domain; Residential uses are proposed on upper levels only, with a commercial tenancy occupying the ground floor. Additionally, residential land uses are not permitted on the ground floor in this sub area, in accordance with Schedule 12 2.3.1 a) i).

iii. Ensure future development within each of the mixed use zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area; LPP 3.1.3 Precinct 3 outlines a precinct vision for the area as follows – The precinct will be rejuvenated as a vibrant, attractive and sustainable high density residential neighbourhood within walkable distance of the Fremantle city centre. The predominantly residential precinct will be supported by a hub of local commercial and community services that complements but does not compete with the city centre’s commercial focus. It is considered that a Multiple Dwelling development, with a ground floor commercial tenancy is appropriate for the location and consistent with the precinct vision and desired future land use character. Issues with the buildings proposed design and its impact on the physical character of the precinct, are discussed in the Building Height and Precinct Desired Character section of this report.

iv. Ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or

residential properties in the locality; and The proposed Multiple Dwellings are considered to be an appropriate land use for the area, and are not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining owners or other residential properties in the locality. The commercial tenancy is considered to be of an appropriate size, and as well as being provided with some on site car bays, will likely service the residents in the immediate area. The proposed Small Bar and/or Restaurant will be subject to the usual noise regulations to reduce the amenity impacts on residents after hours. Other amenity issues associated with the building height of the proposed development will be discussed in a separate section of this report.

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


Page 21

Specifically in regards to the proposed land use, the proposal for Multiple Dwellings, Small Bar, Restaurant, Office and/or Shop is not considered to negatively impact on surrounding land uses; rather the development will increase activity in the area.

Dwelling size

Required Provided Discretion

25% of total number of dwellings to have maximum floor area of 60sqm or less (11 dwellings)

Nil 11 Dwellings

No more than 40% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more (16 dwellings)

Nil Nil

In accordance with Clause 5.4.5 of LPS4, where a development proposes more than ten (10) Multiple Dwellings, the development must provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes as per the table above. The proposed dwelling mix is supported against Clause 5.8.2 (Variation to other requirements) as follows – 5.8.2.2 The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with the locality generally The proposed mix of two (76sqm) and three bedroom (103sqm) apartments is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or within the locality generally, particularly as the internal layout of apartments is not visible from the outside of the development. Additionally, the surrounding area has a mix of studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments and Grouped Dwellings, to which the proposed development will continue to add dwelling diversity.

b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and There are no buildings with cultural heritage significance on the subject site, and the layout of apartments does not impact on adjoining heritage buildings.

c) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

There are no relevant local planning policies for this matter. The application has been advertised for the variation in accordance with Cl 5.8.3, with no submission received in relation to this specific matter.


Page 22

The dwelling mix provided is therefore considered to be satisfactory after having regard to the criteria in Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as the dwelling mix is not considered to have an adverse effect on the occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the future development of the locality. Vehicle parking It is noted that while there are four calculations provided for the commercial component below, that only one land use will occupy the space at any one time. The table therefore provides scenarios for each land use proposed by the applicant.


Office - 1:30sqm gla (minimum of 3 spaces) + 1 delivery bay - 4 bays, 1 delivery bay

3 bays 1 bay , 1 delivery bay

Shop – 1:20sqm nla (minimum of 2 bays) – 6 bays 3 bays

Small Bar – 1:2.5sqm public bar area* + 1 delivery bay per service area – 48 bays, 1 delivery bay

45 bays, 1 delivery bay

Restaurant – 1:5sqm dining area + 1 delivery bay per service area – 24 bays, 1 delivery bay

21 bays, 1 delivery bay

*As there is no calculation for Small Bar in Table 2 of LPS4, the calculation for Hotel/Tavern is considered to be the most appropriate as per Clause 5.7.1 c). The number of car bays required for the Multiple Dwelling portion of the development is as follows -

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

1 per dwelling (residents) - 42

70 bays Not required – 17 excess bays

0.25 per dwelling (visitors) – 10.5 (11)

53 - TOTAL REQUIRED

Taking into account the seventeen (17) additional residential car bays provided within the development, the shortfall for Office and Shop can be accommodated on site. Small Bar will still be short twenty eight (28) bays and Restaurant will be short four (4) bays. In regards to the car parking for the commercial tenancy, Schedule 12, sub area 2.3.1 states - n) Council may waive car parking requirements in accordance with clause 5.7.3 for ground level non-residential uses anywhere in Sub Area 1 subject to the development/use being able to generate interest and activity within the adjacent public domain


Page 23

The proposed commercial tenancy occupies 45% of the ground floor frontage of the building, with glazed doors and windows to a large portion of this area. It is considered that the proposed land uses will provide activation at the ground floor level, rather than simply providing a lobby area for the Multiple Dwellings where people are unlikely to congregate for significant periods of time. The uses proposed, are also likely to have operating hours (to some extent), that encourage activity outside traditional residential hours (i.e. evenings and weekends), as well as having the potential to encourage residents to stay on the ground floor plane for a period of time rather than simply using the front elevation to access their apartments. Additionally, the applicant has provided the following justification in regards to the reduced commercial parking allocation – There is a small component of commercial development proposed for the Site, which could include land uses such as a shop. It is considered that a large component of potential custom for these commercial uses would result from street-level pedestrian traffic. This demand would not require dedicated parking adjacent to the site. Any incidental private vehicle parking associated with the commercial component could be satisfied by the public car parking within the Beach street car park (12a and 12b). This provides more than ample supply for uses by employees and visitors. In accordance with the above, it is considered the allocation of three (3) commercial car bays is sufficient for the tenancy. Notwithstanding the above, an Office could be considered to be a less activated, use, ie. that it does not generate many visitors or much activity in the immediate area. Bicycle racks – commercial


Office – class1 or 2: 1 per 200m gla – 1 rack

Nil 1 Class 1 or 2

Shop – class 1: 1 per 300sqm gla – 1 rack

Nil 1 Class 1

Small Bar – Class 1: 1 per 25sqm bar floor area – 5 racks Class 3: 1 per 25sqm bar floor area – 5 racks

Nil Class 1 1 Class 3 (surplus to Multiple Dwelling requirements)

5 Class 1 4 Class 3

Restaurant – Class 1 or 2: 1 per 100sqm public area – 2 Racks Class 3: two – 2 Racks

Nil Class 1 or 2 1 Class 3 (surplus to Multiple Dwelling requirements)

2 Class 1 or 2 1 Class 3

Reviewing the table above, the highest number of racks per class (i.e. worst case scenario) is as follows –

5 x Class 1 (High security level – fully enclosed individual locker)


Page 24

2 x Class 2 (Medium security level lockable compound fitted with class 3 facilities with communal access using duplicated keys) and

4 x Class 3. On site there are twenty (20) bicycle racks (class 3) provided, however 19 of these are required for residents and visitors to the Multiple Dwellings. Class 1 or 2 bays can only be waived in accordance with Clause 5.7.3.3, where it is considered to be a minor change of use. As the site is currently vacant and the commercial component of the development will be part of a new building, it is not considered to be a minor change of use. In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this. End of trip facilities


Office – one male and one female shower (or 2 unisex) required for every 10 Class 1 or bicycle racks required - 2

Nil One male and one female shower (or two unisex)

For the Office land use only, Table 2 of LPS4 requires that end of trip facilities are provided on site. While a disabled toilet is provided within the commercial tenancy, there is no shower shown. In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this. Building Height


Permitted Building Height - 18m

22.48m (excluding minor projections)

4.48m

Additional Building Height – 22m

0.48m

Minimum Façade Height – 10m

17.5m Nil

To achieve the permitted 18m building height of Area 8 of Sub Area 1 Council/JDAP must be satisfied with the following criteria -

a) That the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally, To satisfy this requirement, the development needs to reflect both the adjoining properties and the locality’s predominant height pattern.


Page 25

The properties considered to be adjoining the development are of the following heights –

No. 6 Parry Street – approximately 9.5m;

No. 12 Queen Victoria Street – 11.8m (to top of roof pitch);

No. 5 Queen Victoria Street – 3.5m.

The locality generally, is taken a little wider, but it is considered that it is the intent of the Scheme, that any properties that are read in the same streetscape (rather than on other streets behind the development or around corners), are to be considered “adjoining properties and the locality generally”. Therefore, in the addition to the above, other buildings in the “locality generally” are considered to be the following –

1 Queen Victoria Street – approximately 6m;


11 Queen Victoria Street – 22.15m;

13 Queen Victoria Street – single storey;

17 Queen Victoria Street – 5m;

18-24 Queen Victoria Street – approximately 8m;




26 Queen Victoria Street – two stories on Queen Victoria Street;


92 Adelaide Street – single and double storey buildings (Princess May Park).


Page 26

The greatest emphasis should be put on the buildings within the same sub area (i.e. on the same side of the street), as these were deliberately created to group sites with similar development potential and/or characteristics (i.e. Heritage Listed buildings). Having regard to the above, it is not considered that there are sufficient examples of buildings adjoining or within the locality generally to support an 18m building height.

However, given there are no definitions of adjoining or locality in the Scheme, Council and/or JDAP could take the view that this clause allows consideration of buildings in a wider context, for example;

70-80 Cantonment Street- 21.46m;

48-68 Cantonment (Elders Woolstores) – approximately 14m;

70 Elder Place- 24.535m;

68 Elder Place- 23.24m;

2-4 Parry Street (Australia Hotel) – three (3) stories and approximately 14-15m;

3 Beach Street – 6.3m;

5 Beach Street - approximately 10m;

47 Adelaide Street (St Patricks Basilica) – 23m (to top of tower/architectural feature);

39 Adelaide Street - approximately 12m; and

36 Queen Victoria Street – 17m. It is also noted that the site to the rear (No. 1, 1a and 1b Beach Street), has been approved with a building of a maximum 22m (plus minor projections), and No. 51 Queen Victoria Street at 22m (plus minor projections).

b) The proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area, Amenity is defined in the Scheme as – Means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity. As shown in the applicants perspectives, the site will be clearly visible from Princess May Park and approaching streets (Queen Victoria Street and Parry Street). Given the Park’s heritage status, and the heritage listing of adjoining properties, large scale development is unlikely to take place on all sites within the area, particularly on properties adjoining the development site. As such, strong consideration needs to be placed on the amenity impact resulting from the height proposed. It is anticipated that the building’s southern façade will remain highly visible from both approaches on Queen Victoria Street on a long term basis, and given its proposal to build up to the boundary, the opportunity for windows in this façade is limited. While this protects visual privacy of the adjoining site (which is currently commercial), the scale of the building, and the solid nature of the wall blocks any


Page 27

views to the properties (and from the properties) further along Queen Victoria Street. Notwithstanding the above, the City’s DAC have reviewed the proposal and are supportive of the proposal, having regard to the CABE design principles (some of which directly contribute to amenity as defined by the Scheme) of;

Character

Continuity and enclosure

Quality of public realm

Ease of movement

Legibility

Adaptability

Diversity

Overall design quality and functionality

Appropriateness of materials and finishes

General comments

As discussed by the City’s Urban Designer in relation to the Scheme requirements, the proposed height is too great for this location and is not consistent with the existing heritage built form or the intent of the scheme height provisions for this particular site.

c) The proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for the site and locality generally, and

This clause is of particular relevance for this property, given the number of heritage buildings in its immediate streetscape and locality. The map below demonstrates the heritage listed properties (hatched in brown) in the vicinity of the development site (marked in red).

The City’s Heritage Coordinator has reviewed the proposal, and considers that the sites general massing is not consistent with the predominant height patters of the neighbouring heritage properties. Given its prominence in the streetscape, the


Page 28

height of the front tower is of most concern, with the rear tower far less onerous on the adjoining buildings. The concern is that influence and consideration has not been taken from the immediate context, and that the resultant building does not reflect the areas desired character. The applicant has provided a statement from a Heritage Architect involved with the buildings design, provides an alternate view to the City’s Heritage statement.

d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. LPP 3.1.3 outlines the vision for the precinct, and is important in outlining the desired character of buildings fronting each street. As noted in the City’s Heritage Assessment, the building proposed is not considered to meet the Desired Character for this area. The City’s Design Advisory Committee supports the proposal, however it should be noted that they do not generally have specific regard to planning policies or requirements, rather looking at the building using the CABE Design Principles (LPP 1.9).

It is also stated in the Scheme clause, that – Council may impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal does not satisfy any one or all of the above requirements. It is considered that the applicant have not provided plans that satisfy all of the above requirements and on this basis recommend refusal. However, should Council and/or JDAP support the permitted building height of 18m having regard to the above criteria, Schedule 12 of the Scheme allows further height subject to the following - Notwithstanding the specific building height requirements in the table above, Council may permit additional height to a maximum of 4 metres subject to development satisfying both of the following criteria;

i. The additional level being sufficiently set back from the street façade so as to not be visible from the street (s) adjoining the subject site; and

ii. The design being integrated with the design of the overall building.

The proposed design is considered to meet both point i and ii, by being setback in accordance with the definition of “visible from the street” and that the additional height is integrated with the design of the overall building. In addition to the discretionary 22m height, portions of the roof of the rear portion of the building protrude an additional 480mm. This then triggers an assessment against Clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4).


Page 29

5.8.1.1. Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following - ‘Adjacent’ is considered to be more in line with what the previous clause (when discussing the 18m height requirement), refers to as the locality generally. While in the area that City officers consider to be adjacent, there are no buildings that exceed the 22m height, there are a number of property further away which have been listed above that could be interpreted as being “adjacent” and include–

70 Elder Place – 24.535m

68 Elder Place -23.24m

47 Adelaide Street – 23m (to top of architectural feature)

a) The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, As discussed in regard to the 18m building height criteria above, the officer’s assessment of adjoining properties or the locality generally, do not demonstrate a predominant height pattern of over 18m. For this reason, the building is considered to be inconsistent with the character of the area in bulk and scale. To assess the amenity impact the emphasis is on the Heritage assessment given the Heritage Listed properties on either side of the development. The design of the façade and the materials chosen, have not given careful consideration of the sites immediate context and have the potentially to negatively impact their amenity. The alternate view from DAC is that the design of the building is appropriate for its setting.

b) Degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; To effectively graduate scale, a building should be sited in between a higher and lower building, invoking a step down effect in the heights of buildings to protect smaller scale buildings from being overwhelmed by excessive bulk and scale. Given the properties on either side of the development are predominantly two storey, the proposed building should not be significantly greater than this, particularly on the street. Another interpretation that Council or JDAP could consider is the “book end approach”, which includes the Fort Knox building further north along Queen Victoria Street (No. 36). Both the proposed development and Fort Knox are of similar heights, and form the higher development, graduating down to two storey existing properties in between. In other words Council or JDAP could consider that


Page 30

the proposed height does graduate scale having regard to building in the wider locality.

c) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings of varying heights within

the locality The City’s Heritage staff are not satisfied that the building proposed at No. 8 Queen Victoria Street will respect the cultural heritage values of buildings adjoining the subject site as previously discussed in detail.

d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

Having regard to LPP 3.1.3, there is an emphasis on views down Queen Victoria Street to Princess May Park. A building of this height and scale will be a dominant feature in this vista.

In summary, officers do not support the building height proposed due to it being inconsistent with the height of adjoining properties and height of buildings in the locality generally. Additionally, the impact the height of the building will have on the cultural heritage significance of buildings adjoining the development is considered to be significant. First floor level


First floor level at least 4.5m above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site

4m 500mm

In sub area 2.3.1 the first floor level is required to be 4.5m from the foot path level. In this instance, the applicant has raised the height of the awning to create the illusion the first floor level is to the correct height. A variation to this requirement is required to be assessed against clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 – The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with the locality generally; A new development at No. 11 Queen Victoria Street across the road, provides the required 4.5m height to first floor level, however is the only building that exhibits the requirement in the immediate area. Notwithstanding this, the development to the rear of No. 8 Queen Victoria Street (No. 1 Beach Street) is subject to the same Scheme criteria. Approval has been granted for this development, with no construction yet commenced, with a 4.1m first floor level.


Page 31

Given the properties on either side are either single storey or with a first floor height of 4.1m (6 Parry Street and 12 Queen Victoria Street), it is not considered that the reduced first floor level will be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties, and that the increased awning height is an acceptable alternative. Additionally, the proposed awning height of 4.4m creates a greater sense of height on the ground floor , improving the sense of amenity for pedestrians.

b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and The heritage assessment does not specifically mention the first floor height as being an issue.

c) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

LPP 3.1.3 promotes active, interesting ground floor planes. As the proposal is for a commercial tenancy on the ground floor, and an awning is provided for the length of the frontage to allow for weather protection for pedestrians and possible alfresco areas, it is considered that this can still be satisfied with the reduced floor level.

Should Council and/or JDAP wish to enforce the 4.5m ground floor height, this could be added to the reasons for refusal. In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this however this may not be appropriate for the following reasons–

This would require 500mm additional building height which may not be supportable against Scheme provisions;

By raising the first floor on the front tower to accommodate the 4.5m height, alterations would need to be made to the walkways (lift lobbies) as the rear tower would have different floor levels;

The alternative solution would be to reduce floor to ceiling heights for other floors to ensure no change in building height, which would reduce each floor to ceiling height by 100mm to 2.5m, reducing internal apartment amenity.

Contemporary and innovative architecture Schedule 12 outlines the vision for the sub area as follows – j) new buildings in the should embody contemporary and innovative architecture which is sensitive to Fremantle’s sense of place and satisfies any relevant planning and design policy adopted for the area For advice on architecture, the City refers applications such as this to its Design Advisory Committee (DAC). After a number of workshops and meetings, the DAC supports the proposed design with conditions. This is discussed further below under the “Desired Character” heading. Special conditions of planning approval


Page 32

LPS4 provides Council with the ability to notify new apartment owners that future development on adjoining sites may restrict their amenity - o) the Council may impose a condition on planning approval for any new development in Sub Area 1 requiring a memorial to be placed on the property title advising of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable to Sub Area 1, which include zero minimum side and rear setbacks It is noted that development on the site to the rear (No. 1 Beach Street), has been approved with a 5.9m setback from the rear boundary. At the time of writing this report, no Building Permit had been received for the site, and there is no guarantee that this development approval will be acted on, with it being possible any development on this site could look substantially different in the future. In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this. Sight lines


Walls, fences and other structures truncated or reduces to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect.

Not provided

Required

In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this. Design of car parking spaces - Visitor Parking


Marked and clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, and located close to or visible from the point of entry to the development and outside any security barrier

Not marked and behind security barrier

Required

While the correct number of bays for the Multiple Dwelling residents and visitors are provided, they are provided on site behind a security barrier. It is considered that there are sufficient bays in the surrounding streets to accommodate short term visitors, and for longer term visitors, residents can grant access internally. Additionally, Queen Victoria Street is serviced by a number of High Frequency bus routes and the site is within easy walking distance to the City Centre, which includes a number of public car parks and train station.


Page 33

The applicant has provided the following justification in their Transport Statement –

The local area has an abundance of local public parking including the City’s Beach Street Car Park (12a and 12b), which provided 296 parking bays within 200m of the site. Parking fees within this car park are currently $6 per day, sufficient to limit the demand for permanent residential parking, but very attractive for residential visitors. It is understood from a review of aerial photographs that there is a consistent low-level demand for car parking within the 12b car park, in the order of 10-40 vehicles. However, it is estimated that during the daytime in excess of 100 parking bays remain available. There is therefore sufficient capacity in the adjacent public car park to accommodate the anticipated peak demand for visitors. It is likely that this peak demand will be realised during weekend and evening periods, where the impact of existing park ‘n’ ride demand has largely dissipated. There is no evidence that local land uses create a high level of parking demand during these periods that might restrict parking supply The proposed development is also located less than 800m from the Fremantle Train Station, and less than 200m from the nearest free CAT stop. The development is therefore highly accessible by public transport. The provision of bicycle lanes along Beach Street also allows for attractive connection to the site via cycling modes. It can be conclude that visitors are more likely to utilise non-car modes to access this location, particularly during daytime periods.

Utilities and facilities


42 x Enclosed, lockable storage area, constructed in a design and material matching the building/dwelling where visible from the street, accessible from outside the dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 1.5m and an internal area of at least 4sqm shall be provided for each multiple dwelling

42, two (2) x 4sqm, remainder less, with the smallest being 1.9sqm.

40 undersized storerooms

While each unit is provided with a store room, not all storerooms are provided of correct dimensions (i.e. under 4sqm). While the store rooms are smaller than required, bicycle racks are provided for each residents, as well as internal storage space (i.e. wardrobes, cabinets), which will reduce the amount put in storage units. In accordance with the Design Principles of the R-Codes, the reduced size of the storerooms is supported for the following reasons:


Page 34

Each unit is provided with some secure storage for their sole use;

The storerooms are within parking areas and within closed off areas on other floors that don't impact on the amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

Should PSC/JDAP wish to require the provision of full size storerooms (or even minor increases for all storerooms to be 2sqm for example), the following should be considered:

Storeroom sizes could be increased in the parking area, however this would result in the loss of car bays. This could be supported, given there are excess resident bays provided;

Storerooms could be provided on balconies, however would reduce the Outdoor Living Areas to each apartment, which currently meet deemed to comply requirements.


Page 35

Desired character The desired character for the precinct is outlined by LPP3.1.3 – Precinct 3. The subject site is located within Area B – Robust, port-related influences. The policy includes the following in relation to character - New development should be sympathetic to the area’s retained heritage buildings and places. New development should respond positively to opportunities to create a distinct difference in character between areas B and C. New development in area B should generally reflect the area’s robust, industrial character which derives from the existing buildings’ original port-related uses including:

Functional and working purpose, rather than being over-refined or decorative

Strong definition of light and shadow on highly articulated facades

The predominant use of face brickwork To assess the requirements of this policy, the City has sought advice from the City’s Heritage Coordinator, who has reviewed the policy statements and the proposed development having specific regard to the existing heritage listed properties adjoining the property and in the locality generally. Summarising the assessment, the proposed development is not supported against the policy, having limited references to the port related influences surrounding the development and are not sympathetic to the heritage listed buildings adjoining the development. Additionally, it is considered that it will become a dominant feature in the approach to Princess May Park, an area which is dominated by Heritage Listed buildings of a much smaller scale. Other local planning policies The following local planning policies are also relevant to the proposal –

LPP 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines

o The application was referred to Fremantle Ports with comments received.

In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this.

LPP 2.13 Sustainable buildings design requirements

o The applicant has acknowledged that a condition of approval will be

required to ensure compliance with these. In the instance approval was recommended, a condition could be included addressing this.

Matters to be considered by local government


Page 36

In addition to the above, Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 outlines matters that Council is to have due regard to in assessing an application. The following are the most relevant to this application -

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

Relevant aims of the City’s Scheme include –

f) protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage,

Any development on this site has an obligation to respect the adjoining heritage properties and reflect the immediate context, having regard to LPP 3.1.3. It is not considered that the development achieves this.

g) ensure all development complements and contributes to the community’s desired identity and character for Fremantle

LPP 3.1.3 was developed to reflect the desired character for the East End of Fremantle, and is particularly important given it is part of the entry to the City Centre. Conflicting views on whether the development will reflect the desired identity and character have been provided by Design Advisory Committee (DAC) and Heritage.

l) The effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance of the area in which

the development is located; This particular sub area in the Fremantle Local Planning Area is characterised by heritage listed properties of a significantly lesser scale than the building proposed. A substantial heritage assessment and review process has been undertaken on this application having regard to the buildings setting. The precinct’s design guidelines have included specific measures to ensure the cultural heritage significance of this streetscape is not impacted by infill development. While it is encouraged for new development to be undertaken, it should not be to the detriment of existing, significant buildings.

m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of

the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development;

Detailed assessment has been undertaken having specific regard to height and appearance of the development, which has not been satisfied. It is not considered that the proposed development is compatible for its heritage setting.

Conclusion:


Page 37

The application for forty two (42) Multiple Dwellings has been recommended for refusal on the basis of height and character, having specific regard to the development’s proximity to lesser scale heritage buildings. In summary:

The primary issue of this development application is the building height and design and its impact on the existing streetscape. There is far greater emphasis on the height of the front tower given its visibility on approach from each end of Queen Victoria Street;

The applicant is in the difficult position of gaining DAC’s support for the proposal, while not having positive heritage or urban design comments. This is an unusual scenario, and has not yet occurred at the City of Fremantle;

While DAC has reviewed the proposal, it is not their role to review specific Scheme and/or policy requirements and they have not done so with their comments on this application.

It is acknowledged by Council officers that the applicant has undertaken significant work to rectify concerns in relation to design with the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) in particular. The proposed height however when assessed against the scheme provisions that require that the height is consistent with the predominant height patterns of adjoining properties, it would be very difficult to argue that a 18-22m high building is consistent with adjoining buildings that range in height from 3.5 -11.8m.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/16/990 and accompanying plans DA00, DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA08, DA09, DA10, DA11, DA12, DA13, DA14, DA15, DA18, DA19, DA20, DA21, DA22, DA23, DA24, DA25, DA26 in accordance with City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons: Reasons 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the permitted building height criteria in Schedule

12 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for sub area 2.3.1.


SECONDED: Cr D Coggin Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following advice to the JDAP:


Page 38

In the event that the JDAP consider approving the development the Council submit that the following condition be included, in addition to any other conditions: “At least 50% of the 17 excess residential car bays be allocated for commercial use and marked accordingly” SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The advice was added to the Officer's Recommendation to give clear direction to Officers of an extra condition to be included should the JDAP consider approving the application.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/16/990 and accompanying plans DA00, DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA08, DA09, DA10, DA11, DA12, DA13, DA14, DA15, DA18, DA19, DA20, DA21, DA22, DA23, DA24, DA25, DA26 in accordance with City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons: Reasons 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the permitted building height criteria in

Schedule 12 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for sub area 2.3.1.



Page 39

Advice to JDAP In the event that the JDAP consider approving the development the Council submit that the following condition be included, in addition to any other conditions: “At least 50% of the 17 excess residential car bays be allocated for commercial use and marked accordingly” SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr David Hume


Page 40

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 4 MAY 2016

PC1605-4 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 88 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO SHOP (MASSAGE PARLOUR) - (SP DA0071/16)

ECM Reference: DA0071/16 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 May 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1304-47 (3 April 2013) Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Additional Information Requested Attachment 3: Site Photos

Date Received: 12 February 2016 Owner Name: Yanping Yang Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Urban Zone – Mixed Use Zone Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Existing Tourist Accommodation, Office & Multiple

Dwellings Use Class: Shop Use Permissibility: A


Page 41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the conversion of the ground floor front unit of an existing 3 storey mixed use development to a shop (massage parlour). The application is referred to the Planning Committee due to submissions being received raising concerns to the proposal and the discretions sought that cannot . The proposal has been assessed against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the City’s Local Planning Policies and seeks discretionary decisions in relation to the following:

Zoning Table and Change of Use (‘Shop’ – ‘A’ Use)

Car Parking Requirement Table (Parking Relaxation)

Consistency against Design Guidelines for the area (D.G.F29) It is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R35. The subject site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List, nor located within the City’s Heritage Areas. The 3 storey building currently on the subject site is currently used for multiple uses (‘Tourist Accommodation,’ ‘Office,’ ‘Multiple Dwellings’) and has a site area of 433m2. The site is located east of Marine Terrace and North of Russell Street. The subject site abuts level 3 heritage listed properties to the north, south and east. Following a complaint the City inspected the site and ascertained that works had been carried out contrary to the planning approval. A $500 Planning Infringement and a Notice were issued to the owner in accordance with Local planning policy LPP 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5). The Notice required certain parts of the development to be modified to accord with the 2010 planning approval or to seek retrospective planning approval. Two submissions were received during the consultation period, which expressed concerns in relation to the changes, in particular, the matter of privacy. Relevant file history includes:

1. Planning approval was granted in March 2010 for a three storey mixed use development at No. 88 Marine Terrace (DA52/08).

2. The Planning Committee on 3 April 2013 approved retrospective works subject to screening of the balcony and major openings.

DETAIL


Page 42

On 12 February 2016, the City received an application seeking a change of use to a ‘shop’ at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, Fremantle. The applicant intends to use the premise as a massage parlour, with daily operation hours from 9am to 6pm. The service is providing traditional Chinese massage. The premise will include 4 massage rooms, 1 resting room and a main reception area. The business will have a total of 5 employees, with 3-4 persons on site at any one time (employees & customers) and 4 to 10 customers are expected per day. The plans indicated partitioning internally to the building for room separation, whilst signage will be a small, lit sign board in the main office window and main entrance door. No street signage is proposed. Currently, the site has only 1 car bay allocated to Lot 3, meaning the applicant is seeking to waive car bay requirements. The site is closely located to numerous public transport options, as well as multiple areas of public parking. Additional information was requested, and the applicant advised that the employees plan to travel to and from work via public transport. See Attachment 1 below for plans provided. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the City’s Local Planning Policies and seeks discretionary decisions in relation to the following:

Zoning Table and Change of Use (‘Shop’ – ‘A’ Use)

Car Parking Requirement Table (Parking Relaxation)

Consistency against Design Guidelines for the area (D.G.F29) See the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below for further discussion. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, and the City’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy as several discretions were sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 March 2016, the City had received 6 submissions, which raise the following relevant planning concerns:

Relevant Planning considerations:

The current lack of car parking in the immediate locality, which would be further burdened by offsetting car parking requirements of the site into other available areas. The current lack of car parking availability creates difficulty for parking


Page 43

permit holders and residents to compete against demands of commercial uses within the proximity of Marine Terrace and Howard Street. Approval for a ‘Shop’ would add further pressure to the areas parking availability for residents.

The proposed land use is considered incompatible with objectives of ‘Area C’ in the City’s D.G.F29 – Suffolk to South Street Local Area Policy, which refers to land uses along Marine Terrace encouraged to be related to harbour activities, including serviced apartments, residency, marine industry and offices.

Other matters:

Noise & light pollution in the adjoining residential properties as a result of excess traffic down Marine Terrace, as well as exiting and entering the premise.

The potential to upset the existing balance of residential to commercial space in the locality delivers undesirable effects from increased foot traffic.

Stigma surrounding massage parlours potentially damaging the reputation and amenity of the area.

Potential loss of value for properties nearby.

The above matters are not relevant planning considerations and are therefore not addressed further in the report.

PLANNING COMMENT

LPS4 Assessment: Change of Use The application seeks a change of use within the ‘Mixed Use Zone,’ to a ‘Shop’ (Massage Parlour), under Table 1 of the LPS4. Table 1 - Zoning Table: ‘Shop’ is an ‘A’ use, requiring public notification. Definition of a ‘Shop’ – ‘A premise used to sell goods by retail, hire goods, or provide services of a personal nature, but does not include a showroom or fast food outlet.’

The description of a massage parlour would best suit the land use of a ‘Shop,’ due to offering services of a personal nature.

Objectives of the Mixed Use Zone – Development within the mixed use zone shall:

i) Provide a mix of compatible land uses…which would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre & Neighbourhood Centre Zones, The proposed use provides an alternative option to the current, existing land uses within the area, which is not considered likely to have detrimental effects on the existing land uses in the area.


Page 44

ii) Ensure future development within each of the mixed use zones is sympathetic with the desired character of each area,

The shop is proposed to be located within an existing building therefore the physical character of the area will be unchanged. The proposed use is also consistent with the desired uses of the zone.

iii) Ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners

or residential properties in the locality, and

Whilst it is acknowledged that the majority of surrounding land uses are residential, it would be expected that a mixed use zone would include a variety of land uses (both commercial and residential). The applicant has provided business details outlining hours of operation, staff numbers, as well as delivery numbers. The proposed land use would be operating from 9am-6pm every day, having 3-4 persons on premise at any one point in time. The amenity impacts would be considered similar in comparison to the previous ‘Office’ land use, as hours and parking are similar. The business proposal states having a minimal number of deliveries once operation commences and internal fitout is complete. Also the proposed hours of operation has the capacity to further activate the streetscape during the day, contributing to a sense of vibrancy in Fremantle. Considering the above information, amenity would be considered comparable with the previous office land use which is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the area or adjoining properties.

iv) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the

development.

The site is of no heritage significance. And the proposed land use change would be considered of minimal impact in regards to the heritage component of the adjoining property, as the external built form of the dwelling remains the same.

Clause 5.7.2 – Car Parking Table

Element Bays Existing Bays Required Discretion

‘Shop’ (1:20m2 ) 1 87.15m2 : 5 bays 4

Council may waive or reduce the standard car parking requirement in 5.7.2 if one or more of the following is satisfied-

i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking,


Page 45

Marine Terrace has multiple on-street car parking options, as well as areas within the close locality such as South Terrace and Mews Road and large carpark lots at the Italian Club and The Esplanade.

ii) The availability of public transport in the locality,

The free of charge CAT Transit bus runs frequently, with a stop approximately 50m from No. 88 Marine Terrace.

The above demonstrates more than adequate grounds to justify relaxing car parking requirements, as well as responding to public submissions regarding lack of parking in the locality and accessibility for the site. Local Planning Policy Assessment D.G.F29 – Suffolk to South Street Local Planning Area C Clause 2.3 of the above policy refers development along Marine Terrace to be consistent with the statement below: “All uses that are residential or have a general relationship to harbour activities both industrial and recreational would be encouraged, given the usual environmental standards. This area should retain a mixed use commercial/residential character. Acceptable uses could include serviced apartments, residential, marine industry and offices.” Area C of the abovementioned policy refers to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 and the ‘Inner Urban Zone’ when discussing the design guidelines of proposed development. Due to referring to an outdated Scheme, the submissions received regarding D.G.F29 are referring to a previous zoning under LPS3 and therefore it cannot be assumed that the two differing LPS4 zones require the same objectives for development. The policy only uses suggestive language, with words such as ‘encouraged’ and “could’ in regards to possible land uses. As this clause is not considered definitive language, the policy would be interpreted as more guidance on possible land uses within the local planning area, and does not prohibit other uses not listed. The policy also suggests ‘retaining a mixed use/residential character,’ as seen in this application. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

Development of additional retail space. New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment

opportunities. Providing a diverse business environment amongst the City.


Page 46

Green Plan 2020: there are no trees proposed to be removed as part of this application. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to a Shop (Massage Parlour) at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 February 2016, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 12 February 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The ‘Shop’ hereby permitted shall have hours of operation limited to trading

between 9am and 6pm on all days of the week to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. The signage hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light or

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

Cr J McDonald MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to a Shop (Massage Parlour) at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 February 2016, for the following reasons:

1. Lack of car parking on site 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Suffolk to South

Street Local Planning Area C .D.G.F29 Mayor, Brad Pettitt used his casting vote FOR the recommendation decision resulting in it being CARRIED.


Page 47

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to a Shop (Massage Parlour) at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 February 2016, for the following reasons:

1. Lack of car parking on site 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Suffolk to South

Street Local Planning Area C .D.G.F29 SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 5/5

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton


Page 48

PC1605-8 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 68 - MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 219/073 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 4 May 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PC1603-9 Attachments: 1. Previous item PC1603-9 – minutes of OCM 23 March

2016 2. Confidential attachment – correspondence on behalf of the registered proprietors of No’s. 223-229 Hampton Road and 7-9 Brockman Place, South Fremantle. 3. Confidential attachment – legal advice to City of Fremantle

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 23 March 2016 Council resolved to adopt an amendment (Amendment No. 68) to Local Planning Scheme No. 4, inclusive of a modification to the scheme amendment proposed by an elected member after consideration of the item by the Planning Committee on 2 March but prior to the Council meeting on 23 March. The modification excluded a number of lots (all owned by one landowner) which had been included in the original version of the scheme amendment as considered by the Planning Committee. The City has subsequently received correspondence from a law firm acting for the registered proprietor of the land excluded from the scheme amendment by the Council resolution. The letter challenges the validity of the resolutions of the Planning Committee on 2 March and the Council on 23 March on a number of procedural grounds and demands, amongst other matters, that the Council decision of 23 March should be revoked. The City has obtained its own legal advice on the matter. This advice recommends that the scheme amendment should not be progressed in reliance on the Council decision of 23 March and that decision should be revoked. It further advises that prior to reconsideration of the scheme amendment by the Planning Committee and Council all affected landowners should be provided with copies of the original and modified versions of the scheme amendment and given the opportunity to make written submissions which will be considered as part of Council’s further deliberations on the matter. Council is recommended to revoke its decision of 23 March 2016 relating to Scheme Amendment No. 68 and subsequently take other steps as outlined in the legal advice to the City prior to reconsideration of the scheme amendment.


Page 49

BACKGROUND

On 2 March 2016 the Planning Committee considered a report relating to a proposed amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) to apply revised development controls under Schedule 12 of LPS4 to properties in a Mixed Use zoned area adjoining Hampton Road and Brockman Place, South Fremantle (item PC1603-9). The Committee resolved to support the amendment in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. As the Planning Committee does not have delegated authority to make decisions on scheme amendments, the item was subsequently considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 March 2016. Prior to consideration of the item by Council, notice was given of a proposed amendment to the Committee and Officer’s recommendation by Cr Andrew Sullivan. The proposed amendment made changes to the boundary of the area to be subject to the development provisions in Scheme Amendment No. 68 and as a consequence removed the following properties from the scheme amendment area:

No. 223 (Lot 304) Hampton Road No. 227 (Lot 550) Hampton Road No. 229 (Lot 40) Hampton Road No. 7 (Lot 49) Brockman Place No. 8 (Lot 47) Brockman Place No. 9 (Lot 48) Brockman Place

These properties are all in the ownership of the same registered proprietor. Cr Sullivan’s amendment was moved and carried at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 March. Council subsequently resolved to adopt Scheme Amendment No. 68, as modified by the amendment. For further background information refer to Attachment 1 – minutes of the Council meeting relating to item PC1603-9. DETAIL

On 8 April 2016 the City received correspondence from a law firm acting for the registered proprietor of the land at 223-229 Hampton Road and 7-9 Brockman Place, South Fremantle (refer to Confidential Attachment 2). In summary, the letter challenges the validity of the resolutions of the Planning Committee on 2 March and the Council on 23 March on the following grounds:

The resolution of the Planning Committee was not in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 because the resolution referred to regulation 50(3) rather than regulation 35, and did not classify the scheme amendment as basic, standard or complex and include an explanation for such a classification as required by regulation 35(2);

The decision of the Council on 23 March suffers the same errors as the Planning Committee’s resolution;


Page 50

There was a lack of procedural fairness and a failure to comply with regulation 14 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 because of the lack of notice given to the owner of the abovementioned land of the proposed amendment to the Committee and Office’s recommendation prior to the Council meeting on 23 March.

In these circumstances the law firm acting for the owners of the above properties make a number of demands which are detailed in full in Confidential Attachment 2. These include that the City take steps to revoke or change the resolution purportedly made by the Council in respect of item PC1603-9 Scheme Amendment No. 68. LEGAL ADVICE The City has referred the matter to its own legal advisors for review and advice on a response to the demands contained in the abovementioned correspondence. A complete copy of the advice received by the City is contained in Confidential Attachment 3 to this item. In summary, the advice recommends that the City should take the following course of action:

Not take any step to progress Scheme Amendment No. 68 in reliance on the Planning Committee resolution of 2 March 2016 and the Council resolution of 23 March 2016;

Revoke the above Planning Committee and Council decisions;

Following revocation of the above decisions and prior the Planning Committee and Council further considering Amendment No. 68, the City should write to all of the landowners directly affected by the Amendment. The letter should:

- inform them of the revocation of the previous decisions and that it is proposed to reconsider Amendment No. 68;

- provide them with a copy of the proposed version of Amendment No. 68 as originally recommended by officers and the Planning Committee, and a copy of the modified version adopted by Council on 23 March 2016;

- invite them to make written submissions to the City by a specified date; and

- state that those submissions will be considered as part of the Planning Committee’s and Council’s further deliberations on Amendment No. 68.

PLANNING COMMENT

In the light of the legal advice provided to the City, officers recommend that Council should revoke its previous decision dated 23 March 2016 in respect of Scheme Amendment No. 68 (item PC1603-9). Subject to Council deciding by an absolute majority to revoke that decision as set out in the Officer’s Recommendation – Part 1 below, it is further recommended that the action set out in the Officer’s Recommendation – Part 2 be taken. As a separate matter and for Council’s information, administrative action has already been taken to ensure that all future recommendations to the Planning Committee and Council relating to local planning scheme amendments incorporate wording which fully


Page 51

complies with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


Page 52

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Taking further action to progress Scheme Amendment No. 68 in reliance on the Planning Committee resolution of 2 March 2016 and the Council resolution of 23 March 2016 could result in a Court holding the decision to be invalid and having it set aside. Section 5.25(e) of the Local Government Act 1995 states that regulations may prescribe the manner in which a decision made at a council or committee meeting may be changed or revoked. Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires that:

(1) If a decision has been made at a council or committee meeting then any motion to revoke or change the decision must be supported - (b) by at least one third of the number of offices (whether vacant or not) of

members of council or committee inclusive of the mover.

(2) If a decision has been made at a council or committee meeting then any decision to revoke or change the first-mentioned decision must be made - (a) in the case where the decision to be revoked or changed was required to be

made by an absolute or special majority, by that kind of majority, or (b) in any other case, by an absolute majority.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan A: Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconder 1: Cr Ingrid Waltham Seconder 2: Cr David Hume Seconder 3: Cr Sam Wainwright Seconder 4: Cr Rachel Pemberton That Council revokes its previous decision PC1603-9 dated 23 March 2016 in respect of Amendment No. 68 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4, as shown in Attachment 1 of the Planning Committee agenda 4 May 2016. B: That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to take the following

action after revocation of the decision referred to in the Officer’s Recommendation - Part 1 above and prior to the Planning Committee and/or Council further considering proposed Scheme Amendment No. 68: 1. Provide written notice to all landowners whose properties are directly

affected by proposed Scheme Amendment No. 68. The notice should:


Page 53

a. inform landowners of the revocation of the decision of Council on 23 March, and that it is proposed to reconsider Amendment No. 68;

b. provide a copy of the proposed version of Amendment No. 68 as originally recommended by officers and the Planning Committee, and a copy of the modified version adopted by Council on 23 March 2016;

c. invite landowners to make written submissions to the City by a specified date; and

d. state that those submissions will be considered as part of the Planning Committee’s and Council’s further deliberations on Amendment No. 68.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham Cr D Hume Cr S Wainwright Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 54

PC1605-9 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.14 - ADVERTISEMENT POLICY - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 117/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: PC1611 (PC 13 January 2016 and OMC 27 January

2016) Attachments: 1. Draft Policy LPP2.14

2. DBH6 Signs and Hoarding Policy 3. Previous Item PC1611

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council adopt local planning policy LPP 2.14 ‘Advertisement Policy’, without any modification. The local planning policy will state Council’s expectation with respect advertisements/ signage for all development applications within zoned and reserved land under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The draft local planning policy was placed out for public comment for 28 days, in accordance with clause 4 of the Planning and Development (local planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs), with no submissions received. It is also proposed to formally revoke current planning policy DBH6 ‘Signs and Hoarding’ (DBH6) which will be superseded should this policy be adopted. BACKGROUND

On the 7 June 2011, the West Australian Planning Commission approved Scheme Amendment No. 24 to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme).The Scheme amendment introduced into LPS4 new permitted development provisions for signage in clause 8.2 and Schedule 5, new definitions in Schedule 1 relating to signs and slightly modified clause 11.2, which deals with the removal and repair of existing advertisements. Whilst Scheme Amendment 24 has increased the number of circumstances where advertising signs are permitted, the current policy for assessing Planning Applications for Advertisement proposals (D.B.H6 Sign and Hoardings) has not been reviewed since 18 August 1997. On this basis it is considered appropriate to review the Local Planning Policy so as to better deal with development / planning applications for advertising signs in light of Scheme Amendment No.24. The City considers that DBH6 contains largely subjective assessment criteria which can make consistency in the decision making process more difficult.


Page 55

On the 18 October 2015, the Planning & Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs) were gazetted, which introduced significant statutory legislative changes for Local Planning Scheme within Western Australia, including adopt and process required for reviewing and or adopting new local planning policies. In summary, when a Council wishes to adopt a new local planning polices the required process is now prescribed in Schedule 2 part of the P&D Regs and not within the Scheme. In addition to these above statutory legislative changes, clause 61 of the P&D Regs enable a local government to introduce development into a local planning policy which does not require the prior planning approval acting a similar capacity to the previous clause 8.2 provisions of the Scheme. Currently, planning applications for advertisements/ signage are assessed against the provisions of Planning Policy D.B.H6 – Signs and Hoardings. This policy was adopted as a draft policy in 1983, and last reviewed in 1997. Mainly due to technological advancements, the content of D.B.H6 has become redundant and problematic in the assessment of planning applications for advertisements devices. Subsequently, City officers have prepared a new draft policy to replace D.B.H6. The purpose of this policy is to provide development standards for advertisement’s/ Signage that requires planning approval in accordance with LPS4. The draft policy was adopted by Council for the purposes of advertising at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 January 2016. An extract from the minutes of that meeting is attached to this report for the referral of elected members. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS It is proposed to adopt a Local Planning Policy in accordance with Part 2 clause 4 of P&D Regs and revoke current DBH6 policy in accordance with Part 2 clause 6 of the P& D Regs. A Local Planning Policy does not form part of the Scheme and can not bind the Council in respect of any application for planning approval. The Council, is however, required to have due regard to the provisions and objectives of such in making a determination on a planning matter. CONSULTATION

The draft policy was advertised in accordance with Clause 4 of the P&D Regs and Council’s LPP1.3 – Notification of planning proposals policy (LPP1.3), for a period of no less than 28 days via:

Two consecutive notices in the local newspaper;

City’s web site;

Letter to all precinct groups;

Letter to the Chamber of Commerce

Letter to the Bid The advertising period concluded on 12 March 2016. No submissions were received by the City during this consultation period.


Page 56


Page 57

PLANNING COMMENT

Draft Policy LPP 2.14 The adoption of this policy will reflect the provisions relating to all types of advertisements within the City of Fremantle’s LPS4 Area, and will ensure a more consistent and flexible approach is taken towards assessing development applications for advertisements. The 5 key assessment categories contained within the draft policy which the Council may wish to consider are summarised below (note this is a summary only and the text of the draft policy should be read for precise meaning).

1) General requirements for all advertisements requiring planning approval, 2) Specific requirements for various types of advertisements and when such

advertisements will be deemed acceptable, 3) Discretionary Criteria when a proposal doesn’t address all relevant criteria

prescribed in 2 above, 4) Additional criteria when advertisements relate to a heritage listed property, and 5) Exempt advertisements when planning approval would not be required on zoned

or reserved land under the Scheme. For simplicity purposes definitions and diagrams have also been introduced into the policy to assist the general public in formulating applications and compliance with these policies general and specific provisions. As mentioned in the Council January 2016 report, the draft policy has been formulated taking into consideration the following common issues with past advertisements applications:

1) The City’s ability to control the content of advertisement’s, 2) Technological advancements and Advertisement Tools/mechanism (Animated

signage), and 3) Advertisements relating to third party signage.

In relation to (1) above, it was outlined in the previous report that content of various advertisements (i.e. words or symbols) is not a relevant planning matter which is assessed as part of a development application. But in fact is a matter that is governed by the Advertising Standards Board, which forms part of the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB). It is also important to note that regardless of the planning process any member of the community in any medium can lodge a complaint with the ASB development application process. At the ordinary meeting of Council on 25 November 2015, Council resolved to form a Working Group on Reducing Alcohol Related Harm One of the terms of reference for the Working Group is to give specific consideration to alcohol advertisements and signage in the City. This Working Group is required to report back to Council before 30 June 2016 with its recommendations and at the time of this report, no direction or recommendations have been formulated by this Working Group which may influence the general or specific criteria of this draft policy. It must also be noted that should this Working Group in the


Page 58

near future provide recommendations that are adopted by Council which conflict or otherwise contrary to any of the content of this draft policy, a review of the policy could easily be initiated by Council in the future. With regards to (2) and (3) above, two of the more significant changes to this policy relate directly to animated signage and signage that do not relate to activities carried out on site. Animated signage in particular has been subject to robust debate at recent committee, council meetings and SAT appeals. The draft policy is equipped and provides clear general and specific criteria when such advertisements are proposed. Essentially the policy states that animated signage and third party signage are not generally supported by Council, but in special circumstances Council still has the ability to approve such advertisements subject to discretionary criteria being satisfied. Previous Draft Policy DBH6 This report also requests that Council resolve to revoke Planning Policy DBH6 – Signs and Hoarding. Essentially D.B.H6 will be superseded by LPP 2.14 should Council resolve to adopt the new policy. CONCLUSION

The City received no submissions during the advertising of the draft Local Planning Policy LPP 2.14 ‘Advertisements Policy’. It is recommended that Council adopt the policy without modification. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council: 1. In accordance with Clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015:

(i) adopt the Local Planning Policy LPP 2.14 ‘Advertisement Policy’ as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.14 ADVERTISEMENT POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: 25 May 2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND


Page 59

Clause 60 of the Planning & Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs) requires a person to obtain the prior development approval of the local government unless that development is of a type referred to in clause 61 – Development for which development approval not required of the P&D Regs. In addition to the relevant sub clauses of clause 61 of the P&D Regs, the following Scheme provisions are also relevant. Clause 8.2(d) of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the ‘Scheme’) specifies that any change to words, pictures, symbols, or colours of an approved advertisement where the change does not affect the size or purpose of the approved advertisement does not require planning approval. Clause 8.2(e) of the Scheme specifies that advertisements listed in Schedule 5 of the Scheme are considered to be ‘permitted development’. Clause 12.5 - Schedule 5 includes specific types of advertisements that are ‘permitted development’ and therefore exempt from the need to obtain planning approval. Clause 80 of the P&D Regs provides a Local Government with powers to issue a notice on the owners, occupiers or advertiser of properties that have advertisements that affects the amenity of the locality. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide requirements for advertisements where they require planning approval under the Planning & Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme) and identify specific instances where signage is exempt from the requirement to obtain planning approval. APPLICATION This local planning policy is prepared under the provisions of Part 2 of the P&D Regs. In making a determination under this Scheme the local government must have regard to each relevant local planning policy to the extent that the policy is consistent with this Scheme. The provisions of this policy apply to all land zoned and reserved under the Scheme. For advertisements proposed on land not zoned or reserved under the Scheme, the provisions of this policy will be used for guidance purposes only when undertaking a planning assessment. Sections 1 and 2 of this policy can only be varied by section 3. DEFINITIONS


Page 60

For the purposes of this policy the following definitions of the P&D Regs and the Scheme apply to this policy, ‘Advertisement’, ‘Sign’, Window Sign and ‘Temporary Sign’. In addition to these Scheme definitions, the following definitions apply:

Awning or Verandah Fascia sign means an advertisement attached to the fascia of an awning or verandah.

Below awning or Verandah sign means an advertisement attached to or supported below an awning, verandah.

Building identification sign and Wall or fascia sign means an advertisement attached to or painted on a wall or fascia of a building (including structures attached to the building) or on a structure that protrudes no more than 50mm from the wall, fascia or structure.

Pole, pylon or freestanding sign means advertisement which is erected on a permanently attached freestanding pole, pylon or other structure and used to advertise one or multiple tenancies on private land.

Projecting sign means an advertisement attached to and protruding perpendicularly or horizontally, from a building or structure but is not attached to the roof of the building or structure.

Roof sign means an advertisement that is displayed on, or erected on or above, the parapet or eaves or roof surface of a building.


Page 61

Illuminated sign means an advertisement illuminated by internal and/or external lights or composed of light devices that do not flash, change intensity or pattern. Advertisement that is considered illuminated will generally be considered under another definition of a sign and includes advertisements that are projected onto a building or vertical surface.

Animated Sign includes but not limited to any sign or its contents that moves, and includes flashing or “chasing” lights, as well as video signs, plasma and LCD screen signs and signs which are “trivision”, “variable message”, “changing message” and “fibre optic” signs.

Other sign means a sign that is not consistent with any of the other signage types defined for the purposes of this policy.

Exempt Advertisement means advertising that does not require the prior planning approval of Council.

POLICY 1 GENERAL ADVERTISMENT PROVISIONS 1.1 General requirements applicable to all signs:

(a) Advertisements will not be approved on properties primarily used for residential purposes where the advertisement does not pertain to a relevant home business, occupation or store on the site unless otherwise provided for in another local planning policy. (b) Advertisements are to be located and designed so as not to cause a

hazardous distraction to motorists, pedestrians or other road users.

(c) Advertisements will be compatible with the style, scale and character of the surrounding streetscape, and the predominant uses within the locality. Consideration will be given to the number and type of existing signs in the locality so as to avoid visual clutter.

(d) Advertisements shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle movements.

(e) Illuminated signs are to be maintained to operate as an illuminated sign; and

(f) Advertisements are not to emit a flashing or moving light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

(g) Advertisements in the form of an Animated signs will not, be supported

by Council.

(h) Advertisements will not be approved on private land which include,


Page 62

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

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

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

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

2 PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ADVERTISMENT 2.1 The following provisions may be varied where it can be demonstrated that

the requirements of Clause 3 of this policy are met to the satisfaction of the Council.

2.2 Awning Fascia or Verandah Fascia Signs 2.2.1 Awning fascia or verandah fascia signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement(s) is contained within the depth of the existing fascia and does not exceed the length of the tenancy, and

(b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per

tenancy. 2.3 Below Awning or Verandah Signs 2.3.1 Below Awning or Verandah signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement(s) allows for a headway of at least 2.75m as measured from the immediate below footpath level; and

(b) The advertisement is located so that it is perpendicular to the building

façade; and does not exceed the width of the awning or verandah; and (c) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per

tenancy and can be double sided.

2.4 Wall, Fascia, Building Identification or Projecting Sign 2.4.1 Wall, Fascia or Projecting Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement does not project above the fascia of the building and does not exceed the frontage of the tenancy; and


Page 63

(b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per tenancy.

2.5 Free Standing Sign or Pole or Pylon Sign 2.5.1 Free Standing Sign or Pole or Pylon Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement is no more than the height of the immediately

adjoining subject building or no more than 6.0m in height whichever is the lesser; and

(b) The advertisement does not significantly obstruct the view between the

building and the street, thereby preventing casual surveillance of the street from the property and vice versa; and

(c) It can be demonstrated that the advertisement is consistent with a

particular design convention associated with a specific land use (ie pylon signs for petrol stations); and

(d) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per site, may include the

advertising of multiple tenancies and can be illuminated and / or double sided.

2.6 Window Sign 2.6.1 Window Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) Casual surveillance of the street is sufficiently maintained; and (b) The advertisement is no more than 50% coverage of the total window

area of the tenancy. 2.7 Roof Signs 2.7.1 Roof signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement does not project more than 1.5m above the height part of the roofline and does not exceed the length of the tenancy; and

(b) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per

tenancy and can be illuminated and / or double sided.

(c) The advertisement does not overshadow major openings or outdoor living space of neighbouring residential properties

2.8 Other Signs 2.8.1 In assessing advertisement(s) that are not consistent with the signage types

defined within this policy, the advertisements shall be assessed against,


Page 64

and be consistent with Clause 1 and Clause 3 (where applicable) of this policy.

3 VARIATIONS TO STANDARDS 3.1 Council may vary the requirements outlined within Clause 1 and 2 where it

can be demonstrated that the following can be met to the satisfaction of the Council:

(a) The cumulative effect of the signage does not negatively impact on the

surrounding locality by way of visual clutter; and (b) The scale and design of the signage is subservient to the building to

which it relates, are sized in proportion with parapets, panels, windows and wall areas within close proximity to the proposed sign so as to not dominate the view of the building from the street.

4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE HERITAGE LIST 4.1 In addition to the specific requirements outlined in this policy, the City is to

be satisfied that advertisement(s) proposed on properties included on the City’s Heritage List will not have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the site, in accordance with heritage advice provided as per the City’s L.P.P1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments.

4.2 In addition to any heritage advice provided in accordance with clause 4.1,

Council will consider advertisements on heritage significant buildings acceptable when;

(a) The advertisement does not cover any significant architectural features

or detailing of a building, and (b) The advertisement does not significantly obstruct the view between the

building and the street. 5 EXEMPTED ADVERTISEMENTS

Land Use and/or Development

Exempted Sign* Maximum Size & requirements

In all zones Property disposal One sign per street frontage advertising for sale, lease or rent the property on which the sign is situated.

Maximum area as follows—

Sites less than 5000 sqm - 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000sqm - 5 sqm

In all zones Construction sites One sign per street frontage


Page 65

advertising details of the project, architects, contractors or builders, displayed only for the duration of the construction.

Maximum area as follows—

Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5 sqm

In all zones Temporary sign (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

One sign per road frontage.

Maximum area as follows— Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5 sqm

In all zones, excluding the Residential zone

Sign not permanently attached (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

One per street frontage,

located on the lot to which the sign relates and directly relating to the goods, services, or functions of the property on which it is located,

maximum area 2sqm, and

does not pose a hazard or obstruction to vehicle and/or pedestrian movement or sightlines.

In all zones, excluding the Residential zone

Window sign (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

Provided the sign is/are displayed on the windows of the business premises from which the advertised item is sold, or the advertised services are supplied, and the total sign does not cover more than 50% of the total window area of the tenancy as viewed from the street.

In all zones Plaques or plates. On the site to which they pertain. Maximum area 0.2 sqm

In all zones Building identification Sign A single line of letters not exceeding 300mm in height and fixed to the façade of the building.

Local Reserves

Signs erected by a public authority, or on its behalf for the purpose of public safety or information and/or the direction and control of people, animals or vehicles

N/A

Road Reserves

Signs erected by a public authority, or on its behalf for the purpose of public safety or information and/or the direction and control of people, animals

N/A


Page 66

or vehicles

*The exempted signs specified exclude signs which contain any illumination or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

(ii) Publish notice of the adopted policy in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme

area, in accordance with part 2 clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and Council’s LPP1.3 –policy.

2. Revoke DBH6 - Signage and Hoardings in accordance with Clause 6 of the

Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015.

COUNCIL DECISION

Cr R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Jon Strachan


Page 67

Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered FPOL1605-1, FPOL1605-2, FPOL1605-3, FPOL1605-6, and FPOL1605-7. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2016

The following item number FPOL1605-1 was moved and carried en bloc.

FPOL1605-1 INFORMATION REPORT - MAY 2016

Heading: Community Safety Working Group Minutes ECM Reference: 039/063 Author: Matthew Piggott, Manager Field Services Agenda Attachments: Working Group minutes 18 November 2015

Working Group minutes 16 December 2016 Working Group minutes 8 February 2016 Working Group minutes 14 March 2016 Working Group minutes 18 April 2016

In October 2015, Council received a report from the Community Safety Working Group and endorsed the Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan – New Initiatives 2015/16. Officers have implemented the following initiatives to date:

A fourth Community Safety Officer has been employed to provide a greater surveillance presence and response capability in the CBD.

The CBD patrol roster has been expanded to meet community needs with officers patrolling the CBD and CBD fringe from 7.30am to 7.00pm weekdays, 8.30am to 7.00pm on weekends.


Page 68

Rangers and Community Safety Officers are performing daily vehicular surveillance patrols in suburban areas from 7.00am to 5.00pm, 7 days per week.

A communication strategy was devised and media statements have been delivered expressing the City of Fremantle’s zero tolerance for criminal, anti-social and nuisance behaviour in the CBD.

997 community safety and crime prevention interventions were performed by officers during the first 4 months of 2016. 557 calls for assistance were received.

65% of interventions related to anti-social behaviour (220 instances), drinking alcohol in public places (47), unauthorised camping and trespass (82), aggressive and/or opportunistic begging (125), nuisance buskers (53) and theft (120).

The City of Fremantle has established a partnership with RUAH, St Patricks Community Care Centre and the Department of Child Protection and Family Services to conduct a Fremantle Registry Week in June 2016. This project will take a detailed snapshot of the state of homelessness in our community. We will be able to identify individuals affected by homelessness, get a better picture of root causes and the welfare services and support needed to assist them on their journey to independence and a better quality of life.

As part of the City’s Donate without doubt initiative, five spare change collection points were installed around the Fremantle CBD in February 2016.

In the first two months, the Fremantle community generously donated $1,145.85 into the Donate without doubt spare change collection points. The City of Fremantle has matched that amount dollar-for-dollar, to honor the commitment made by Mayor Dr. Brad Pettitt, and has made a donation of $2,291.70 to St Patrick’s Community Support Centre to assist the delivery of services which provide invaluable support to the homeless and socially disadvantaged members of our community.

Attached to this information report are copies of minutes from the meetings of the Community Safety Working Group. On behalf of the Community Safety Working Group, officers will present a report to Council in the second half of 2016 recommending adoption of a draft Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan 2016-2020. Heading: Proposed Sale of 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle ECM Reference: 049/004 Author: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Agenda Attachments: Nil The City has received formal advice from Fremantle Park Investments Pty Ltd of its withdrawal from the contract to purchase 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle.


Page 69

The City will now consider options on the disposal of the site and forward a report to Council on options and process for consideration of future disposal. Additional officer comment to proposed sale of 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle It is intended for this property to be disposed of so will need to be reconsidered by council as to the most appropriate way for this to occur. There has been recent conversations with Elected Members about creating opportunities in the self-designed apartment market similar to the models overseas, especially in Europe, known as Bangruppen (build together). This form of cooperative housing has the potential to reduce the cost of housing. It is estimated that these cooperatives overseas can save on the cost of housing in part because there is no developers margin to recover. This process usually has a development facilitator bring people with similar housing requirements together to design the development. Not only does it bring costs down it can also ensure the design suits the needs of future residents and can also build social capital as everyone in the building knows each other before they even move in, creating a strong sense of community.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information report of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee agenda 18 May 2016 be received. Cr A Sullivan MOVED the following alternative recommendation:

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. That the information report of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee agenda 18 May 2016 be received.

2. Council agrees in principle to dispose of 7 Quarry Street for the purposes of

a demonstration project on the basis that: a) The land be sold through a competitive process but via a delayed

settlement of the land (to assist with a Co-op process), b) Full market valuation be attained, c) The model’s Intellectual Property be shared so it can be replicated, and d) The development meets an above average sustainability rating.

3. A report is brought back to council through Strategy and Project Development Committee, including a more detailed list of conditions and process, for consideration of disposal of 7 Quarry Street in accordance with point 2 above.


Page 70


Page 71

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 72


FPOL1605-2 WRITE OFF OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MAY 2016

ECM Reference: 085/002; 085/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 May 2016 Previous Item: SGS1511-14 of 18 November 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Debts for Write off May 2016 (Confidential under

separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The $33,747.94 of debts listed is considered unrecoverable and have been submitted for approval to write off.

BACKGROUND

Where credit is extended to debtors, some debts can become unrecoverable due to a variety of circumstances. Under the Local Government Act 1961 (section 6.12(1) (c)) a local government may write off any amount of money.

COMMENT

The confidential attachment provides additional comment against each debt. The comments have been provided by relevant business unit officers and finance officers who maintain the sundry debtors control account. The values of debts listed are GST inclusive and if the debt is approved for write off any GST component is recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office. Any rate debts listed relate to government land leased from the City of Fremantle where the city as the rating authority has no lien over the land concerned. In instances where individuals have gone into bankruptcy or incorporated entities into liquidation, any future distribution that the city might receive from the liquidator will be credited to revenue at the time it is received. Any such distributions are only likely to be minor, as the debts are only submitted for approval to write off where it appears unlikely that any distribution will be received by the city.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

The budget implications can be addressed in two parts:-


Page 73

1. Cost of Credit Management. If an organisation does not have good credit management then it will have negative budgetary impacts as cash will not be collected for the sales of goods and services made. It should be noted that even with good credit management, bad debts can still be incurred, but they normally arise within an environment where the risk and reward factors have been balanced to try and achieve the best outcome for the organisation. It is a requirement for completing annual financial statements that any potential bad debts are provisioned for and that is a cost to the budget in the year in which the provision is made. 2. Cost to Budget of Writing off Bad Debts. Generally this is budget neutral as the city provisions for potential bad and unrecoverable debts and the city has been doing so for many years in accordance with accounting standards. As a consequence, approvals to write off bad debts will generally result in the cost being written back against the provision with no net impact to the current budget. Legal

Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides authority for the Council to write off outstanding monies. Operational

The invoice detail is generated by the relevant business unit who manage the service and provide the detail of client(s) to be invoiced. The Finance section generates the invoices from the information provided and sends out statements for outstanding accounts and maintains the Debtors Control Account. For most categories of debtors Finance also handles referral of debts to the debt collection agency. Organisational

Nil

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is considered the debts should be written off.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority Required


Page 74


Page 75

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION


That Council write off debts of $33,747.94 detailed below as they are considered unrecoverable:-

Debtor No Name Amount Business Unit

2014418 Fremantle Football Club $38.60 Commercial Property-12/13, 13/14

2014158

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

(AMSAA) $2,434.44 Commercial Property-2014/15

2090096

North Fremantle Bowls Tennis &

Community Centre Inc $3,452.88 Commercial Property-2006/07 to 2008/09

2090074 Fremantle Lawn Tennis Club Inc $3,472.02 Commercial Property 2012/13 to 2015/16

2090061 Dome Fremantle $18,156.50 Commercial Property 2004 - 2007

2011643 Severino Restaurant $973.44 Commercial Waste 2014/15

2010432 The Sushi In Freo $147.75 Commercial Waste 2015/16

2091629 Top Spot Lunch Bar $270.43 Commercial Waste 2015/16

2010345 Villa Roma Restaurant $884.20 Commercial Waste 2015/16

2091174 Corner Room $1,990.68 Commercial Waste 2014/15

2011052 Welcome Noodle House $924.00 Commercial Waste 2015/16

2090815 Jane Lawton $957.00 Moores Building Gallery Hire 2011

2092350 The Trustee for the Littlewood Family Trust $46.00 Meeting Place 2014/15

Total $33,747.94


Page 76


For Against



Page 77


FPOL1605-3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - APRIL 2016

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 May 2016 Previous Item: FPOL1604-10 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 30 April 2016

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 30 April 2016 Statement of Net Current Assets – 30 April 2016 Statement of Financial Position – 30 April 2016 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 30 April 2016 Investment Report – 30 April 2016 Debtors Outstanding Report – 30 April 2016 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) (viewed electronically) - April 2016 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for March 2016 (viewed electronically) Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for April 2016 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of year to date financial performance and forecasts based on • Statement of Comprehensive Income; • Statement of Financial Activity; and • Statement of Financial Position An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) forecasts an end of year Operating Surplus of $135,973 a favourable variance of $400,223.

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 30 April 2016 and forecast to 30 June 2016.

1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1)

Actual Financial Performance to 30 April 2016


Page 78

Actual operating income of $68.02M is $270,233 more than the year-to-date budgeted income of $67.75M (refer explanation within the report).

Actual operating expenditure of $58.31M is $699,251 less than the year-to-date budgeted expenditure of $59.01M (refer explanation within the report).

Actual operating surplus of $9.72M is $969K more than the year-to-date budgeted operating surplus of $8.75M.

2. Capital Works

Actual capital works of $8.42M (excluding committed expenditure) is $3.70M less than the year-to-date budgeted capital works of $12.12M (refer explanation within report).

Total forecast capital expenditure of $13.61M is $3.73M less than the total amended capital expenditure of $17.33M.

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how forecast income/expenditure is tracking to budget and the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding current year to date financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants,

subsides and contributions, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 41.05m 44.12m 46.72m 49.58m 52.32m 55.30m 58.07m 60.87m 63.67m 66.42m 68.70m 71.77m

Currrent Budget 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.76m 60.21m 62.63m 65.12m 67.75m 69.91m 71.79m

Current Year Forecast 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.78m 59.99m 62.71m 65.39m 68.02m 70.09m 72.01m

40m

45m

50m

55m

60m

65m

70m

75m

Operating Income ($M)


Page 79

Actual operating income of $68.02M is $270K greater than the year-to date

budgeted income of $67.75M. Total forecast operating income of $72.01M is $215K more than the total

budgeted income of $71.79M. Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure. Actual operating expenditure of $58.31M is $699K less than the year-to date

budgeted expenditure of $59.01M. Total forecast operating expenditure of $71.87M is $185K less than the total

budgeted expenditure of $72.06M.





0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

70m

80m

Operating Expenditure ( $m)


Page 80

Capital Expenditure The following graph highlights that capital expenditure to date is significantly under budget.

Notes: August 2014 Purchase of New Depot land for $7.8M

Note: Actual capital expenditure of $8.42M is $3.70M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $12.12M.

Total forecast capital expenditure of $13.61M is $3.73M less than the total

budgeted expenditure of $17.33M. MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 29 July 2015 (Item SGS1507-9 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and $300 000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Employee Cost Employee costs are $624K under year to date budget mainly due to unfilled positions in a number of areas. Agency labour (included under Materials and Contracts) is $81K over year to date budget and decreases year to date employment cost savings to $543K.

Favourable $624K

Under budget 2.12%





0m

5m

10m

15m

20m

25m

Capital Expenditure ($m)


Page 81

Capital Works Actual capital expenditure of $8.416M is $3.70M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $12.116M. Actual capital expenditure of $925K on freehold land and buildings is $1.704M (64.82%) less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $2.628M mainly due to the major work for the following two capital projects are carried forward to the next financial year:

$862K budgeted capital expenditure on external conservation works to Fremantle Town Hall building is carried forward to the next financial year and the total capital expenditure will be $2.282M.

$741K budgeted capital expenditure on refurbishing Cantonment Hill Naval Store to heritage standards and public access requirements is carried forward to the next financial year with the total amount of budget unchanged.

Actual capital expenditure of $2.168M on land and buildings on reserves is $616K (22.11%) less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $2.784M.

The capital expenditure on the Old Fire Station Works and the Hilton Community Centre are $233K and $194K under budget respectively at this stage, but will be completed in this financial year.

The capital expenditure on Fremantle Mens Shed is $391K under budget at this stage and it is forecasted that $160K capital expenditure on this project will be carried forward to the next financial year.

Actual capital expenditure of $1.009M on infrastructure assets - parks is $584K (36.67%) less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $1.594M.

Reclassification of year to date expenditure of $166K on soft landscaping from capital expenditure to operating expenditure.

South Beach full basketball court project of $165K will be carried forward to 2016/17FY.

Esplanade bore replacement project of $188K will be carried forward to 2016/17FY.

Esplanade Plaza half basketball court project of $55K will be carried forward to 2016/17FY.

Actual capital expenditure of $222K on purchase of vehicle and heavy plants is $365K (62.20%) less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $587K mainly due to the delay of the heavy vehicle replacement program to May 2016. The old rear loader and electric workman buggy will be disposed once the new vehicles are operational.

Unfavourable $3.70M

Under budget 30.53%


Page 82


Page 83

Non-Operating Revenue Forecast proceeds from disposal of assets of $700,885 are $31.96M less than the budgeted property sales income of $32.66M. Transfer to reserves related to these properties sales have decreased by $31.7M.

$29.15M decrease on disposal proceeds is related to Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment project. Given that Council granted the contract extension request from Sirona for a period of six months from 9 May 2016 to 9 November 2016 (C1604-4), the budgeted sales of a few properties related to Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment project will be deferred to the next financial year.

$2.55M decrease on disposal proceeds is related to Sale of 7 Quarry Street, which will be settled in the next financial year

Cash Investments The graph below summarise the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 30 April 2016.

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 30 April 2016. There are $37.4M investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 75% of the total investments.

at call 30 days 60 days 90 days 150 days 210 days 330 days

Sum of Amount $6.7M $8.5M $15.0M $13.5M $2.0M $.5M $3.0M

$.0M

$2.0M

$4.0M

$6.0M

$8.0M

$10.0M

$12.0M

$14.0M

$16.0M


Page 84

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/).


Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of. Legal

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation Of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3) Operational

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2015/16 adopted budget.

AMP, $5.2M, 11%

ANZ, $5.4M, 11% BOQ,

$9.0M, 18%

ME Bank, $2.0M, 4% NAB, $1.3M, 3%

Rural Bank, $7.0M, 14%

Beyond Bank, $1.5M, 3%

Suncorp,

$8.4M, 17%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $7.5M,

15%

Auswide, $2.0M, 4%

Investments at carbon non-

support financial institutions,

$37.4M, 75%

Counterparty Exposure

http://www.marketforces.org.au/


Page 85

Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during April 2016, plus cash deposits at the end of April 2016. Also attached is the year to date statement of comprehensive income, statement of financial activity, statement of net current assets and statement of financial position for information.





1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 30 April is received.

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for April 2016, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin


Page 86

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


FPOL1605-6 FREMANTLE ARTS CENTRE CURATOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL APPROVAL

ECM Reference: 153/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 May 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Pete Stone, Manager Arts and Culture Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the Fremantle Arts Centre Curator, Ric Spencer, to travel to Singapore to inspect the major solo exhibition by acclaimed Fremantle-Singaporean artist, Matthew Ngui to be held at Fremantle Arts Centre in July 2016. The purpose of this trip is to inspect the exhibition in detail to enable the show to be reconfigured and redesigned so it can be successfully shown at the Fremantle Arts Centre.

BACKGROUND

Matthew Ngui is an internationally recognised artist whom has exhibited in several biennales and has also curated the last two Singapore biennales. Matthew Ngui now calls both Singapore and Fremantle home. He has not shown in a major solo show in Western Australia since 2008. This exhibition will make a significant cultural contribution to Western Australia showing new work by Ngui which has never been shown in Australia before and is a significant responsibility for the Fremantle Arts Centre. Therefore, it is important that the Curator views the exhibition at the Singapore Art Museum where it has premiered to understand its composition, layout and how this will best work. The exhibition is a complex integration of sculptural and text installation, cameras and a video viewing room which will have to be reconfigured to work across five galleries at the Fremantle Arts Centre. The proposed May/June 2016 itinerary includes: Day 1: fly to Singapore Day 2: visit Singapore Art Museum to see Ngui’s work and visit other galleries Day 3: visit other galleries, fly to Perth


Page 87

The total cost of $1,600 is for return airfares, plus two night’s accommodation and a daily per diem of $100.

COMMENT

This exhibition is a continuation of the Fremantle Arts Centre’s engagement with the international region and follows on from recent shows from India and Bali. In addition, a major part of the grant funding from the State Government comes with the requirement that the Fremantle Arts Centre continue to engage with international artists. It is routine professional practice in the visual arts sector for a curator to inspect an upcoming significant or complex exhibition on show at another gallery to enable the show to be successfully reconfigured.


Financial

Nil – Travel within existing operational budget. Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Strategic Plan: a city that attracts diverse, original arts and artists, culture and events.


Nil

CONCLUSION

Nil




Page 88


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approve Arts Centre Curator travel to Singapore for three nights at the cost of approximately $1,600, to inspect Matthew Ngui exhibition in May/June. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 89


FPOL1605-7 EXPOSURE TO BROADSPECTRUM LTD AND WILSON SECURITY PTY LTD

ECM Reference: 135/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 25 May 2016 Previous Item: NoM1602-1 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Kevin Porter, Senior Contracts and Procurement Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the recommendations for appropriate action in light of the findings by Officers regarding Broadspectrum and Wilson Security.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 February 2016, Council considered how it may respond to community sentiment in relation to the “No Business In Abuse” (NBIA) campaign. The campaign, being promoted by Community Action Group ‘Get Up’ is promoting organisations to consider a policy of not entering into commercial agreements for procurement of goods or services with organisations that provide support to facilities where human rights abuse may occur, such as detention centres. In particular council considered implications with the company Broadspectrum and their associated entities which may have commercial agreements with the City. At this meeting Council resolved the City to undertake a report mapping the City of Fremantle’s exposure to Broadspectrum and its associated entities. The report is to include:

i. A list of current contracts and investments with Broadspectrum and Wilson Security;

ii. The possibility of future contracts and investments with Broadspectrum and Wilson Security;

iii. The possibility and legality of the City excluding Broadspectrum and Wilson Security;

iv. Recommendations to Council for appropriate action in relation to the above.


Page 90

COMMENT

At the request of Council, the Senior Contracts & Procurement Officer undertook a desktop review of Council’s involvement with Broadspectrum Ltd and Wilson Security Pty Ltd. Investments in Wilson Security and Broadspectrum The City does not have any financial investments in Wilson Security as it is not a listed company. The City does not have any financial investments in Broadspectrum. Current contracts with Broadspectrum and Wilson Security The City has no contracts with Broadspectrum Ltd. Wilson Security Currently, the City has a Contract with Wilson Security Pty Ltd to provide security patrols on behalf of the City. Since 2009 the cost of these services has been approximately $620,000. In 2015, the City issued tender WFCC21/15 – Supply of Security Patrols. This was awarded to Wilson Security Pty Ltd for the sum of $78,383. This was 1/3rd the cost of the second placed tenderer for the same services. This contract will finish on 22nd August 2016. Possible future contracts with Broadspectrum and Wilson Security Broadspectrum Given that Broadspectrum provide logistics & facilities management, operations and maintenance management, consulting, well servicing and construction services, it is unlikely that the Council would engage Broadspectrum to undertake Contract work for the City, at this time. However, if the Kings Square redevelopment project goes ahead, Broadspectrum may bid for construction on the site. Wilson Security The City will need to go to tender for Security Services in the 2nd half of the current financial year. It is considered likely that Wilson Security will provide a tender for the provision of these services. It should also be noted that Wilson Security are a member of the WALGA Preferred Supplier Panel for Security Systems and Services and could be engaged using the preferred supply agreement. The legality of excluding Broadspectrum and Wilson Security from City Contracts The exclusion of Broadspectrum or Wilson Security from tendering or contracting with the City for the provision of goods or services may be deemed ‘anti-competitive’ and be in breach of Commonwealth Legislation. At the time of this Report legal advice had been sought from an external firm of Commercial and Local Government Legal Specialists and the outcome of this discussion was not yet available.


Page 91

The Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 require Local Governments to assess responses as ‘best value for money’. In the past Wilson Security have provided ‘best value for money’ on the provision of specific services to the City. By excluding Wilson Security from tendering, the City may be unable to achieve the requirements of the Regulations in achieving a ‘best value for money’ outcome. This may be a breach of the Regulations and would require further investigation regarding the possible outcomes of any breach. However, Clause 1.3 (3) of the Act, clearly commits a Local Government to: "use its best endeavours to meet the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity” Clearly, encouraging businesses to become more ethical in their approach to society in general and particularly the more under represented, economically marginalised and those fleeing persecution, fulfils the commitment to improving social advancement and economic prosperity.


Financial

The risk remains in the Council not achieving the ‘best value for money’ outcome, by excluding a lowest placed tendered offer. Legal

Excluding specific organisations from tendering may break Competition Law and be deemed as anti-competitive. Legal clarification has been sought. It is a requirement of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 that the City seek ‘value for money’ responses for tenders and/or contracts. By excluding certain suppliers the City may not achieve this requirement. Arguably the City may be in breach of legislative requirements. On the other hand the City is achieving its obligations under Clause 1.3 (3) of the Act and meeting the needs of current and future generations by encouraging environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity. Operational

Excluding suppliers from contracting with the City may result in a loss of knowledge and an impairment in the quality and quantity of services provided by the City. Organisational

Nil


It would be prudent for any potential restrictions on purchasing and contracting engagement to be best served by implementing a specific Council Policy based on the principles of the ‘No Business in Abuse’ strategy.


Page 92

This would then determine the City’s relationships and dealings with current and potential suppliers, which would then be reflected in the detail of the City’s Purchasing Policy. This ‘top down’ approach would provide a level of transparency, openness and consistency that may otherwise be absent when determining business dealings and procurement activity.


Nil

CONCLUSION

The City’s financial exposure to Broadspectrum and Wilson Security is minimal. However, the reputational risk to Council is considered higher, given the broad community interest in the principles of ‘No Business in Abuse’. The ability to exclude organisations wishing to bid to supply goods or services to the City has not been tested. The Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 are silent on the ability of Local Governments to exclude specific businesses from bidding for Local Government contracts and further legal advice will need to be sought on this issue. Council will need to consider whether the assessment of Broadspectrum as an organisation in contravention of the principles of NBIA is to be applied retrospectively due to the recent announcement by the Government of Papua New Guinea that the Manus Island detention centre is to close and the likely acquisition of Broadspectrum by Ferrovial, who have publically stated their intention not to bid for future contracts operating offshore detention facilities.


Simple Majority Required


Page 93


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Modify the Procurement Policy to include the principles of ‘No Business in Abuse’,

2. Bring the draft amendment for ‘No Business in Abuse’ in the Procurement

Policy back to council for consideration, and 3. Allow current contract(s) with organisations considered to be in conflict

with the No Business in Abuse principles to lapse at the end of their natural term.


For Against



Page 94

Cr J Strachan vacated the chamber at 8.00 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

FPOL1605-4 FINAL APPROVAL OF LEASE FOR ENKEL - NAVAL STORES, CANTONMENT HILL

ECM Reference: 3238331 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 25 May 2016 Previous Item: SGS1504-6; SGS1506-10; FPOL1603-03 Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Weller, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Lease – Naval Stores, 141 Queen Victoria Street,

Fremantle (confidential under separate cover) ENKEL at the Naval Stores Proposal (April 2015) ENKEL update to Council 17 March 2016 ENKEL Letter: preferred partner Tim Hemsley (Climbing Wall) Market evidence for rent – Naval Stores

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this item is for Council to consider approval of the lease between ENKEL and City of Fremantle at the building known as the Naval Stores, at 141 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (Cantonment Hill). The commencement of the lease is subject to the completion of the City’s remedial works on the Naval Stores and approval of a Development Application for ENKEL’s fit out and other building works. Under the terms of the lease, ENKEL are required to submit their Development Application within sixty days of the City finalising plans for its works on the Naval Stores. This report does not include an overall project update on the Cantonment Hill project. That update is expected to be presented at the 17 June 2016 Council meeting.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting 16 October 2013, Council resolved the following; That Council:

1. Endorses calling for expressions of interest through an EOI with input from the Cantonment Hill Working Group in relation to public and or commercial activities at the Cantonment Hill site, including the signal station, that could provide activation and a degree of caretaker presence in the short to medium


Page 95

term without obstructing the larger master planning and implementation process.

2. Authorises interim actions including reconnection of services at the signal station, the up-lighting of the building and mural artwork

3. Authorises additional funds of $150 000 to be transferred from the Cantonment Hill Reserve for the interim actions and to support the activation of the ground floor of the signal station and naval store

4. Lists progression of the implementation of the Cantonment Hill Master Plan as a high priority in future budgets.

5. Delays changing the Cantonment Hill Working Group project scope, pending the Expression of Interest process outcomes.

An expression of interest (EOI) process calling for submissions to activate the Cantonment Hill Reserve was advertised, closing on Monday 26 May 2014. Seven expressions of interest were received with the majority focused on use of the Naval Stores. The City received a total of six expressions of interest specifically for the Naval Stores. Of those, two applicants were recognised as potential head Lessees with a model that includes other smaller operators as potential sub Lessees. The two suitable head Lessee candidates were Fremantle Foundations acting on behalf of the Circus School, and ENKEL. At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 June 2015 Council resolved to approve:

1. City Officers to provide an estimate of the cost of remedial works to the Naval Stores building and present them for review by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group and then to Council for approval.

2. An offer to ENKEL valid for a period of 90 days to complete due diligence, without a commitment to a long term lease at this stage, subject to point 1 of this recommendation.

3. City Officers to prepare and negotiate a Lease between the City of Fremantle and ENKEL subject to points 1 & 2 of this recommendation, for review by the Cantonment Hill Working Group, prior to being presented to Council for approval”

At its meeting on 23 March 2016 Council resolved to approve the essential terms and conditions, and performance criteria for a lease between City of Fremantle and ENKEL for the Naval Stores. Council resolved that a copy of the draft lease to be brought back to Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 May 2016.

COMMENT

Since Council approved the essential terms and conditions, and performance criteria of a lease with ENKEL on 23 March 2016, Officers have progressed with lease negotiations based on the Council special conditions contained with that resolution. All conditions requested by Council have been included in the lease. A change has been made to one performance criteria (Financial 4b) in order to accommodate the climbing wall and café / restaurant.


Page 96

The lease attached is before Council for approval. The following table summarises the special conditions requested by Council on 23 March 2016 and the part of the lease that addresses those special conditions.


Page 97

Council special condition from OCM 23 March 2016 (FPOL1603-3 resolution)

Provisions within lease and additional Officer comments

Special condition A1. Performance criteria will be an annexure to the Lease.

Performance criteria have been included as Annexure 2 within the lease and are also included later in this report.

Special condition A2. The Licensee will be required to report against the performance criteria annually.

Lease item 9: Additional terms and conditions 1. Performance Criteria. (3) “The Lessee will be required to report against the performance criteria annually…”

Special condition A3. Performance management committee. Special condition A4. If required, meetings may be increased to cater to any “underperformance” issues relating to the delivery of the performance criteria.

Lease item 9: Additional terms and conditions 1. Performance Criteria. (6) “The parties shall establish a performance management committee …” “The Committee shall meet quarterly in the first year of the Term, biannually in the second year of the Term and annually thereafter …” The following four Officers will represent the City on the performance management committee: Manager Economic Development and Marketing; Manager City Assets; Manager Strategic Projects; and Property Services Administrator.

Special condition A5. If the Licensee does not adhere to the performance criteria this will be a breach against the Lease and the Licensee will be issued with a Notice of Default. Special condition A6. If a total of five (5) Notices of Default occur against the Lease, regardless of the reasons for the Notice of Default, the Lease can be terminated.

Lease item 9: Additional terms and conditions 1. Performance Criteria. (4) “If the Lessee fails to comply with any Performance Criteria the Lessor may issue a Notice of Breach to the Licensee. The issuance of a total of five (5) Notices of Breach in relation to the Performance Criteria by the Lessor to the Lessee shall constitute an Event of Default …”

Special condition A7. The Lease will include a subletting clause which will allow the Lessee to enter into subletting arrangements subject to Lessor approval.

Lease item 9: Additional terms and conditions 2. Subletting of Premises. (1) “Without detracting from clause 14 and the requirement for Lessor’s consent contained therein and subject to Performance Criteria 4(b), the parties acknowledge that the combined rent received by the Lessee


Page 98

under subleases of the Premise may exceed the Rent payable to the Lessor, provided that the sublease rents are within market range and the permitted use under any sublease is consistent with this Lease.” The intent of this lease item is to allow ENKEL to improve the financial sustainability of the project and to cover the costs of managing the building’s sub-tenants. Each sub-lease agreement will need to be approved by the City’s Chief Executive Officer. ENKEL intend to offer a sub-lease to Mr Tim Hemsley (Climbing Wall) who has continued to express an interest in being involved in the project. A copy of ENKEL’s letter notifying Mr Hemsley that he is a preferred partner is attached.

Special condition A8. It is acknowledged by the Lessor that the Lessee is a stakeholder in regards to works to the surrounding Open Space Reserve (Cantonment Hill) but is not an approving authority.

Lease item 9: Additional terms and conditions 3. Cantonment Hill “It is acknowledged by the Lessor that the Lessee is a stakeholder in regards to future works to the surrounding Open Space Reserve (Cantonment Hill) but is not an approving authority. The Lessee may make requests regarding future plans, use of projects relating to works planned by the Lessor, but the Lessor reserves the right to deny any requests. The Lessee acknowledges that this Lease is for the Premises only” This clause aims to ensure that ENKEL’s expectations are managed regarding their input into the works at Cantonment Hill not including the Naval Stores. They remain a key stakeholder.

Essential lease terms

Lease area: 1,393 square metres

The leased area is 1,393 square metres. Current plans show public toilets within the lease area. If such plans are finalised, the area required for public toilets will need to be subtracted from that 1,393 square metre area. Rent will be adjusted accordingly based on the updated square metre allocation (e.g. 1,393sqm minus 60qm for public toilets =


Page 99

1,333sqm lease area).

Lease term: 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 years subject to satisfactory performance as judged by performance criteria below

The initial lease term is for five years plus three further terms of five years (ENKEL’s option) subject to satisfactory performance.

Rent: $35 per square metre per annum

Rent has been based on an independent market valuation for “community use” which has been determined as $35m2 pa + GST. The market valuation was based on “community use” of the building not a normal “commercial” use, based on advice from the valuer when taking into account the types of diverse activities that will occur within the building. “Commercial” use is typically used for traditional office environments in central business districts and was considered to be inappropriate for this valuation and the diverse activities within the building. Market comparisons for “community use” are included as an attachment to this report. Rent will be stepped in gradually over the first term of the lease with the aim of reaching market rate (of $35 per sqm) for community use at the end of the five years. Based on 1,393 square metres of leased area, the annual rent for the initial five year term will be: Year 1: Nil (0% of market rate for “community use”) Year 2: $20,000 (41%) Year 3: $30,000 (62%) Year 4: $40,000 (82%) Year 5: $48,755 (100%) This stepped approach is consistent with other City of Fremantle leases and takes into account the likely capital investment made by the tenant (ENKEL) in the property.

Consumer Price Index (CPI) reviews

Inflation or CPI reviews will occur annually from the commencement of the 1st further term.

Rental market reviews Rent reviews will occur at the commencement of 1st, 2nd and 3rd additional lease terms. Market valuation will be based on “community use” and will not include any improvements by the Lessee (i.e. unimproved value).

Permitted Use Hospitality (café); industrial working space, community venue and hire, office, climbing wall.


Page 100

Outgoings: to be paid by ENKEL

Outgoings to be paid by ENKEL include but are not limited to: Water Rates and Usage; Electricity Usage; Council Rates and Tax; Land Tax; Building Insurance; and General Maintenance.

Condition Precedent

This lease is subject to and conditional upon the Lessee obtaining development approval. The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate are currently working with ENKEL to determine final detailed design requirements for the Naval Stores building. Those discussions are expected to be completed within weeks.

Performance criteria Performance criteria were informed by Council’s resolution on 23 March 2016 and are based on ENKEL’s response to Council’s call for expressions of interest, including its proposal and business plan. Performance criteria are categorised as: Activation; Public access, use and interaction; Capacity; and Financial. Details of the performance criteria are below: 1. Activation

a. The Naval Store will operate at least 5 days a week and may also operate evenings

b. A range of creative enterprises and activities will occur on site, including but not

limited to: (i) Learning pods: areas for local artists and entrepreneurs to include team

and conference rooms (ii) Fab Lab: fabrication lab for prototyping and education to teach about

new technologies and maker movement (iii) Co-creation and ideation workshops: share insights and skills with

access to resources for the development of ideas and initiation of projects.

c. Complimentary commercial activity may also occur, subject to normal planning

approval processes and approval of the Lessor, including a cafe, climbing wall, and

d. Public events and activities open to members and non-members will be held

regularly (monthly) by tenants or venue hirers 2. Public access, use and interaction

a. Membership of ENKEL shall be open to the public

b. Space is to be made available to be hired for public use

c. Hire fees for event space must include a non-profit / community rate for eligible hirers, which is lower than the standard rate.


Page 101

3. Capacity

a. The Lessee shall monitor membership capacity and report on level of building use in the following categories:

(i) Full ENKEL membership (ii) Casual ENKEL membership (iii) General public hire and attendance - not relating to visitors to

commercial elements (café, climbing wall)

4. Financial a. Annual profit and loss statements of the Lessee are to be prepared by an

independent auditor / accountant

b. As the rental valuation of the Premises is based on “community use”, no more than 40% of the lettable area of the Premises can be sub-leased by the Lessee for commercial uses at (commercial) market rate.

This final performance criterion has been adjusted from the Council resolution of 30% to 40%. This increase is necessary to accommodate the inclusion of the climbing wall and café / restaurant which total almost 40% of the space alone.


Financial

Rent will be stepped in gradually over the first term of the lease with the aim to reach market rate for community use (of $35 per sqm) at the end of the five years. Based on 1,393 square metres of leased area, the annual rent for the initial five year term will be:

Year 1: Nil (0%) Year 2: $20,000 (41%) Year 3: $30,000 (62%) Year 4: $40,000 (82%) Year 5: $48,755 (100%)

This stepped approach is consistent with other Council leases (e.g. Fly by Night Club). At the conclusion of the initial five year term, a market rental review will be undertaken to determine the market rent for the start of the subsequent five year team based on “community use”. Legal

The lease will be in line with the requirements under the Commercial Tenancy (Retail) Act 1985 and Local Government Act 1995. Operational

The following four Officers will represent the City on the performance management committee: Manager Economic Development and Marketing; Manager City Assets;


Page 102

Manager Strategic Projects; and Property Services Administrator. The Committee and ENKEL will meet quarterly in the first year of the Term, biannually in the second year of the Term and annually thereafter. Dedicated tenant parking is not provided at the Naval Stores. However, sufficient parking is available at the Beach Street Car Park (500 metres walk) and ENKEL are strongly encouraged to use this car park, although this is not legally enforceable. Space will be available outside the Naval Stores for short-term drop-offs, universal access drop-offs and deliveries, but not for long-term parking. Space for externally accessible public toilets is being planned for within the Naval Stores. Cleaning and maintenance will by the City of Fremantle’s responsibility – ENKEL are expected to assist with opening and closing the toilets, and reporting any problems to City Officers. Full operational details have yet to be finalised but it is expected that opening hours for the public toilets are expected to be in line with ENKEL’s opening hours as a minimum. Organisational

Should Council approve the attached lease, ENKEL will have sixty days to submit a development application for the Naval Stores after the City of Fremantle finalises its plans for works on the building. Should ENKEL fail to meet this deadline, a report will be presented to Council for consideration of options. The City will manage and pay for costs associated with ensuring the building is publically assessable and compliant. ENKEL will manage and pay for costs associated with its business. A broader project update report for the Cantonment Hill project is due to be presented to Council at the 17 June 2016 meeting of Council by Manager Infrastructure Projects.


The proposed lease with ENKEL forms part of the Cantonment Hill project identified under the “Northern Gateway” section of the Council’s Freo 2029 transformational moves document. Support for this project aligns with the goals of the City’s Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020, specifically the ‘knowledge economy and the rise of the creative class’ and ‘innovation and technology’ sections.


Community engagement has been undertaken to date on the overall Cantonment Hill project.


Page 103

CONCLUSION

Due diligence has been completed to ensure that it is reasonable for the City to enter into a legal agreement with ENKEL. Due diligence involved the following:

1. Review of the ENKEL business plan 2. Review of ENKEL’s financial capacity to deliver their portion of the project

including viewing of financial statements 3. Review that ENKEL are a registered organisation with no outstanding debts 4. Consideration of ENKEL’s draft building plans and their alignment with the City’s

plans for the Naval Stores and the broader Cantonment Hill project. Officers are comfortable with ENKEL’s financial and technical capacity to deliver the project as proposed. The project is expected to deliver the strong level of activation for the area requested by Council and will support a range of creative enterprises and related activities. Complementary commercial activity will also occur on site in the form of a climbing wall and café offering. Additional commercial activities are permitted within the building with the approval of the City’s Chief Executive Officer – such uses are required to be in line with ENKEL’s successful proposal and the overall plan for Cantonment Hill. A performance management committee comprised of senior officers from the City will be established to ensure the project delivers the outcomes expected by Council and the Fremantle community. Performance criteria require that public events and activities must occur and be open to members and non-members of ENKEL. Public toilets are provided for within the Naval Stores, opening hours have yet to be finalised but are expected to be consistent with other public toilets within Fremantle. Parking at Beach Street car park is considered to be sufficient to meet ENKEL’s operational needs. Historically, this car park has been significantly underutilised. Use of the Tuckfield Street car park by ENKEL has been discouraged. The selection of ENKEL as a long-term tenant for the Naval Stores is expected to deliver the range of outcomes expected by Council and the Fremantle community. In addition to the considerable investment from Council in the overall Cantonment Hill project, ENKEL are expected to invest considerable financial resources into the project. ENKEL have submitted a draft of their internal designs to allow for the City’s detailed design to be finalised within weeks.


Simple majority required.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Approve the attached lease (including annexures) between City of Fremantle and ENKEL Collective for the Naval Stores, Fremantle.


Page 104

2. Approve that due diligence has been completed and authorise the release of

funds quarantined at the 25 November 2015 Council meeting for works to the value of $482,000.

ADDITIONAL OFFICER COMMENT Following the request of Finance Policy Operations and Legislation Committee dated 18 May 2016 please see below the proposed changes, as shown in italics to the draft Lease and Officers Recommendation; The following amendments are proposed to Annexure 2 - Performance Criteria 1. Activation

a. The Naval Store will operate at least 5 days a week and may also operate evenings

b. A range of creative enterprises and activities will occur on site, including but not

limited to: (i) Learning pods: areas for local artists and entrepreneurs to include team

and conference rooms (ii) Fab Lab: fabrication lab for prototyping and education to teach about

new technologies and maker movement (iii) Co-creation and ideation workshops: share insights and skills with

access to resources for the development of ideas and initiation of projects.

c. Complimentary commercial activity may also occur, subject to normal planning

approval processes and approval of the Lessor, including a cafe, climbing wall, and

d. Public events and activities open to members and non-members will be held

regularly (monthly) by tenants or venue hirers e. Activation of the public space at Cantonment Hill Reserve by the initiation of

activities and events subject to Council and relevant statutory approvals for each event/activation.

2. Public access, use and interaction

a. Membership of ENKEL shall be open to the public

b. Space is to be made available to be hired for public use

c. Hire fees for event space must include a non-profit/community rate for eligible hirers. General commercial hire fees should be based on market rate/availability for similar hireable spaces, with rates for eligible not for profit/ community hirer fees being at least 45% less than general fees. The definition for non-profit/community groups should be in line with that defined by the Australian


Page 105

Charities and Not for Profits Commission and any group of Fremantle residents representing themselves or a Fremantle School.

3. Capacity

a. The Lessee shall monitor membership capacity and report on level of building use in the following categories:

(i) Full ENKEL membership (ii) Casual ENKEL membership (iii) General public hire and attendance - not relating to visitors to

commercial elements (café, climbing wall)


Page 106

4. Financial a. Annual profit and loss statements of the Lessee are to be prepared by an

independent auditor / accountant

b. As the rental valuation of the Premises is based on “community use”, no more than 40% of the lettable area of the Premises can be sub-leased by the Lessee for commercial uses at (commercial) market rate.

c. In return for the staged incremented rent over the initial five year term of the

Lease Enkel must reflect the City of Fremantle’s level of support by acknowledging the City as a major sponsor in all marketing and public relations activities.

This final performance criterion has been adjusted from the Council resolution of 30% to 40%. This increase is necessary to accommodate the inclusion of the climbing wall and café / restaurant which total almost 40% of the space alone. Note: Enkel have requested the addition of 1(e) to the performance criteria. This clause follows the same basis as the Performance Criteria attached to the Arthur Head Reserve Licences and indicates the allowance of events on the open space can be held by Enkel whilst not hindering Item 9.3 of the Lease which acknowledges that the Lease is for the premises only. The following additions are proposed to the Lease document;

Addition to Item 9 of the Lease to acknowledge that the Lessor will not unreasonably withhold approval of any alfresco licence applied for in submission of a food business licence by the Lessee or subsequent Sub Lessee.

Addition to Item 9 of the Lease to acknowledge that Lease does provide dedicated parking for the Lessee under the terms of the Lease.

Note: Enkel have requested the addition regarding the alfresco licence due to concerns that without this inclusion Item 9.3 of the Lease may impede approval of such a Licence. In the terms of the use of the word “licence” this relates to the approval to service food outdoors in an allocated area which is attached to a food business licence issued by the City’s Environmental Health Department and does not relate to the Commercial Property Department. ALTERNATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the attached lease (including annexures as amended) between City of Fremantle and ENKEL Collective for the Naval Stores, Fremantle with the following amendments a) Addition of 4(c) – In return for the staged incremented rent over the initial

five year term of the Lease Enkel must reflect the City of Fremantle’s level of support by acknowledging the City as a major sponsor in all marketing and public relations activities.


Page 107

b) Amendment to 2(c) – Hire fees for event space must include a non-profit/community rate for eligible hirers. General commercial hire fees should be based on market rate/availability for similar hireable spaces, with rates for eligible not for profit/ community hirer fees being at least 45% less than general fees. The definition for non-profit/community groups should be in line with that defined by the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission and any group of Fremantle residents representing themselves or a Fremantle School.

c) Addition of 1(e) Activation of the public space at Cantonment Hill Reserve by the initiation of activities and events subject to Council and relevant statutory approvals for each event/activation.

d) Addition to Item 9 of the Lease to acknowledge that the Lessor will not unreasonably withhold approval of any alfresco licence applied for in submission of a food business licence by the Lessee or subsequent Sub Lessee.

e) Addition to Item 9 of the Lease to acknowledge that Lease does provide dedicated parking for the Lessee under the terms of the Lease.



Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED the following alternative officer’s recommendation:

a) Addition of 4(c)–In return for the staged incremented rent over the initial five year term of the Lease enkel will reflect the City of Fremantle’s level of support by acknowledging the City in marketing and public relations activities.

SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 8/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Doug Thompson

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED part b) of the following alternative officer’s recommendation:


Page 108

b) Amendment to 2(c)–Hire fees for event space must include a non-profit/community rate for eligible hirers. The discount will be at the discretion of enkel and based on the type and activity of the organisation”

SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to part b of the Alternative Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: Amendment to 2 c - Hire fees for event space must include a non profit/community rate for eligible hirers. General commercial hire fees should be based on market rate/availability for similar hireable spaces, with rates for eligible not for profit/community hirer fees being at least 45% less than general fees. The definition for non profit/community groups should be in line with that defined by the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission and any group of Fremantle residents representing themselves or a Fremantle School or any group or individual defined by Enkel. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 5/4

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

1. Approve the attached lease (including annexures as amended) between City of Fremantle and ENKEL Collective for the Naval Stores, Fremantle with the following amendments

a) Addition of 4(c)–In return for the staged incremented rent over the initial five year term of the Lease enkel will reflect the City of Fremantle’s level of support by acknowledging the City in marketing and public relations activities.

b) Amendment to 2 c - Hire fees for event space must include a non profit/community rate for eligible hirers. General commercial hire fees should be based on market rate/availability for similar hireable spaces, with rates for eligible not for profit/community hirer fees being at least 45% less than general fees. The definition for non


Page 109

profit/community groups should be in line with that defined by the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission and any group of Fremantle residents representing themselves or a Fremantle School or any group or individual defined by Enkel.

c) Addition of 1(e) Activation of the public space at Cantonment Hill Reserve by the initiation of activities and events subject to Council and relevant statutory approvals for each event/activation.

d) Addition to Item 9 of the Lease to acknowledge that the Lessor will not unreasonably withhold approval of any alfresco licence applied for in submission of a food business licence by the Lessee or subsequent Sub Lessee.

e) Addition to Item 9 of the Lease to acknowledge that Lease does provide dedicated parking for the Lessee under the terms of the Lease.



SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 110

Cr D Thompson returned to the meeting at 8.24 pm. At 8.24 pm they Mayor declared an interest in the below item and sought nominations from the Chair. a vote took place due to the absence of the Deputy Mayor. Cr A Sullivan was nominated and as there were no further nominations assumed the chair. Mr Dougall Director City Business declared an interest in the below item and left the Chamber during its consideration.

FPOL1605-5 APPROVAL REQUEST FOR OFFICER AND MAYOR ATTENDANCE AT RMW CONFERENCE IN BIRMINGHAM UK

ECM Reference: 038/012 Disclosure of Interest: Officer preparing report is seeking approval to attend

event Meeting Date: FPOL 18 May, 2016, Council 25 May, 2016. Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider approval for the Mayor and Director City Business to attend the Regional Waste Management (RMW) Conference at Birmingham in the United Kingdom in September, 2016, as part of a Southern Metropolitan Regional Council delegation. The attendance at the conference will be book ended with visits to regional waste facilities resulting in several site visits with the conference.

BACKGROUND

The Southern Metropolitan Regional Council has approved the attendance of SMRC officers and elected members attending the Regional Waste Management Conference in Birmingham, England between 13th and 15th September, 2016. As part of the trip the SMRC is coordinating site visits to regional waste facilities in the United Kingdom immediately prior to and after the conference. The cost of the attendance of elected members on the SMRC Council will be met by the SMRC.

COMMENT

The SMRC has invited other elected members and regional group officers to attend the conference and site visits as part of the SMRC tour. The costs of regional officers and elected members attending the tour will be met by the individual council themselves. The purpose of the tour is to consider the elements of the recently adopted Strategic Waste Strategy by the SMRC, which was supported by the City of Fremantle.


Page 111

The RMW Conference is branded as; “RWM is Europe's leading event for resource management professionals, a three day event that brings together the entire industry to help influence the way we think about and manage waste. The show attracts more than 700 brands and over 13,000 visitors, championing innovation by promoting achievable strategies, case studies and quality networking opportunities.” (source: RMW Event Website). It covers areas including recycling, waste to energy, logistics and the circular economy. It is one of the larger European waste management events and is expected to attract up to 13,000 attendances. The City of Fremantle will be represented by Cr Doug Thompson as part of the SMRC tour, there is an opportunity for a City of Fremantle Officer to gain insight into the industry benchmarks being explored at the conference and the tour of waste venues to assess the processes being undertaken in Europe. This tour would provide better first-hand understanding of the strategic direction outcomes being sought through the recently adopted Waste Management Strategy by the SMRC. The Director City Business is a representative for the City of Fremantle on the SMRC Regional Executive Group. The Mayor has advised he is planning to travel to Europe around this time to attend the 20th anniversary of the Sister City relationship with Funchal in Portugal, subject to council approval and providing opportunity for him to also attend the conference and the facilities with the group. The Mayor has indicated if the opportunity arises he would likely attend the conference.


Financial

It is estimated that return flights to the United Kingdom will cost approximately $2,100 and accommodation for the week at a venue adjacent to the conference venue will be approximately $1,500 for the week. If council approve the attendance flights and accommodation will be acquired as soon as possible to ensure lowest costs possible are achieved. Legal

Nil Operational

The attendance to the conference and associated site visits will allow a greater level of understanding of emerging issues associated with the Waste Management Strategy for the City of Fremantle. Attendance by an officer would provide support to the elected member attending on behalf of the SMRC. It is anticipated the travelling party would depart Perth on Saturday 10th September and depart the United Kingdom on Saturday 17th September.


Page 112

Organisational

City of Fremantle policy is for Council to decide on international travel requests.


Attendance at the conference would provide insight into the industry benchmarks being explored at the conference and the tour of waste venues to assess the processes being undertaken in Europe.


Nil.

CONCLUSION

Recommend approval for the Director of City Business to attend the RMW Conference tour and associated site visits with the planned in the United Kingdom with the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council tour from 10th to 17th September, 2016.


Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approve the attendance by the Director of City Business, and the Mayor if scheduling permits, to the RMW Conference and associated waste facility site visits with the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council planned tour in the United Kingdom between 10th and 17th September, 2016, as a representative of the City of Fremantle. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 113

Mayor, Brad Pettitt and Mr Glen Dougall returned to the meeting at 8.28 pm. The Mayor, Brad Pettitt assumed Chair. Cr R Pemberton MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SPD1605-1 and SPD1605-2. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 11 MAY 2016

The following item number SPD1605-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1605-1 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLAN UPDATE

ECM Reference: N/A Author: Jenaya Shepherd, Manager Strategic Projects Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 Climate Change Adaptation Plan Actions Attachment 2 Regional Climate Change Adaptation The City’s Climate Change Adaptation program is currently being delivered through a number of projects and operational activities. This report provides an update on the key projects and activities underway including current and future partnership opportunities as well as a stock take of actions identified under the Climate Change Adaptation Plan adopted by council in March 2013 (SGS1303-1).

BACKGROUND

Local government and planning authorities are at the forefront of dealing with impacts resulting from predicted changes in climate. The City of Fremantle (the ‘City’) has been a


Page 114

climate change mitigation leader for some time, by becoming the first carbon neutral local government in WA in 2009 and adopting the Low Carbon City Plan in 2011. In March 2013 the City took the sets towards climate adaptation through the adoption of a Climate Change Adaptation Plan (the ‘plan’). Developed by a Working Group, the plan contributed to the ‘Climate Change and Environmental Protection’ Strategic Imperative in the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. At the time the Working Group acknowledged that climate change impacts are wide-ranging and recognised that City of Fremantle, as a local government authority, has limited resources and limited jurisdiction to address any likely impacts alone. Consequently the City has leveraged off important regional partnerships since the plan’s adoption to progress the actions identified (see below). COCKBURN SOUND COASTAL VULNERABILITY AND FLEXIBLE ADAPTATION PATHWAYS The City in partnership with Cockburn, Kwinana, Rockingham Perth Region NRM form the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance (the ‘Alliance’) which is supported by the Departments of Transport, Planning, Environment and Regulation and the Cockburn Sound Management Council and Department of Defence. The Alliance is charged with delivering the Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability and Flexible Adaptation Pathways Project (‘pathways project’) which consists of four (4) stages: Stage 1 – Study Brief preparation (completed 2010) The first stage identified the data available and the information gaps as well as the scope for the project. Stage 2 – Coastal Vulnerability Assessment (completed Feb-2013) This first stage was aimed at improving the understanding of the coastal features, processes and hazards of the study area as well as identifying the degree of exposure and sensitivity of the various sections of coastline. Stage 3 – Values and Risk Assessment (completed Nov-2014) The second stage was aimed at facilitating the understanding of climate science, coastal hazards and risk management amongst key stakeholders (including community) and identifying the ‘value at risk’ of coastal assets potentially affected by coastal processes and climate change. Stage 4 – Coastal Adaptation Plan (due May-2016) The final stage aims to ensure that coastal communities and local governments in Cockburn Sound are informed of the risks and prepared to respond to the threats posed by current and future coastal hazards. A previous update on the pathways project was provided in December 2015 at the Informal Elected Members meeting. At this time the draft Fremantle Harbour and South Beach Coastal Adaptation Plan (‘CAP’) was being prepared. Although the City provided comments on the draft in a timely manner, the consultants have experienced some delay in receiving feedback from other Alliance partners. Consequently release of the final


Page 115

document has been pushed back and the City is now expecting to receive the final report and associated plans by 23 May 2016. Following adoption the consultants and Alliance coordinator are aiming to have a stakeholder briefing session towards the end of June 2016. PORT, LEIGHTON AND MOSMAN BEACH COASTAL HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATION PLAN The City in partnership with the Town of Mosman Park successfully secured WAPC Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program funding to prepare a Port, Leighton and Mosman Beach Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (‘CHRMAP’). A previous update on the CHRMAP was provided to council in December 2015. Since then the project steering committee has formed and first met on 31 March 2016. The steering committee comprises representation from the project partners along with advisory representation from Town of Cottesloe, Fremantle Ports, Department of Environment Regulation, Department of Planning, Department of Transport, and Perth NRM Coastal and Marine Program. A consultant brief to undertake the work and prepare the CHRMAP was released Apr-2016 and quotations are currently under assessment by the steering committee. It is anticipated that a consultant will be appointed mid-May 2016. The first consultant task will be to prepare a detailed project program and community and stakeholder engagement strategy, expected by Jun-2016. The project methodology is consistent with the State Planning Policy 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy and its associated guidelines. Therefore the CHRMAP will be comparable to and be able to dove-tail with the Alliance pathways project. In addition, the brief requires that the consultant prepare and assess data using the same projected timeframes thus completing the coastal processes analysis for Fremantle’s coastline. Currently the CHRMAP is proposed to be presented to council in January 2017 to release for public comment. Following the final CHRMAP is proposed to be presented to council in April 2017 for final adoption. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLAN Since the plan was adopted there has been considerable work undertaken by City officers towards delivering the identified actions. In addition to the coastal adaptation planning discussed above, another major piece of work in this area was the development and adoption of the Fremantle One Planet Strategy. The council paper (SGS1408-11) recommending adoption of the strategy stated: “The full suite of City of Fremantle sustainability initiatives, including those outlined in the Low Carbon City Plan, Adaptation Plan and other internal strategies and plans, have been incorporated into this strategy, which engages more holistically with the full range of sustainability issues”


Page 116

A status update of actions identified under the plan is provided at Attachment 1. It should be noted, however, in preparing the plan the Working Group made a conscious decision to focus primarily on corporate actions, where the City has sufficient control, whilst limiting the community and advocacy actions to matters where the City may be best placed to influence an outcome. In adopting this approach the Working Group and officers at the time acknowledged that the plan perhaps was not as comprehensive as it might be. There is, however, an opportunity to renew and bolster the plan in accordance with the outcomes of the CAP and the CHRMAP. A review of the plan would also be timely in the context of an emerging opportunity to partner with the South West group and member councils to formulate a regional approach to climate change adaptation (see below). REGIONAL APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION The South West Group (the ‘group’) Strategic Plan 2015 to 2025 includes a number of high priority strategies/actions related to climate change adaptation. In response the group has prepared a framework to determine more accurately the resource and funding requirements for a proposed regional approach to climate change adaptation (ref Attachment 2). There have been some relatively minor changes to the attached approach, informed by the baseline research undertaken to date. In particular the group is now proposing to spend more time in the consolidation of information, opportunity / gap analysis and identification of potential pathways and less resources on a regional risk assessment (as has already been completed by SMRC) in order to provide the most value to the member councils. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton The project update report and attachments of the Strategy and Project Development Committee agenda 11 May 2016 be received. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham


Page 117

Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 118

The following item number SPD1605-2 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1605-2 PROPOSED ENGAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DIVERSE HOUSING PROJECT - ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 218/069 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SPD11 May 2016; Council 25 May 2016 Previous Item: 24 September 2014 – Report SPC1409-01

23 September 2015 – Report SPC1509-4 24 February 2016 – Report SPD1502-2 23 March 2016 – Report SPD1603-1

Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planner Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Draft Engagement Plan – Diverse Housing Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the engagement plan for the diverse housing project for adoption. Council have considered the principles of the diverse housing project on several occasions. At the 23 March 2016 Ordinary meeting Council confirmed the principles on which community engagement should be based and resolved to undertake community engagement prior to a formal statutory planning process such as a scheme amendment and or local planning policy. Officers have drafted a community engagement plan for the ‘diverse housing project’. The plan proposes three key events including two road shows and a community open day/workshop event. The details of these events will be further explored with external consultants. Other engagement tools such as a video and bus/walking tour are tentatively proposed subject to resources available. A clear engagement message and accessible communication material are considered to be key to the success of the project. Accordingly the project requires further modelling of the principles and housing types, graphic design and an external engagement facilitator. Officers have requested Council to consider allocating $60,000 in the 2016/17 budget for this work. PROJECT BACKGROUND Council have considered the principles of the diverse housing project on several occasions. The full set of principles to engage the community on is provided in the attachment to the engagement plan in attachment 1. The principles are made up from matters considered at the following Ordinary Meetings of Council:

24 September 2014 – Report SPC1409-01

23 September 2015 – Report SPC1509-4


Page 119

24 February 2016 – Report SPD1502-2

23 March 2016 – Report SPD1603-1 At the 23 March 2016 Ordinary Meeting Council confirmed the principles on which community engagement should be undertaken and resolved to:

a. undertake consultation with residents to seek feedback and input to research, information, typologies and any other information that will assist in reviewing and analysing the draft proposed provisions; and

b. amend the draft local planning scheme, if appropriate, to reflect feedback from community consultation… and present to Council for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee; and

c. Request Officers to bring a Consultation Plan to Council to show how the consultation… will be carried out

SUMMARY OF PROJECT Council consider it of value to gain the community’s input into the diverse housing project prior to undertaking a statutory planning process. Accordingly officers have drafted an engagement plan for the project. The full engagement plan is provided in attachment 1 to this report. Engagement material and events As the City is not constrained by statutory engagement requirements and the project affects the City as a whole the diverse housing project is an opportunity to more widely engage the community in a different way to standard strategic planning engagement. Accordingly officers propose a wider range of engagement information with quality graphics such as a brochure, FAQs, video (resource dependant), media attention and facilitated formal and informal events The City has asked AUDRC to continue their work on the project and provide further modelling and graphic design for the engagement communication materials. The engagement plan also proposes a design workshop with either 3D modelling or physical models or a combination of both. An external engagement facilitator is also recommended to help refine the engagement material and run the engagement events, given the significance of this project and the complexity of some of the concepts it involves. Three key engagement events and a targeted survey for community feedback are proposed. Officers suggest the following:

Road Show event x 2 Engage key speakers/experts and facilitator to present the issues, principles and concepts to develop a shared understanding of issues.

Design workshop


Page 120

Collaborate and gain specific feedback from interest groups by exploring the design in a one-day workshop by invitation or open day and potentially an associated or additional walking/bus tour.

Electronic feedback survey Open and closed questions to gain a fuller understanding of the community’s values, feelings and views on housing in their area and the principles of the project.

The details of these events will be further refined in consultation with the City’s community engagement co-ordinator and external advisors. There is also an opportunity of the soon-to-be-formed Innovative Housing Working Group to contribute to the planning and delivery of the community engagement project. Timeframe The project is also not constrained by statutory timeframes and therefore more time can be allocated to gathering and drafting the engagement material and engaging with the community. The engagement plan therefore proposes the project runs from May to December 2016. An indicative timeline from the engagement plan is provided below in table 1. Refer to attachment 1 for more information on the engagement plan. Table 1. Indicative timeline [from Engagement plan]

Key message(s) A key engagement message to the community on the diverse housing project is that the process is an open discussion on opportunities for, and the community’s view of, diverse housing in established areas. The reasons to consider the project and principles upon which to consider an approach will be provided as a starting point for the discussion. The principles are by no means the completed project. On the contrary, the principles and direction of the project are subject to change as the community considers them throughout the engagement process. Therefore the two areas the project will be consulting the community on are:

1. Need for the diverse housing project; and


Page 121

2. Principles of the diverse housing project (previously endorsed by Council)


Page 122

Need for the diverse housing project A major part of the project is to explore the community’s views on what they think the needs and choices of housing in Fremantle are and should be into the future. The project will explore the dichotomy between the need for smaller housing types vs. the need to retain the character of existing areas and the perception of smaller housing types vs ‘big’ housing types etc. Key points for engagement:

Focus on the purpose/reasons for the project from a local perspective as opposed to a metropolitan or state perspective

What the community values and would like to see in the outcomes of the project

What the project is/ what the project is not

The current planning framework’s (R-codes) capacity to achieve the purpose of the project

Opportunities for an alternative approach and benefits of the project to the community

Principles of the diverse housing project Council have considered and confirmed the principles on which community engagement is to be based on numerous occasions. However, the scheme principles have become very specific and will need to be pared back to their intent to allow for effective engagement on the issue. Preliminary examples of this are shown in table 2 below. Table 2. Preliminary engagement principle examples Scheme amendment principle Engagement approach*

Permitting the development of a Grouped Dwelling(s) and/or Multiple Dwelling(s) that does not meet the minimum site area and/or minimum average site area specified in the Residential Design Codes, where the development complies specific requirements and is in one of the specified areas identified on the map.

A planning approach that would permit the development of smaller housing types in specific ‘test’ and established areas regardless of site area size.

Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120sqm

What smaller housing types (e.g. up to 120 sqm) would be supported by the community in existing Fremantle suburbs.

A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as a Deep Planting Zone. This area shall be uncovered and have a minimum dimension of 4.5 metres. It can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear portion of the site.

A new idea, not currently required in planning of a compulsory ‘deep planting zone’ to achieve small housing and what this means – no building on the area always, a large tree etc.

A maximum of 1 car bay shall be provided for each new dwelling, unless the dwelling is existing when a maximum of two car bays would be

Explore the idea of reduced car parking requirements for smaller housing types.

How this could work and why.


Page 123

allowed; and

A maximum of one dwelling in a development, where that dwelling is no larger than one bedroom/studio size (up to 60 sqm), can be car free.

*To be refined with the City’s community engagement co-ordinator and external advisors.

Budget The engagement plan is subject to budget. Officers have requested Council to consider the allocation of up to $60,000 in the 2016/17 budget for this project CONCLUSION The purpose of this report is to present to Council the engagement plan for the diverse housing project for adoption. The plan proposes quality communication material, key messages and the engagement events. External consultants are recommend to provide modelling and graphics and help with community engagement material and events. Accordingly officers have requested $60,000 in the 2016/17 budget for this work.


Simple majority.


Page 124


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton

1. That Council approve the Diverse Housing Engagement Plan as shown in attachment 1 of the Strategy and Project Development Committee agenda 11 May 2016.

2. That Council give consideration to the allocation of funding to undertake community engagement on the diverse housing project in accordance with the Engagement Plan in attachment 1 as part of the 2016/17 budget.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 125

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 MAY 2016

LAC1605-1 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - JANUARY - MARCH 2016

ECM Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 May 2016 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To provide information to the two Councils on the operation and performance of the Fremantle City Library during the previous quarter. This item reports on Library operations, issues and achievements for the quarter January - March 2016.

STATISTICS

Population

City of Fremantle 29,471

Town of East Fremantle 7,595

Membership

Fremantle (residents, workers, students)

8,238

East Fremantle (residents, workers, students)

1,394

Melville residents 1,258

Cockburn residents 1,710

Cottesloe residents 300

Kwinana residents 38

Rockingham residents 89

Other WA residents 960

Temporary members 431

Total 14,418


Page 126

New members N/A

Expired members N/A

(a) Library Access - January - March 2016 Statistics

Library access

Hours open 669

Visitors 57,542

Active borrowers N/A

Staff (FTE) 16.6

In House Internet Use 7,861

Wifi Use 7,783

Circulation transactions

Loans and renewals 56,239

Returns N/A

Items on loan 13,478

Reservations N/A

Requests sent to other libraries

1,141

Requests received from other libraries

1,503

(b) Access to Information and Resources - January - March 2016 Statistics

User assistance

Service desk reference enquiries

3,510

Fre-info enquiries 1,546

History Centre enquiries 581

Online catalogue searches

18,553

Library web page hits 8,953

Use of Online Databases

Fre-info 10,859

History Centre online photographs

2,501

Britannica Online 24

Health and Wellness 1,104

ANZ Reference Centre 313

Novelist 32


Page 127

Popular Magazines 12

Ancestry.com 913

Carters Antiques 324

Freegal 698

Other

East Fremantle Parking permits issued

6

New Local stock items received

N/A

New SLWA stock items received

N/A

Total new stock items received

N/A

COMMENT

Unfortunately usage statistics are incomplete for this quarter due to problems extracting them from the library management system. During the quarter Public Libraries were advised of 2016/17 budget cuts of $1.7m to State funding for public library materials and the courier service that delivers stock and enables inter library loans. The cuts are of concern for a service that is already underfunded. It was also concerning that cuts were only made to hard copy print or audio materials, not to electronic resources. While electronic resources are a valuable addition to the library offering, their use comprises less than 4% of this library’s loans, and other libraries report even lower usage. Councillors and Library Advisory Committee members were welcomed on a tour of the Success Library, located within a community health centre and opposite a Centrelink office. The relatively new library is built in a sustainable building and is a similar size to the planned new library for Fremantle. A special pre-opening tour of the Perth City Library was attended by some Librarians. The new city library encompasses 3500m2 over seven circular floors. Staff shared experiences about the logistics of moving into the new space and offered valuable ideas when considering future planning for library spaces. ELibrary Social media attention led to the library’s best attended booksale in February 2016. The Facebook event attracted 88 000 views, leading to unprecedented interest and a listing on The Urban List website. Although some attendees were disappointed, expecting a larger scale event, record sales were made on the day.


Page 128

Facebook proved a great place to interact with readers. To celebrate Library Lovers Day Library Facebook fans were asked what they had recently read so staff could suggest their next book. With over 1900 views, the literary knowledge of staff was certainly tested! Many of the suggestions were shared on the Library blog page for take up by the wider membership. 2016 is the Year of Digital Inclusion, ensuring affordable and equal access to technology. Improving the digital skills of people to make full use of the social, economic and government resources online is also an important need. The library is now offering weekly technology help sessions in response to high demand for this service. It has also registered to be a network partner with GoDigi, and has received a $1000 GoDigi Seed Fund grant towards a pop up event teaching digital skills to start an online business. The library will also participate in the Perth Go Digi Pop Up Festival in May. Library members can now stream films and documentaries from the comfort of their home. By logging in with their library card, they have access to over a hundred indie films and features via Beamafilm. As well as tablets and phones, films can be viewed on a TV with the aid of a device like Chromecast. Four additional public access computers were installed in the library, an initiative welcomed by customers who use these on a regular basis. History Centre The History Centre implemented one on one training sessions in family history research using Ancestry.com, resources available online and resources available in the collection. The appointments for the first three days of training filled rapidly and further requests continue to be received. There is an obvious need for specialised assistance in this area. Librarians have also been assisting university and TAFE students with building research and tourism and heritage topics. The Les Lauder photographs are now being digitised and many will be added to the online database by the end of May. Microfilming of local newspapers has continued and to date the Fremantle Gazette has been microfilmed up to 28 October 2008, and the Fremantle Herald to 26 December 2009. Preparations for the 2016 Heritage Festival have been completed. The History Centre will coordinate three events: a Vintage and Antique Discovery Day and talks on Manufacturing Factories and Researching your family history using Ancestry.com. A photographic display sponsored by the Fremantle History Society, of early Fremantle photographs by photographer Stephen Montague Stout will be hosted. The biennial Local History Awards will be held this year. A high number of entries have been received. History Librarians have assisted the City in the development of a walking trail to commemorate Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Fremantle in 1954. Areas of interest have been identified and documented for the trail. Assistance has also been provided to community members who are working on the “Return Project”, aiming to commemorate the return of


Page 129

World War One soldiers to Fremantle in 1919. Various options were offered for dates and types of events which would be suitable for the project. Promotion The library hosted three guest speaker events during the quarter: TedX speaker and flash mob organiser Peter Sharp presented to an audience of 45 people on his experiences backpacking through Europe as well as his work organising flash mobs, with a focus on the human impact of these events. The presentation was received extremely positively and many audience members stayed for a long while after the presentation ended to talk to Peter. Celebrating International Women’s Day, Rachel Robertson and Deborah Hunn, two authors from the Fremantle Press short story compilation Purple Prose enjoyed a lively and engaging conversation with 32 people about the authors’ works and the colour purple. Feedback included comments such as “Great talk, interesting variety of views” and “Amusing and stimulating, thank you”. A presentation from the Australian Red Cross about asylum seekers and migration attracted a small but enthusiastic audience of 15 people. Feedback included comments such as “Lots of info, loved the myths and truths. Confronting and therefore good movie” and “I found the content very interesting and I liked how conversation was encouraged”. The library assisted Fremantle Press to accept entries in the TAG Hungerford award then forwarding them to the judges to ensure impartiality on the part of the Press. Fremantle Press has been supportive of the library and its guest speaker program and this assistance brought new people into the library. A series of radio advertisements was developed with RTR to promote aspects of the service to a wider audience. A review of the City’s facebook sites has resulted in the merger of the Fre-info and Meeting Place sites to become one on the Library’s page. Staff Two staff resignations during the quarter, together with one in late December, have enabled restructuring of those positions to more effectively take the library forward in the learning and technology areas. The Library hosted an eight week practicum from Central Institute of Technology. The student worked two days per week during the period and performed a range of clerical and professional duties. Practicum hosting is an important contribution to the future library profession, enabling students to develop hands on skills and awareness of the public library environment. All customer-facing staff attended training in managing behaviours of clients with mental illness. The sessions were also attended by staff from the other teams. The sessions


Page 130

offered an overall understanding of the types of mental illness and their related behaviours as well as practical strategies to manage these behaviours when they impact on staff, customers or service delivery. Library staff attended Reference Skills Training delivered by Central Institute of Technology. The sessions were run in partnership with City of Melville. Training concentrated on the development of customer engagement strategies as well as a refresher on reference interview skills. In house iPad training was developed and delivered training to enable staff to assist in the ‘tech help’ sessions being delivered through the One Stop Shop. The sessions focussed on tips and tricks for using the iOS operating system as well as how to use the apps associated with Library online resources. This has been useful in enabling the implementation of the weekly help sessions. A staff working group developed guidelines to enable customer facing staff to participate in ‘casual dress Friday’ as operated across the organisation. Collections A donation of $500 was received from the Fremantle Rotary Club towards funding books for use in the Toddler Tales early literacy lap sit program. Four sets of toddler tales books were acquired, a welcome boost for the variety of subject matter used in the program. This is the second time the Club has made a donation towards this program and their support is greatly appreciated. Young People’s Services

Program Number of sessions

Children attending

Total attendance

Baby Rhyme Time 15 192 306

New Parent’s Groups 2 18 37

Toddler Tales 9 67 132

Storytime 8 93 173

School Holiday Activity Sessions

6 307 410

Class visits to the library

4 82 107

Outreach sessions to schools, playgroups, day care centres etc

5 118 133

Total 49 877 1298

The library hosted a range of successful school holiday activities in January, with all sessions well attended and many very positive comments from parents and children after each activity. A resident complaint about the balloon animal activity ensured all participants were provided with information about safe disposal of balloons through a handout and a preamble from the presenter. The children’s area housed the Better Beginnings book cubby throughout January which was enjoyed by young visitors who


Page 131

could sit and read in the cubby or take part in writing/illustrating a small book of their own. The Project Officer Children and Young People conducted Better Beginnings presentations at three schools, with a further six booked in term two. These presentations have been well received by the teachers and students. Some Year One classes have also booked presentations about the Library. This year Toddler Tales has decreased to one session per week due to a decline in registrations. The single session has been fully booked two sessions can be reintroduced if demand increases. The Learning English Through Storytime program created some interest but not enough registrations to go ahead and will again be trialled in Term Two. Storytime sessions have seen consistent numbers each week and Baby Rhyme Time is still the most popular with two well attended sessions held each week. Planning has been completed towards a CoderDojo program, a weekly coding club for children aged 7-17 years to teach digital literacy. CoderDojos have been successfully introduced in a number of schools, businesses and public libraries. The program will be coordinated by the Project Officer Children and Young People supported by volunteers. Volunteers for the Term Two program are currently being sourced through local tertiary institutes and the Fremantle Volunteer Service. Fre-info The South West Metropolitan Planning Framework Social planning group has contracted My Community to produce its Human Services directory for launch in early April. The Directory contains all the human services located in the local government areas of Melville, Cockburn and Fremantle. Fre-info provided all the original data for the Fremantle services. Positive feedback was received by Fre-info for entries in the What’s on section of the City website that focuses on local events and workshops rather than big picture events which attract visitors to Fremantle that are listed on Fremantlestory. Relationships Australia was pleased that some of their workshop participants found information about their courses on What’s on. What’s on is a valuable way for services to advertise workshops and seminars to the public. A Fre-info staff member was present at the Seniors Healthy Lifestyle Expo to answer questions and supply copies of the Directory of Services and Activities for seniors, created by Fre-info as an online and take away document. Fre-info receive many queries for help using iPads and mobile phones and queries to help in completing or printing online forms. Librarians continue to support the Justices of the Peace witnessing documents. A review of the Fre-info service has been undertaken during the quarter, and it is expected changes to the way information is provided will be implemented in the future. Operations


Page 132

A big focus has been on staff efficiencies and continuous improvement for behind the scenes tasks, achieving noticeable streamlining in several areas to do with stock processing. New processes for interacting with State Library of WA regarding lost or damaged stock promised further efficiencies, however a change in their IT program means that has not occurred.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The quarter was a busy one for the library with forward planning for 2016 continuing and early activities commencing. Services have been well received by the community, and staff development and review are increasing the library’s capacity to provide those services.


Nil


Nil


Information only no decision required.


Page 133

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the information be received.


Page 134

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr David Hume 1. That the information be received. 2. That the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle write to the Minister for

Culture and the Arts expressing concern and disappointment regarding public library budget cuts.

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 135

LAC1605-2 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - JANUARY - MARCH 2016

ECM Reference: 023/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 11 May 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A summary of the operation and performance of the Fremantle Toy Library for the quarter is provided.

BACKGROUND

The Fremantle Toy Library is jointly funded by the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle and a quarterly report is presented to the two Councils.

COMMENT

Membership

Fremantle Residents

East Fremantle Residents

Total

Individuals 267 37 304

Families 187 26 213

New Members

Fremantle Residents


Total

35 6 41

Deleted Members

Fremantle Residents


Total

6 27 33


Page 136


Page 137

Visitors

January 476

February 497

March 502

*Family means at least one parent and usually one or more accompanying children

Loans

Fremantle residents


Total

Toys 176 1335 1511

Books 11 226 237

Audio-Visual items 0 26 26

Total 187 1587 1774

Income

6 month Concession

12 month Concession

6 month Full fees

12 month Full fees

Party hire

Total

January $50.50 $175.00 $798.00 $334.50 $17.60 $1375.60

February $0 $87.50 $598.50 $1226.50 $24.50 $1937.00

March $50.50 $87.50 $332.50 $892.00 $28.30 $1390.80

After a quieter month during the January school holiday usage has been steady throughout the quarter. Party hire toys, particularly the water play toys were popular due to the hot weather. Once again the assistance provided by volunteers with repairing, assembling, and checking or cleaning of toys has been very much appreciated. A sale of obsolete toys in February was very popular, with high sales in the first hour, and resulted in some new memberships of the Toy Library. Easter Storytime was held on March 24th with only a few attendees. The Project Officer Children and Young People investigate strategies to achieve consistent attendance at future sessions as part of an overall review of early literacy programs. School holiday activity scheduling in the Hilton Community Centre is being investigated as an extension of the library program. This would highlight the Toy Library and its services to a wider range of community members.


Financial

Nil Legal


Page 138

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The Toy Library continues to be a valued community facility for the 0-6 year old demographic, with a regular stream of new people registering with the service.


Nil


Nil


Information only no decision required.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr David Hume That the information be received. SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume


Page 139

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2016

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1605-2 TYRONE STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DAP007/15 (TWENTY TWO (22) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (CJ DAPV002/16)

Form 2 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 17)

Property Location: No. 1 (Lot 217) Tyrone Street, North Fremantle

Application Details: Three storey, twenty six (26) Multiple Dwelling development (Previously 22 dwellings)

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: DMG

Owner: Minim Cove Developments

LG Reference: DAPV002/16

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00833

Report Date: 25 May 2016

Application Receipt Date: 12 April 2016

Application Process Days: 60 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Previous RAR 2. Amended development plans 3:Schedule of submissions

Officer Recommendation: That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to:


Page 140

1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00833 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 12 April 2016 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00833 as detailed on the DAP Form 2

date 12 April 2016 and accompanying plans SK00, A01.02, A02.01, SK15, A02.02, A02.03, SK.05, SK.06, SK. 07, SK.08, SK.09, SK.10, A03.02, SK.11, SK.12 and SK.13 in accordance with the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the proposed minor amendment to the approved Multiple Dwellings at No. 1 (Lot 217) Tyrone Street, North Fremantle, subject to:

Amended Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 21 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

Deleted Conditions

10. Prior to occupation of the development, no crossover shall be constructed closer than 12m to the property alignment of another road intersecting with the carriageway that the driveway services, nor shall it infringe upon any part of a corner truncation of 6 metres unless otherwise approved by City Of Fremantle.

All other conditions and requirements detailed on the previous approval dated 24 September 2015 shall remain unless altered by this application.

Background:

Insert Property Address: 1 Tyrone Street, North Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban

TPS: Residential R60

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwellings

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 2884sqm

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant

Value of Development: $14.4 million

No. 1 Tyrone, North Fremantle is located on the southern side of McCabe Street, North Fremantle in sub area 3.3.1 (Rocky Bay) of the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The site is bound by McCabe Street to the north, The Cutting to the east, Mathieson Avenue to the south and Tyrone Street to the west. The site is in the Residential zone and has been allocated a density of R60. The site is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area, however is not on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory. The site slopes approximately 9m, from the north of the site to the south. Relevant planning history is as follows:


Page 141

DA0181/15 – Site works – conditionally approved for new site levels to the northern portion of the site (to 3100), creating a stepped development site – 22 May 2015.

DAP007/15 (DAP/15/00833) – Three storey twenty two (22 Multiple Dwelling Development – approved with conditions – 29 September 2015


Page 142

Details: outline of development application On 12 April 2016, the City received a variation application for a previously determined JDAP application at No. 1 Tyrone Street, North Fremantle. The applicant previously proposed twenty two (22) Multiple Dwellings, with the current proposal being for twenty six (26). To facilitate this change, four (4) two storey Multiple Dwellings are being converted to eight (8) single storey Multiple Dwellings, with minimal change to the building form externally. Minor alterations are also being made to the basement to accommodate previous conditions of approval and ensure adequate storage is provided for the additional Multiple Dwellings. Specifically, alterations to the plans include –

Amended floor plans for two storey apartments – previously four (4) Multiple Dwellings, now eight (8) single storey Multiple Dwellings;

Additional storerooms in basement lower terrace basement; and

Alteration to vehicle access point to be further north of the intersection. Revised plans were lodged by the applicant on the 21st April 2016, due to the previous basement plan being lodged in error. Further revisions to plans were lodged (dated 17 May 2016), adding additional windows on The Cutting street elevation. Development plans are included as attachment 1.

Legislation & policy: Legislation Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 – Deemed Provisions

Clause 67 – Matters to be considered by local government

Clause 77 – Amending or cancelling development approval Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) –

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of Applications

Schedule 12 - Sub Area 3.3.1 Rocky Bay (LPA3 – North Fremantle)

Clause 5.4.5 –Dwelling Mix

Clause 5.8.2.1 - Variation to other requirements State Government Policies State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes Local Policies LPP 1.1 – Amendment and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval; LPP 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals; Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy; and Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements.


Page 143

Consultation:

Public Consultation As the application has been advertised previously using the “significant” application requirements of LPP 1.3 (28 days), it is not considered necessary for this level of advertising to be undertaken again. There are however changes to the proposal, particularly in the increase in Multiple Dwellings proposed, so it was deemed appropriate for fourteen (14) days of advertising to be undertaken, using a letters to landowners and occupiers within a 100m radius and a sign on site. At the time of writing the report, advertising had not yet been completed (closes on 17 May 2016); however the following issues had been raised in the six (6) submissions thus far received –

Increase in dwellings will result in increased traffic;

Traffic congestion on McCabe Street and dangerous intersection;

Increased number of dwellings will not fit with existing Minim Cove development;

Additional dwellings will contribute to loss of privacy. Advertising closes prior to the Council meeting, and a schedule of submissions will be tabled for Councils’ consideration. A full schedule of submissions will also be provided to JDAP upon submission of the RAR.

Referrals Infrastructure and Project Delivery The application was discussed with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team who advised that previous conditions of approval to ensure sightlines are sufficient and the changes to address condition 12 are noted. Previously, the vehicle cross over for the lower terrace was not considered to be in a safe location. As such, Condition 12 was applied to the approval – Prior to occupation of the development, no crossover shall be constructed closer than 12m to the property alignment of another road intersecting with the carriageway that the driveway services, nor shall it infringe upon any part of a corner truncation of 6 metres unless otherwise approved by City Of Fremantle.

As a result of the amended design, Condition 12 can be deleted as the vehicle entry point is now 12m from the intersection. Planning assessment: JDAP previously considered and supported the following discretions and design principle assessments –

Primary and secondary street fencing;

Plot ratio;

Street setbacks (primary and secondary street);


Page 144

Open space;

Vehicle sightlines;

Landscaping;

On site car and bicycle parking;

Design of car parking spaces;

Site works;

Retaining walls; and

Dwelling mix. The revised plans submitted alter the following 2 design principle assessments and/or design elements that meet deemed to comply.

on site car and bicycle parking and

dwelling mix. All remaining elements remain unchanged. The above 2 matters are discussed further below.

On site car and bicycle parking As a result of the amended number of Multiple Dwellings, there have been minor changes to the parking requirements. Previous design -


Resident - 33 55 bays Nil (22 additional)

Visitor - 6 Nil 6

Bicycle (resident) - 8 Nil 8

Bicycle (visitor) - 3 Nil 3

Current design –


Resident – 37 55 bays Nil (18 additional)

Visitor - 7 Nil 7

Bicycle (resident) - 9 Nil 8

Bicycle (visitor) - 3 Nil 3

The increase in the number of apartments has resulted in an increase in car bays and bicycle racks required for the development. The two basements of the development include sufficient bays for both resident and visitor car bays. As per the previous item, bicycle racks are not provided on site, however given the generous storage room sizes (ie. between 9-12sqm), it is considered that resident’s bicycles can comfortably be accommodated within their storerooms. The number of visitor bicycle racks has remained unchanged, and the condition of approval requiring their installation is therefore not recommended to alter. The previous approval, included condition 8 that required six car bays to be constructed in the road reserve to compensate for the visitor bays being behind security gates in the basements –


Page 145

8. Prior to occupation of the development, a minimum of six (6) car bays shall be constructed in the road reserve surrounding the development, in the location and to the specifications of the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Given the inability to provide safe vehicle bays on each road frontage due to traffic frequency and sightlines, as advised by Traffic staff on review of the original proposal, surrounding the development, and that the bays on the verge are being provided in addition to the total required number of bays being within the basement, increasing the number of verge bays for visitors to be constructed is not considered necessary.

Dwelling Mix

Required Provided Merit based assessment

25% of total number of dwelling must have a maximum floor area of 60 sqm

Nil 25% (6.5 apartments) Previously – 25% (5.5 apartments)

No more than 40% of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more

70% (18 out of 26 apartments) Previously – 100% (22)

30% (7.8 apartments) Previously – 60% (13.2 apartments)

The previous dwelling mix was supported against Clause 5.8.2.1 of LPS4 as there are few dwellings of a similar type in the local area. The addition of the 91-93sqm apartments reduces the percentage of 120sqm (or greater) apartments proposed, further increasing the dwelling diversity for the development and the locality. On this basis the dwelling mix proposed in the revised plans is supported.

Conclusion: While the applicant is proposing to increase the number of apartments, the external face of the building remains unchanged, with internal floor plan layouts changing to split four apartments into eight. Additionally, the basement has been redesigned to ensure the correct number of storerooms has been provided. For these reasons, the development is considered to remain, in substance, the same and the application to vary the previous approval is supported against Clause 77 of the Deemed Provisions of the Local Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and LPP 1.1 Amendment and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval.


Page 146

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Officer Recommendation: That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to: 3. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00833 as detailed on the DAP

Form 2 dated 12 April 2016 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

4. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00833 as detailed on the DAP Form 2

date 12 April 2016 and accompanying plans SK00, A01.02, A02.01, SK15, A02.02, A02.03, SK.05, SK.06, SK. 07, SK.08, SK.09, SK.10, A03.02, SK.11, SK.12 and SK.13 in accordance with the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the proposed minor amendment to the approved Multiple Dwellings at No. 1 (Lot 217) Tyrone Street, North Fremantle, subject to:

Amended Conditions

2. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 21 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

Deleted Conditions

11. Prior to occupation of the development, no crossover shall be constructed closer than 12m to the property alignment of another road intersecting with the carriageway that the driveway services, nor shall it infringe upon any part of a corner truncation of 6 metres unless otherwise approved by City Of Fremantle.

All other conditions and requirements detailed on the previous approval dated 24 September 2015 shall remain unless altered by this application.

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin


Page 147

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

C1605-3 COUNCIL INFORMATION REPORT - MAY 2016

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC466/16 HILTON COMMUNITY CENTRE COMPLETION WORKS

ECM Reference: 39/073 Author: Glen Dougall Director City Business The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Hilton Community Centre Completion Works to be awarded to R E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd for the fixed sum of $144 030, excluding GST plus ($6 500) contingency. The MPAP is comprised of the Director City Business, the Director Community Development, the Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The Council information report for May 2016 be received. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



Page 148

Cr J Wilson returned to the meeting at 8.33pm and thanked the Community and Council for his time (6 ½ years) as an Elected Member with the City of Fremantle.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.46 PM.


Page 149

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

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


Page 150


may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

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 151


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 152

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.


Page 153

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 154

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

25 May 2016

Page 155

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

25 May 2016

Page 156

MINUTES - City of Fremantle · Recommendation for item C1605-1: Brett Endebsby Nic Preston Vernon...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantle · Recommendation for item C1605-1: Brett Endebsby Nic Preston Vernon...