minutes - city of fremantle...house and ancillary dwelling - (tb da0070/15) 56 strategic and general...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 24 June 2015, 6.00pm

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

24 June 2015

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 4

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 4

IN ATTENDANCE 4

APOLOGIES 5

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 5

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 5

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 6

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 7

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 7

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 8

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 9

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 9

TABLED DOCUMENTS 9

LATE ITEMS NOTED 9

COMMITTEE REPORTS 9

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 3 JUNE 2015 10

PSC1506-4 DEFERRED ITEM - ELLEN STREET, NO. 89 (LOT 10), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ALTERATIONS AND DETACHED REAR ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0090/15) 10


24 June 2015

Page 2

PSC1506-5 DEFERRED ITEM - TRAFFORD STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 29), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY REAR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0025/15) 20

PSC1506-8 GOLD STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE CHANGE OF USE TO HOME OCCUPATION (CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE) - (TB DA0151/15) 30

PSC1506-13 SOUTH STREET, NO.366 (LOTS 2 AND 3), O'CONNOR - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING APPROVAL CONDITION 39

PSC1506-17 PROPOSED NEW ROAD NAMES - FOR INCLUSION ON THE CITY OF FREMANTLE RESERVED ROAD NAMES REGISTER - (KW) 45

PSC1506-2 DEFERRED ITEM - COMMERCIAL STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 104), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY, WITH LOFT, SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING - (TB DA0070/15) 56

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 17 JUNE 2015 62

SGS1506-10 OFFER OF LEASE TO ENKEL FOR NAVAL STORES 62

SGS1506-3 PERTH FREIGHT LINK: MAKING THE RIGHT INVESTMENT IN PERTH'S FREIGHT TASK 71

SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE 13 MAY 2015 78

SPC1505-1 NOTICE OF MOTION - CR JON STRACHAN - FREMANTLE COUNCIL'S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED PERTH FREIGHT LINK 78

SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE 10 JUNE 2015 84

SPC1506-1 INFORMATION REPORT - STRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE - JUNE 2015 84

SPC1506-2 REVIEW OF FREMANTLE ESPLANADE MASTERPLAN 87

SPC1506-4 UPDATE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 99

SPC1506-5 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 64 - HILTON LOCAL CENTRE MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PROGRESS UPDATE 104

SPC1506-3 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - INCLUDE NEW SUB AREAS FOR THE WHITE GUM VALLEY AND BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE AREA INCORPORATING DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR DENSITY INCREASES - INITATION 109

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 17 JUNE 2015 140

SGS1506-4 PROPOSED SALE OF 73 HAMPTON ROAD 140


24 June 2015

Page 3

SGS1506-5 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT TAPPER STREET MEWS - CO OPERATION HOUSING 145

SGS1506-7 EXTERNAL CONSERVATION WORKS TO FREMANTLE TOWN HALL, 8 WILLIAM STREET FREMANTLE 151

SGS1506-9 WEXFORD WAY FULL CLOSURE TRIAL ASSESSMENT 163

SGS1506-12 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - MAY 2015 168

SGS1506-14 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2015 - 2020 176

SGS1506-6 FORMER WARDERS' COTTAGES, 7 - 41 HENDERSON STREET, FREMANTLE 185

SGS1506-8 2016/17 BLACK SPOT PROJECT PROPOSALS 206

SGS1506-11 DELEGATED AUTHORITY REGISTER REVIEW 2015 211

SGS1506-13 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - SALE OF MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY 218

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 221

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 221

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 221

COUNCIL ITEMS 221

C1506-1 INFORMATION REPORT - JUNE 2015 221

C1506-2 FINANCIAL COUNSELLING SERVICE CESSATION OF FUNDING 224

C1506-3 ADOPTION OF CITY OF FREMANTLE STATUTORY BUDGET 2015/16 235

C1506-4 PROPOSED SALE OF FREMANTLE PORT 256

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 259

CLOSURE OF MEETING 259

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE – MR MARK WOODCOCK 2

PETITION AND SUBMISSION – DOG EXERCISE AREA STEVENS RESERVE 3


24 June 2015

Page 4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 24 June 2015 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.01pm 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 (arrived 6.33pm) Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward (arrived 6.20pm) Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward (left 6.59pm) Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Helen Emery Manager Community Services Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Lionel Nicholson Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Mr Paul Garbett Manager Planning Project Mr Maurice Werder Management Accountant Mr Ian James Strategic Urban Designer Mr Tom Griffiths Manager Economic Development & Marketing Mr Phil Adams Manager Infrastructure Projects Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Statutory Planning Ms Linda Keys Minute Secretary


24 June 2015

Page 5

There were approximately 34 members of the public and 3 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Robert Fittock North Ward

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 May 2015 the following questions from Mark Woodcock were taken on notice. The responses are provided by Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie. The following member of the public presented written questions in relation to the Kings Square Business Plan. Summary of question by Mark Woodcock: 1. If the Council is not obliged to progress with the project if it exceeds the budgeted

costs in the business plan, could it please clarify what 'budgeted cost' figure it is referring to, and in particular the $ quantity?

Summary of Response from Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie The council is obliged under the contract to proceed with its development. It is the council’s responsibility to manage the cost of its part of the project. Summary of question by Mark Woodcock: 2. Why was it portrayed in the business plan that it would cost $44.75m if the council

knew at the time of putting the project to a vote of council, that it would cost $4m (retained value $48.8m) (sic) more than this?

Summary of Response from Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie The quantity surveyor estimate of cost was $44.75 million as explained in the media response last month. Summary of question by Mark Woodcock: 3. If it is the $48.8m figure, the sale of properties leaves the project with a capital

shortfall of about $19.5m, not $15.2m. Allowing for debt this means the council now has to find more than $10.5 m, not the $6.38m as stated in the business plan.

Why did the council not explain this to ratepayers if it was aware of this at the time? Why was this not discussed when Cr Wainwright moved a motion to make up the shortfall from the investment reserve?


24 June 2015

Page 6

Summary of Response from Chief Executive Office, Graeme Mackenzie As per 2 above Summary of question by Mark Woodcock: 4. Has the council had the winning design fully costed, and if so: What is the estimated cost of the new building design? What is the level of accuracy of that estimate? Summary of Response from Chief Executive Office, Graeme Mackenzie The cost estimate submitted with the winning design was $52.4 million. The City is now considering amendments to the design with the intention to lessen this cost, although they have not yet been determined for final costs. Summary of question by Mark Woodcock: 5. Is the $97.5 million retained asset value assumption derived from Leedwell

Strategic and contained in the confidential Leedwell Strategic Business Case? Summary of Response from Chief Executive Office, Graeme Mackenzie This has been explained fully in the media response last month. Cr D Coggin arrived at 6.20 pm.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1506-8: Sandy Williams The following member/s of the public spoke in relation to item PSC1506-13: Pina Petridis Tony Miosich The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item SGS1506-10: Adam Jorlen The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1506-5: James Pickering The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1506-4: David Barr


24 June 2015

Page 7

Marilyn Svatos The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSCV1506-8: Kasia Clarke The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1506-5: Ann – Sophie Delefue The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item SPC1505-1: Ms Kim Dravniers who is the Coordinator of the “Re think the Link” campaign commended the Officers of the Report into Proposed Perth Freight Link and advised Council many reasons as to why the above should not go ahead. Issues raised included:

No business case

No evidence provided

Pollution over the suburbs

Loss of wetlands (Beeliar Regional Park)

No public consultation regarding residents who may lose their homes or businesses

Heavy traffic congestion Mr Barry Healy also outlined the above concerns and strongly supported the Officer’s Recommendation to oppose the Proposed Perth Freight Link. Mark Woodcock presented questions on notice please see Minutes Attachments.

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Nil

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr D Coggin request for a leave of absence from 20-24 July 2015 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr J Wilson


24 June 2015

Page 8

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt 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 Cr Bill Massie

Cr D Thompson arrived at 6.33 pm.

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr I Waltham presented a petition titled Dog Exercise Area being located within the precinct of Stevens Reserve. We, the undersigned, respectfully notify the City of Fremantle of our opposition to the proposed dog exercise area being located within the precinct of Stevens Reserve. We ask that it be withdrawn from the draft budget process. We are not opposed to the establishment of a dog exercise park elsewhere, in a more suitable location. We, the undersigned also request that the City of Fremantle consider securing Stevens Reserve for dogs off the leash by providing spring lock gates at the entries to the Reserve located on the southern and western boundaries. In addition, we request that fencing and a driveway gate be installed on the western boundary, immediately behind the nets.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 25 May 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

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


24 June 2015

Page 9

Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt advised the Council he received two crest plaques as a gift from the Indian Navy Ships which will be displayed at the City of Fremantle. Cr D Hume attended an event, Thursday 4 June on behalf of the Council the visit of the Indian Navy Ships held on board the INS Satpura at the Shed, Port of Fremantle. The event was well attended and bought into light the awareness of how the City of Fremantle welcomes multiculturalism.

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents – PSC 1506-2 Additional Information Commercial Street No 1 (Lot104), South Fremantle – Two Storey with Loft, Single House and Ancillary Dwelling (TB DA0070/15) Submitted by Natalie Martin Goode, Manager Development Approvals, SPC1506-3 Amendment – Initiation of Proposed Scheme Amendment No 65 – Include New Sub Areas for The White Gum Valley Beaconsfield Local Centre area incorporating development controls for density increases – Submitted by Cr Andrew Sullivan.

Additional Documents – City of Fremantle Budget for the year ending 30 June 2016.

Additional Information – PSC 1506-13 South Street No 366 (Lots 2 and 3) O’Connor – Enforcement of Planning Approval Condition

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Late Item Agenda – SPC 1505-1 Notice of Motion – Cr Jon Strachan – Fremantle Council’s Position on the Proposed Perth Freight Link

COMMITTEE REPORTS

At 6.45 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s PSC1506-4, PSC1506-5, PSC1506-8, PSC1506-13, PSC1506-17 and PSC1506-2 for discussion.


24 June 2015

Page 10

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 3 JUNE 2015

PSC1506-4 DEFERRED ITEM - ELLEN STREET, NO. 89 (LOT 10), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ALTERATIONS AND DETACHED REAR ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0090/15)

DataWorks Reference: DA0090/15 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1505-10 Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Visit Photos Attachment 3 – Amended Plans Attachment 4 – 2nd Version of Amended Plans Date Received: 2nd version of amended plans received 15 May 2015 Owner Name: M. Svatos Submitted by: D. Barr Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single Storey House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


24 June 2015

Page 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition, alterations and detached additions to the existing single house. At the previous Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting held on the 6th May 2015, the committee elected to defer the application to provide the applicant with sufficient time to amend the plans so as to reduce overshadowing on the southern adjoining lot. Amended plans were received on the 15 May 2015 which addresses the outcome of the PSC meeting by:

Changing the roof pitch and building height; Setting back a portion of the upper floor on the southern boundary.

The proposal is referred to the PSC due to a number of submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour, as well as the requirement for design principle assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Overshadowing; Boundary wall (south); Lot boundary setback (west); Open space; Visual privacy.

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be, on balance, supportable. The application is therefore recommended for approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the corner of Ellen Street and Loukes Street, Fremantle. The site measures approximately 270m² and currently has a single storey Single House situated on the lot. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provision of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage list and is not located within a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. On 6 May 2015 PSC considered the application and resolved: Cr J Wilson MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit plans that reduce overshadowing impacts, particularly to the existing opening on the adjoining southern property.


24 June 2015

Page 12

DETAIL

On 25 February 2015, the City was in receipt of an application for the partial demolition of rear buildings, alterations and detached addition to the existing single house and includes:

2 bedrooms; 1.5 bathrooms; Living room Storage; Balcony; and Garage.

As the proposed addition does not include a kitchen, the structure is not considered to be self-contained and therefore does not constitute an ancillary dwelling in accordance with the definition provided in the Residential Design Codes. Amended plans received on 21 April 2015 attempt to address some of the discretions being sought so as to reduce the impact on the southern adjoining neighbour. A summary of the amendments is as follows:

A reduction in the building height by 432mm; Recessed parts of the upper level of the southern boundary wall; Change to the roof pitch in order to reduce the building height; and Glazing of the most western window on the southern elevation to 1600mm.

A 2nd version of amended plans were received on 15 May 2015, which reduce the degree of overshadowing onto the southern adjoining property, as well as the following:

A change in the roof pitch and overall building height; Setting back a portion of the upper floor from the southern boundary.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the original development plans, Attachment 3 for amended plans and Attachment 4 for the 2nd version of revised plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Overshadowing; Lot boundary setback (west); Open space; Visual privacy.


24 June 2015

Page 13

Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Boundary wall (south);

The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 March 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised:

1. The overshadowing cast is excessive. 2. The proposed southern boundary wall would have a detrimental impact on

surrounding amenity. 3. Visual privacy is not appropriately considered and addressed.

The amended plans received on 21 April 2015 were referred to an affected neighbour for comment. The comments received from the neighbour are as follows:

4. The revised plans do not provide a sufficient setback as the southern wall still remains on the boundary;

5. The revised plans do not comply with overshadowing. The 2nd version of revised plans received on 15 May 2015 were also advertised to the same affected neighbour. The comments received are as follows:

6. The street setback is inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape; 7. The sight lights proposed from the garage are hazardous for pedestrians; 8. The proposed boundary wall has a detrimental impact on the amenity of the

southern adjoining property; 9. The overshadowing partially restricts access to direct sun for the southern

adjoining property. 10.The car parking allocation proposed is insufficient.

The above matters are discussed further in the “Planning Comment” section below.


24 June 2015

Page 14

PLANNING COMMENT

Demolition In accordance with clause 5.15.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), planning approval for demolition can only be granted where the building is deemed to meet the following criteria:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

(b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.

On the basis of advice provided from the Heritage Coordinator of the City, the application for demolition is considered to meet both of the criteria provided in clause 5.15.1 of LPS4. Accordingly, demolition is considered to be supportable subject to standard conditions Lot boundary setback

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Upper floor - West

1.2m setback from western boundary

1.02m

0.18m

The proposed western lot boundary setback is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The proposed setback is considered to provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site, as well as the adjoining properties.

The downward sloping topography from west to east reduces the building bulk impact on the western adjoining property.

The most immediate space to the west on the western adjoining property is occupied by an outbuilding and as such building bulk is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property within this immediate space.

The proposed setback seeks a minor variation from the deemed-to-comply provisions.

Open Space


Open Space 50% of site area (135m²) 49% (132.3m²)

1% (2.7m²)

The proposed open space provision is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:


24 June 2015

Page 15

The level of open space proposed is a shortfall of only 1% from the deemed-to-comply.

The open space provided is considered to provide an attractive setting for the building, landscape, vegetation and streetscape.

Provides opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling and to access around the site.

The open space proposed is considered to provide space for external fixtures, with an air conditioning unit as well as a clothesline to the west of the addition.

Visual Privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Design Principle Assessment

Visual Privacy Setback (South) to front balcony

7.5m 0.2m 7.3m

Visual Privacy Setback (West) to Room 2.3

4.5 4.4 0.1

The proposed southern and western visual privacy setbacks are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The overlooking from the proposed balcony is predominantly onto the front setback area of the southern adjoining property. The deemed-to-comply provisions are limited to protection of areas of any adjoining property behind its street setback line. Despite the overlooking extending beyond the front setback area, the Explanatory Guidelines of the Residential Design Codes detail that overlooking onto areas visible from the street is generally considered to be acceptable:

A lesser need for privacy protection is usual in the case of front gardens and areas visible from the street, and this principle should also be carried over to other public places, such as parks. The basis for this acceptance is that control of overlooking for areas visible from public places would be largely ineffective in terms of privacy protection and also could limit outlook over, and surveillance of, the public places themselves, thus compromising safety and security.

The overlooking from Room 2.3 is largely onto the driveway of the western

adjoining property. Furthermore, there is only a narrow viewing angle from Room 2.3 onto the western adjoining property. This particular range of view from the major opening is not considered to be detrimental to visual privacy.

Overshadowing

Element Previous Plans Deemed-to-comply


Overshadowing

Plans dated 15 May 2015

8.33% (50.56m²)

12.3% (74.9m²)

3.97% (24.34m²)

Plans dated 21 April 2015

14.1% (85.4m²)

5.77% (34.84m²)

Plans dated 12 16% 7.67% (46.56m²)


24 June 2015

Page 16

March 2015 (99.5m²)

The proposed overshadowing is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The overshadowing does not impact on an outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property.

The proposed development does not restrict sunlight to any north facing major openings to habitable rooms on the southern adjoining property.

The overshadowing does not cast onto any existing roof mounted solar collectors.

Boundary Wall


South 2.3m 0m to a maximum height of 5.2m and

7m in length.

2.3m

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development for the following reason:

The boundary wall ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and the outdoor living area for the southern adjoining property is not restricted.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: The proposal will provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial demolition, alterations and detached addition to the existing Single House at No. 89 (Lot 10) Ellen Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 15 May 2015, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans

dated 15 May 2015. 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.

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to use, the western most window on the southern elevation shall be either:


24 June 2015

Page 17

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level,

or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d) screening by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,

in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to use, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be of clean

finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish and thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit amended plans to: 1. Reduce the bulk and scale as viewed from Loukes Street and the adjoining

southern neighbour; 2. Address vehicle sight lines; and 3. Reduce overshadowing. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton LOST: 5/7

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr David Hume


24 June 2015

Page 18

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial demolition, alterations and detached addition to the existing Single House at No. 89 (Lot 10) Ellen Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 15 May 2015, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 15 May 2015. 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.

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to use, the western most window on the southern elevation shall be

either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or

b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or


d) screening by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


4. Prior to use, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be of

clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish and thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


24 June 2015

Page 19

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham


24 June 2015

Page 20

PSC1506-5 DEFERRED ITEM - TRAFFORD STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 29), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY REAR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0025/15)

DataWorks Reference: DA0025/15 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 1 April – PSC1504-6 6 May – PSC1505-1 Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Visit Photos Attachment 3 – 1st Revised Plans Attachment 4 – Registered Survey Strata Plan of 26 and 28 Attachment 5 – 2nd Version of Revised Plans

Date Received: 23 January 2015 Owner Name: J Pickering Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single Storey House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


24 June 2015

Page 21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for ground and two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing single house. At the previous Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting held on the 1st April 2015, the committee elected to defer the application to provide the applicant with sufficient time to amend the plans so as to reduce overshadowing on the southern adjoining lot. The Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting held on the 6th May 2015 also resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to amend plans to further reduce overshadowing. The most recently amended plans were received on the 14th May 2015. The proposal is referred to the PSC due to a number of submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour, as well as the requirement for design principle assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Overshadowing; Streetscape (carport); Boundary walls (north and east); Design of parking spaces.

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Trafford Street within the street block bounded by Martha Street to the south, South Street to the north, Edmund Street to the east and Solomon Street to the west. The site measures approximately 523m² and currently has a single storey single house situated on the lot. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provision of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The subject site is adopted under the City’s Heritage list as a level three (3) listed property. The site is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. On 1 April 2015 PSC considered to application and resolved: Cr R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit revised plans that reduce the overshadowing impacts on the adjoining southern property. On 6 May 2015 PSC considered the application and resolved:


24 June 2015

Page 22

Cr J Wilson MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit modified plans that move the upper floor bedroom one further north to reduce overshadowing impacts on the southern adjoining property. As per the PSC resolution of 1 April 2015, amended plans were submitted depicting marginally reduced overshadowing from 26% (137.8m2) to 24% (127.7m²) or 10.6m2 by:

1. Moving the rear outbuilding 2700 from the southern boundary; 2. Alfresco reduced in width from 5.9m to 5.08m; 3. Increased southern setback of bedroom 1 from 3.89m to 3.5m; 4. Deleting eaves to the south wall of bedroom 1.

However, on 28 April 2015, it was established that new certificates of title were issued for 26 and 28 Trafford Street, which resulted in a change of the land tenure to survey strata lots. As such, 26 Trafford Street is now assessed as a single house in accordance with the definition provided in the R-Codes. On this basis, the overshadowing onto 26 Trafford Street is now 47.5% (127.7m²). The resolution of the PSC meeting held on 6 May 2015 also deferred the application so as to reduce overshadowing. A 2nd version of amended plans was received depicting a further reduction in overshadowing from 47.5% (127.7m²) to 44.9% (121m²). The changes to the plans are as follows:

Setting back the 1st bedroom on the upper floor to 5.09m from the southern boundary;

Screening on the northern elevation of the major opening into the 1st bedroom to negate overlooking.

Refer to Attachment 3 for amended development plans, Attachment 4 for the registered survey-strata plan of 26 and 28 Trafford Street and Attachment 5 for the 2nd version of revised plans. DETAIL

On 23 January 2015, the City was in receipt of an application for ground and two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing single house and includes:

One additional bedroom; Two bathrooms; Dining room; Kitchen and Scullery; Laundry; Family room; Theatre; Lobby; Outbuilding; and A carport addition in the front setback area.


24 June 2015

Page 23

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Overshadowing; Design of car parking spaces.

Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Streetscape (carport); Boundary wall (north, east);

The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community

The original application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 25 February 2015, the City had received 3 submissions. The following issues were raised:

1. The proposed second storey rear additions create an excessive

overshadowing impact on the southern adjoining properties. 2. The proposed carport is incongruous with the heritage listed house. 3. The proposed development is neither sensitive nor sympathetic to the existing

heritage listed building.

The above matters are discussed further in the “Planning Comment” section below. The amended plans received on 17 April 2015 were referred to the adjoining southern neighbour for comment. A summary of the comments received is as follows:

The revised plan depicts a minor reduction in the overshadowing and does not adequately address the restriction of sunlight to habitable rooms on 26 Trafford Street;

The proposal is a considerable addition to the property and has a detrimental impact on the amenity of 26 Trafford Street;

The overshadowing is substantially in excess of the deemed-to-comply of 25% in the R-Codes and, in addition, does not meet the applicable design principles.


24 June 2015

Page 24

The amened plans received on 14 May 2015 were referred to the adjoining southern neighbour for comment. A summary of the comments received is as follows:

The latest version of the design still does not protect solar access to north facing major openings to habitable rooms;

The latest version of the design still significantly impacts on an outdoor living area.

The applicant has numerous alternative design options in which to reduce to overshadowing onto 26 Trafford Street.

Internal The City’s heritage staff have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

East (outbuilding) and North (carport)

Where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions;

1.8m (outbuilding) and

2.47m (carport)

Boundary walls do not abut existing boundary walls

The proposed eastern and northern boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP 2.4 in the following ways:

The orientation of the site ensures that direct sun to major openings to the outdoor living area for the eastern adjoining property, as well as the habitable room on the northern adjoining property, is not restricted as measured by the R-Codes.

The height of the proposed boundary walls are not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Further, the construction of the boundary walls is not considered to have an impact on ventilation to the affected neighbours.

The outbuilding boundary wall to the east makes more effective use of the space for enhanced privacy for the outdoor living areas on both the subject site and adjoining eastern property.

The height of the boundary walls, being 1.8 - 2.47 metres, is not considered to contribute towards building bulk for the northern and eastern properties.

Design of parking spaces


Carport 5.4m depth 5.25m 0.15m


24 June 2015

Page 25

The proposed car parking design is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The car parking bays are designed to be conveniently accessed from the primary street.

The carport and the proposed car parking design are considered to be consistent with the streetscape, taking into account the carport situated in the front setback area for the adjoining northern property 22 Trafford Street.

The discretion sought from the deemed-to-comply, being 0.15m, is considered to be a minor discretion, and is not deemed to result in a car parking configuration that is difficult to access and manoeuvre.

Overshadowing

Element Plan Date Deemed-to-comply


Overshadowing onto southern

property

Dated 14 May 2015

25% (67.25m²)

44.9% (121m²)

19.9% (53.75m²)

Dated 17 April 2015

25% (67.25m²)

47.5% (127.2m²)

22.5% (59.95m²)

Dated 23 January 2015

25% (132.5m²)

26% (137.8m²)

1% (5.3m²)

The R-Codes require that the overshadowing calculation is determined as a percentage of the total shadow cast onto the southern adjoining lot. For purposes of clarification, a lot is defined in the R-Codes as follows:

For single houses, a lot as defined in the Planning and Development Act 2005, as amended. For multiple or grouped dwellings, the parent lot.

At the previous PSC meeting held on 1 April 2015, the southern adjoining lot was classified as a grouped dwelling. However, due to a change in the land tenure of 26 Trafford Street, the property is now categorised as a single house. Therefore, in calculating the overshadowing from the proposed development on 24 Trafford Street, the site area of only 26 Trafford Street is used to determine the percentage of overshadowing. The proposed overshadowing is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The overshadowing does not significantly cast onto the outdoor living area for the southern adjoining property. For approximately 10 metres west from the rear eastern boundary on 26 Trafford Street where the outdoor living area is located, there is virtually no overshadowing cast from the proposed rear additions of 24 Trafford Street. The outdoor living area on 26 Trafford Street will therefore not be generally affected by the overshadowing created by the development, and this particular extent of overshadowing is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.

The overshadowing currently cast from the existing building on 24 Trafford Street accounts for more than half (30.7%) of the total anticipated shadowing created through the proposed development. It is also noted that the current


24 June 2015

Page 26

overshadowing falls onto habitable rooms on 26 Trafford Street. As such, the degree of overshadowing cast from the proposed development is not considered to be a significant increase from the current extent of shadow cast.

The upper floor is significantly setback from the southern side boundary (4.2m – 5.1m) and there are no roof mounted solar collectors present on 26 Trafford Street.

Streetscape (Carport)

Element Required Provided Discretion

Carport – Front setback

Setback in line or behind the front wall

of the dwelling

In the primary street setback area,

positioned in front of the dwelling

In front of the dwelling

The carport is proposed to be located along the western boundary to the primary street and, accordingly, clause 2 of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP 2.9) applies. Clause 2.1 of LPP 2.9 is as follows: 2.1 Garages, carports and outbuildings, except as provided for below, are to be setback in line with or behind the front wall of the dwelling. As the proposed carport is located in front of the existing dwelling, clause 2.3 of LPP 2.9 applies. Clause 2.3 of the policy outlines the considerations to be taken into account when assessing alterations to the required setback. Clause 2.3 is as follows: 2.3. Variations to the requirements of clause 2.1 or 2.2 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of a comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or

(ii) The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or

(iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitated the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP 2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites); or

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or (v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.

Clause 2.4 of LPP 2.9 includes a further consideration for heritage listed properties, which is as follows: 2.4 Additional to clause 2.3 above, where the property is on the Heritage List the proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property will be considered. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval


24 June 2015

Page 27

will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property. The proposed setback is considered to meet (i) and (iv) of cl.2.3 as is it deemed to be consistent with the established streetscape as well as being lightweight, simple in design and visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling for the following reasons:

Two properties to the north, being 20 and 22 Trafford Street, have carports within the front setback area.

The design of the carport allows for the visibility of the dwelling to be maintained and promotes surveillance from the dwelling to the street as the windows from the ‘sleep-out’ room are situated above the roof line of the carport.

The carport has a narrow and lightweight frame that is neither visually dominating nor obtrusive.

In relation to clause 2.4, the proposed carport is considered to be compatible with the heritage significance of the property, owing to its lightweight design and use of zincalume roofing that is complementary to the existing dwelling. The heritage planner of the City advised that a formal heritage assessment was not required for the proposed development. As such, the proposed carport setback is supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: The proposal will provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 24 (Lot 29)Trafford Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 14 May 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 14 May 2015. 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 All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

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


24 June 2015

Page 28

4. Prior to occupation, the major opening to Bedroom 1 on the northern elevation shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level,

or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5 cm and with a

maximum floor 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or


d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be of a

clean finish in either;

coloured sand render; face brick; painted surface; or, other approved finish

and thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Cr J Wilson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to reword condition no. 4 to read as follows: 4. Prior to occupation, the screening to the major opening to Bedroom 1 on the

northern elevation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bill Massie Cr Ingrid Waltham

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt


24 June 2015

Page 29

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 24 (Lot 29)Trafford Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 14 May 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 14 May 2015. 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 All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

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

4. Prior to occupation, the screening to the major opening to Bedroom 1 on the

northern elevation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall

be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render; face brick; painted surface; or, other approved finish and thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 10/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton


24 June 2015

Page 30

PSC1506-8 GOLD STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE CHANGE OF USE TO HOME OCCUPATION (CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE) - (TB DA0151/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development plans

Attachment 2 – Site and streetscape photos Date Received: 1 April 2015 Owner Name: Sandy Williams Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: MHI management category Level 2 South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Home Occupation Use Permissibility: D


24 June 2015

Page 31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development and due to objections received that cannot be fully addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of a neighbour. The applicant is seeking retrospective approval for the change of use of an existing Grouped Dwelling to Home Occupation at No. 2 (Lot 1) Gold Street, South Fremantle. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

Site The subject site is zoned ‘Residential R35’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is listed as a Level 2 Heritage Building on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The subject site is located at No. 2 Gold Street, South Fremantle which is located on the northern corner of Gold Street and Coral Street, South Fremantle. The site is currently used for a residential use as a Grouped Dwelling and portion of the site has been ostensibly operating for more than 4 years as a Home Occupation (Clinical Phycology Practice). The portion of the premises being operated as a Home Occupation is accessed primarily via the rear laneway off Coral Street. The existing living area of approximately 4.5m by 3.5m is utilised for the Home Occupation, with the existing portion of the residence used for residential purposes by the owner. DETAIL

On 1 April 2015, the City received a development application for a retrospective change of use from Grouped Dwelling to Home Occupation at No. 2 Gold Street, South Fremantle (the site). The retrospective use to Home Occupation has been operating for approximately 10 years in the rear living area of the dwelling. The frequency of client visitation has increased in the last 5 years to that outlined below. The total area occupied by the Home Occupation is approximately 16m2. The applicant states that a maximum of 20 clients are seen each week at the site. The applicant operates the business during the following hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday – 10am to 7pm

Saturday – 10am to 4pm Appointments are 1 hour in duration with each consecutive appointment being 30 minutes apart from the previous.


24 June 2015

Page 32

The land owner is the single operator of the business and does not employ any other employees. The applicant is seeking Council’s discretion relating to the land use and the provision of onsite car parking. See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of development plans. CONSULTATION

Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposed change of use to a Home Occupation is classified as a Discretionary use in the residential zone. The application was however advertised, at the Manager’s discretion under Clause 1.1 of Local Planning Policy 1.3 as it was considered to be within the public’s interest. The application was advertised to surrounding residents due to the potential impact the Home Occupation may have to the amenity of the area and due to the fact that a complaint was received prior to the application being made alerting the City’s compliance staff to the unapproved nature of the use. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 May 2015, the City had received 5 submissions including 2 in support and 3 objections. Additionally, 4 surrounding land owners also provided evidence of non-objection which were submitted by the applicant with the application. The following issues were raised during the advertising period:

1. Clients parking in the street 2. Traffic congestion and street parking issues

The following issues were raised that did not relate to relevant planning issues, and consequently are not discussed further in this report:

1. Nature of the clientele. 2. Disorders treated incompatible with residential area 3. Better suited in an inner city location 4. Clients only park in Coral Street 5. Has not paid additional rates for 10 years 6. Four separate cars parked within the street as people wait for next appointment 7. Reduces the value of our home 8. Land use requires a clinic 9. Clients look into front yard from upper floor 10. Operates Friday and Saturday nights 11. Clients visibly seen in the upper floor loft at night 12. Increase in current car parking demand

Additional comments that are considered relevant to the application were provided which support the proposal. These comments have been summarised as below:

1. Four (4) submitters mentioned there was no significant traffic or parking problems associated with practice


24 June 2015

Page 33

2. No concern or notice of impact 3. The land use has not had an effect while previously operating 4. Were “hardly aware” of the business taking place 5. A small flow of clients have been seen going to the practice over the day 6. Has had no impact for the entire time of living in the area 7. One (1) submission specifically detailed the existing neighbour conflicts

The two (2) main planning concerns raised above are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The application seeks discretion relating to:

● Land Use ● Car parking

The above matters are discussed in the “Planning Comment” section below. PLANNING COMMENT

Land Use The proposal is considered to meet the definition of Home Occupation as outlined in LPS4. The following elements of the Home Occupation definition are discussed in relation to this application: Home occupation: means an occupation carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which—

a. does not employ any person not a member of the occupier’s household, b. will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the

neighbourhood, c. does not occupy an area greater than 20 square metres, d. does not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres, e. does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature f. in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in the requirement for a

greater number of parking facilities than normally required for a single dwelling or an increase in traffic volume in the neighbourhood does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 2 tonnes tare weight, and does not include provision for the fuelling, repair, or maintenance of motor vehicles, and


24 June 2015

Page 34

g. does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than normally required in the zone.

It is acknowledged that a Home Occupation use does have the potential to impact the amenity of surrounding residential properties and therefore the proposal is considered in relation to the potential risks to the amenity of the neighbourhood. Typically residential amenity impacts arise when such a use becomes frequented by a high number of clients and as a result of busy operations, significant increased vehicle activity and/ or car parking issues are the most common resultants that are not consistent with residential scale and amenity of the area. Notwithstanding this, the Home Occupation and number of clients and appointment times are considered relevant in determining the potential impact that operation of the Home Occupation will have on the surrounding amenity of the area, specifically in relation to vehicle traffic and movement. The approximate number of clients that visit the site on a weekly basis is between 15-20 people. Appointment times are for 1 hour, with a 30 minute interval between each appointment. For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the home occupation will not result in an unreasonable increase to a demand in traffic during the hours of operation and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the residential amenity of the area. Car Parking The car parking requirements for Home Occupation are specified in Table 2 of the Scheme. Table 2 specifies that car parking requirements are required “as per Council’s Policy”, however there is currently no Council policy that make reference to the requirement of a Home Occupation’s car parking requirements. The land use definition within the Scheme for Home Occupation makes specific reference to the car parking provision for the use. As such, Clause 5.7.1 (c) outlines that “Where vehicle parking provisions are not prescribed for a particular use the requirement will be determined by the Council”. Notwithstanding the above provision within the Scheme, the Home Occupation definition makes reference to the provision of car parking for such a use, as outlined above in the Land Use section of the report. The existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 2 Gold Street, South Fremantle has one (1) on site car bay which is utilised exclusively by the owner of the site. Clients of the Home Occupation predominantly will utilise the on street car parking provided within the area. Concerns were raised by submitters regarding the existing parking issues within the area. The assessment of car parking for this application considered the likely increase in car parking as a result of the Home Occupation. It is considered that the Home Occupation does not generate an unreasonable amount of car parking demand as a result of the number of customers attending the Home Occupation. The amount of visitation generated from the Home Occupation is considered to only minimally increase the parking associated with a dwelling land use or any other similarly approved home occupations.


24 June 2015

Page 35

It is also noted that the proposed operating times are predominantly within normal business hours (ie 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday) of operation and it is therefore envisioned that the demand on car parking in the residential area will not be as high demand as it is after business hours. Therefore the hours of operation are considered to support the minimal impact on the car parking demand during this time. It is noted in addition to the above discussion, that the applicant has, in previous years, been provided with a residential on street parking permit by the City of Fremantle as the owner of No. 2 Gold Street, South Fremantle. The applicant, along with other residents, are provided with parking permits for on street parking, due to the limited parking provided on site for the existing dwellings in the area. It is considered that the use of one on street bay, supports the frequency of clients that are expected and is not considered to result in a greater number of parking facilities than normally required for a single dwelling. Furthermore, it is not considered that the Home Occupation requires a greater number of parking facilities than normally required for a single dwelling. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

● New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: ● New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment

opportunities. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Change of Use to Home Occupation (Clinical Psychology Practice) at No.2 (Lot 1) Gold Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 1 April 2015, subject to the following condition(s) for the following reasons:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 1 April 2015. 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 Home Occupation hereby permitted shall not employ any person who is not

a member of the occupier’s household. 3. The Home Occupation hereby permitted shall not erect any signage at the site

that exceeds 0.2sqm in area. 4. The Home Occupation hereby permitted shall not occupy an area of greater than

20sqm.


24 June 2015

Page 36

5. This approval allows the Home Occupation hereby permitted to be conducted by Sandy Williams. If Sandy Williams ceases to operate the Home Occupation hereby permitted or occupy the subject site, this approval will expire.

6. The Home Occupation hereby permitted shall have hours of operation as follows:

Trading hours on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday 10:00 am 7:00pm, and 10:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturday. Sunday trading is not permitted.

COMMITTEE DECISION

Cr J Wilson MOVED to defer the item to the Ordinary Meeting of Council in order to allow for a full debate. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to include an Advice Note to the Officer's Recommendation and include the following wording: Advice Note: A parking management plan/submission be included as part of the condition of the application. SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 12/0

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 Cr Bill Massie

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION By introducing a parking management plan the issues raised with local residents may be addressed. COUNCIL DECISION

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION



24 June 2015

Page 37

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Change of Use to Home Occupation (Clinical Psychology Practice) at No.2 (Lot 1) Gold Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 1 April 2015, subject to the following condition(s) for the following reasons:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 1 April 2015. 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 Home Occupation hereby permitted shall not employ any person who is not a member of the occupier’s household.

3. The Home Occupation hereby permitted shall not erect any signage at the site that exceeds 0.2sqm in area.

4. The Home Occupation hereby permitted shall not occupy an area of greater than 20sqm.

5. This approval allows the Home Occupation hereby permitted to be conducted by Sandy Williams. If Sandy Williams ceases to operate the Home Occupation hereby permitted or occupy the subject site, this approval will expire.

6. The Home Occupation hereby permitted shall have hours of operation as follows:

Trading hours on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday 10:00 am 7:00pm, and 10:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturday. Sunday trading is not permitted.

Advice Note: A parking management submission be included as part of the condition of the application.


24 June 2015

Page 38

SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 39

PSC1506-13 SOUTH STREET, NO.366 (LOTS 2 AND 3), O'CONNOR - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING APPROVAL CONDITION

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Approved Plans 2. Site Photos 3. Applicants Justification Owner Name: George Petridis Submitted by: George Petridis Scheme: Commercial Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Various commercial uses


24 June 2015

Page 40

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Planning approval was granted in October 2014 for a partial change of use that required the 2 lots to be amalgamated or a legal agreement entered into that has the effect of prohibiting the lots being sold separately. This condition was applied as the majority of car parking for the commercial buildings is provided on an adjoining lot (same owner). The owner has advised that amalgamation is cost prohibitive. The City solicitors have advised that the condition could be satisfied through a legal agreement secured by an absolute caveat over the land. The owner has advised that they would consent to a legal agreement but not a caveat. The purpose of this report is to outline the various options associated with the enforcement of this condition of planning approval. It is recommended that to satisfy this condition, the owner enter into a legal agreement secured by an absolute caveat over the land. BACKGROUND

The land consists of 2 lots on the south eastern corner of Stockdale Road and South Street, O’Connor. The land is approximately 2364m2 in area and contains two single storey commercial buildings than contain various tenancies. One of the buildings is located on the southern boundary and the other building is located to the east of the lots. The land slopes up approximately 3.0m from the east to the west (Stockdale Road). Approximately 42 car parking bays exist on the site with the majority of the car parking bays located at the rear (north) accessed from Stockdale Road. A small parking area exists fronting and accessed from South Street. A history of planning approvals issued for the site is as follows:

1. November 1975 – planning approval granted for existing building fronting South Street to be used as a snack bar and poolroom

2. March 1976 – planning approval granted for a Chinese restaurant 3. February 1978 – Planning approval granted for an Amusement Centre 4. July 1978 – Planning approval granted for new and used furniture shop 5. May 1982 – Planning approval refused for an Amusement Centre and Coffee

Shop as “the location is considered to be undesirable and inappropriate” 6. December 1985 – retrospective planning approval granted for the manufacture

and sale of soft furnishings (service industry) 7. October 2000 – planning approval granted for a kayak shop 8. October 2000 – planning approval granted for a cake decorating shop 9. April 2010 – planning approval granted for consulting room (massage) 10. February 2011 - planning approval granted for a alterations and additions

February 2013 – extension of time granted for 10 above 11. June 2014 – planning approval granted for a change of use to consulting room

(massage). 12. June 2014 – the owner contacts the City advising that they do not wish to

amalgamate the 2 lots but are happy with a contract restricting the separate sale


24 June 2015

Page 41

of the lots. The City advises the owner that an absolute caveat is required to secure the legal agreement

13. July 2014 – planning approval granted for change of use to lunch bar 14. October 2014 – planning approval granted for change of use to office

(accounting). The same planning approval included in item 10 and 12 above was imposed

15. December 2014 the City receives a referral from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for an application to amalgamate the land.

16. February 2015 – WAPC granted approval for the lots to be amalgamated subject to 2 conditions requested by Wester Power and Main Road requiring underground power and a caveat preventing vehicle access from South St respectively.

In March 2015 planning staff met with Cr Massie and the owner regarding the planning approval condition that is included in the 3 planning approvals mentioned in items 10, 12 and 15 above. The condition states (‘the condition”):

2. “Prior to the commencement of the use and development hereby approved, No. 366 (Lots 2 and 3 on Plan 1804) South Street, O’Connor are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

The owner has advised that the cost of satisfying the WAPC amalgamation approval conditions is cost prohibitive. The City then sought legal advice as to the various methods (and associated costs) available to satisfy the above planning approval condition. The City’s solicitors advised that the only other option to amalgamating the land is a legal agreement secured by an absolute caveat. Costs associated with this approximately $1200 - $1700. The owner has advised that they do not want to sell the lots separately however also do not want an absolute caveat over the land. The purpose of this report is to outline the various options associated with the enforcement of the planning approval condition. PLANNING COMMENT The reason that the condition was applied is to prevent the two lots being sold separately such that the lot containing the majority of the commercial buildings was not left without onsite car parking. From a planning perspective the lots should have been amalgamated some time ago when the later buildings on the eastern portion of the site were constructed over cadastral lot boundaries in the 1980s. The City’ records show that the owner of land has been the same since at least 1975. Below are several options open to Council regarding the enforcement of the condition.

OPTIONS COMMENTS


24 June 2015

Page 42

1. Not enforce the condition Change of use proceeds but the lots can be sold separately.

2. Require a separate planning application be lodged for the change of use where the condition is not imposed

Change of use proceeds but the lots can be sold separately. The same outcome can be achieved by option 1 with less cost and time implications.

3. Enforce the condition through a legal agreement only (no caveat).

Change of use proceeds and the lots can’t be sold separately by the current owner. If the 2 lots are sold together, the legal agreement will not apply to the new owner.

4. Enforce the condition as written and require a legal agreement secured by a caveat to be applied to the land

Change of use proceeds and the lots can’t be sold separately. This will apply to subsequent owners of the land. If the land is redeveloped as a whole or all the buildings are demolished, the legal agreement will no longer be required and the caveat can be removed. If the owner does not comply with this requirement, the change of use cannot proceed.

It is considered that option 4 is the most preferred option as it is consistent with the intent and wording of the planning condition and is less expensive than amalgamation. Option 3 that requires a legal agreement without a caveat is the City’s second preference and will protect the City’s interests in the short term, that is until the land is sold as a whole to another owner after which the legal agreement will be unenforceable. CONSULTATION

There is no requirement for this matter to be advertised. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15: new commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

At Committee Cr Rachel Pemberton moved that the owner be advised that Condition 2 of the planning approval dated 9 October 2014 for No.366 South Street (Lots 2 & 3), O’Connor (DA0425/14) be enforced through a legal agreement secured by an absolute caveat. MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt


24 June 2015

Page 43

The owner be advised that Condition 2 of the planning approval dated 9 October 2014 for No.366 South Street (Lots 2 & 3), O’Connor (DA0425/14) be enforced through a legal agreement secured by an absolute caveat. SECONDED: Cr B Massie Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: the application of a parking easement and legal agreement SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 44

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The owner be advised that Condition 2 of the planning approval dated 9 October 2014 for No.366 South Street (Lots 2 & 3), O’Connor (DA0425/14) be enforced through the application of a parking easement and legal agreement. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 45

PSC1506-17 PROPOSED NEW ROAD NAMES - FOR INCLUSION ON THE CITY OF FREMANTLE RESERVED ROAD NAMES REGISTER - (KW)

DataWorks Reference: 164/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 03 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Local History Library research EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to submit four (4) proposed new road names for inclusion to the City of Fremantle Reserved Road Names Register ('Register') - subject to the Geographic Names Committee (GNC) approval. The Register is currently depleted and requires additional names which comply with the Geographic Names Committee (GNC) Guidelines. In recent years the names of 'people' listed on the Register has honoured Men who served in World War 1 (in most cases). As the Register requires new names it is proposed to also honour Women who have contributed to Fremantle and the Fremantle community during their life time. In response to the proposal the Local History Library has provided the required background research of Ten (10) Fremantle Women, with strong connections to the local community, and submitted them for road naming compliance checks. Of the Ten (10) names submitted only one (1) of the names, Fanny Rose Rudeforth (1885-1982), fulfilled the GNC requirements. In addition, a further five (5) names were investigated with three (3) meeting the initial GNC compliance requirements. A short history of all fifteen (15) women is included in the comments section of this report with the Local History Library Research included in attachment 1. In accordance with the GNC Guidelines, only the surname may be applied as a road name. The surname must not be repeated in the street directory (or other mapping) more than six times in the metropolitan area, three north and three south of the Swan River. Further, a repeated name must be 10 kilometres from the duplication and not be similar in sound to an existing road name. Names over six letters long should not be applied to roads which are short in length, for mapping purposes. The strict requirements are in place to assist emergency vehicles and other visitors to quickly locate the correct address. It is recommended that Council approve the four (4) surnames listed below for inclusion to the City of Fremantle Reserved Road Names Register subject to the approval of the GNC.

1. Rudeforth - Fanny Rose 2. Friend - Mary Ann 3. Whatley - Ann (nee Rutt)


24 June 2015

Page 46

4. Pulford - Fanny BACKGROUND

As a result of road names required for developments within the City including the naming of various rights of way for street addressing purposes, the City's road naming Register is depleted and requires the addition of new approved road names. As mentioned above, when selecting names of people, it is proposed to honour Women who have contributed to the Fremantle community during their life. The Fremantle Local History Library ('Library') Historian has provided background research for Ten (10) Women who lived and/or worked in Fremantle and in many cases, well known for their contributions to the Fremantle community and abroad - a further five names (5) were investigated. From the fifteen (15) names submitted, a total of four (4) names complied with the initial GNC requirements. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Landgate is responsible for road naming and is guided by the Geographic Names Committee (GNC). The GNC provide the Policies and Standards in relation to the naming of roads, features, townsites and places in Western Australia. The following publications are referred to by the GNC when assessing road naming and street addressing compliance;

The Geographic Names Committee - Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia Version 4.1 (released on 1/1/2013).

The Australian/New Zealand Standard Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZS 4819:2011 for street addressing (3rd edition released in 2011).

Written approval is required for the use of Aboriginal words in relation to road names from the Whadjuk Working Party (WWP) of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council. The Geographic Names Committee - Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia version 4.1 states in part, the following in relation to both public and private road naming; 'Section 3.7 Names within private communities Any topographic feature, administrative boundary or road name within a private property, retirement village, mining town or any other non-public area shall be named in accordance with these policies and standards.' 'Section 3.8.1 Use of personal names Proposals to assign a name to commemorate an individual shall only be considered if:

such application is in the public interest;

there is evidence of broad community support for the proposal;

the person has been deceased for at least two (2) years;

where the applicant requesting the new name is not an immediate relative, written permission of the family is obtained;


24 June 2015

Page 47

the person being honoured by the naming has had either some direct and long-term association, twenty (20) or more years, with the feature or has made a significant contribution to the area in which it is located;

the proposal commemorating an individual with an outstanding national or international reputation has had a direct association with the area in which it is located. If the person has not been directly associated with the area the name shall not be considered.

A commemorative name applied to an administrative boundary or road shall only use the surname of a person and shall not include the first or given names. Commemorative names applied to a topographical feature may have the first name and surname of a person; however approval of such names will be at the GNC's discretion as the preference is for only the surname to be used. Current or recent ownership of the land or recent public service shall not form sufficient grounds for a naming request. Requests to approve names that commemorate, or that may be construed to commemorate, living persons shall not be considered. If a local government or community group wishes to commemorate a living person, they are encouraged to use commemorative plaques or name a particular community facility, such as a building or oval, after that person. It is however required that the normal required naming policies and standards still be applied to avoid unnecessary duplications and any possible confusion with other such facilities.' 'Section 8.2.1 Laneways and short roads The increase in urban density in new developments and urban redevelopment has resulted in many narrow short lanes and rights-of-way requiring names. Laneways shall be named if a name is required for addressing purposes or has been created as a public road by survey. The naming of such roads is supported with the preference for use of the road type LANE and short names consisting of no more than six letters. The leg of a battleaxe lot shall not be considered a laneway. Roads which are regarded as short, e.g. a small cul-de-sac or private road with five or less address sites, that are not proposed to be lengthened or will not have additional address sites needed in the future, may not need a separate name. Any address numbers required may be assigned on to the road on which it connects.' 'Section 8.4 Road name duplication There shall be no road name duplication within a local government, regardless of any differences of road types. Road names submitted for approval cannot be:

homonymous, e.g. similar in spelling to an existing road name;

similar in sound to an existing road name;

in the same locality as an existing road name;


24 June 2015

Page 48

in an adjoining locality;

in the same Local Government area;

duplicated more than six times in the metropolitan area, three north and three south of the Swan River;

duplicated more than fifteen times within Western Australia;

less than 10km from the existing duplication in the metropolitan area; and

less than 50km from existing duplication in rural areas; These exclusions shall also apply to similar sounding or written names, and to those within similar sounding suburbs even if they are more than 10km away e.g., Forrestfield/Forrestdale, Woodbridge/Woodridge, Fremantle/East Fremantle etc. Road name duplication should be avoided in adjoining Local Governments.' COMMENTS The road naming Register has frequently honoured Fremantle Men who served in World War 1 or held an elected position within Council. This report proposes to honour Women who contributed to Fremantle. A total of fifteen (15) Women were selected for their outstanding contributions to the Fremantle community including some of Fremantle's early pioneers. Unfortunately due to the strict road naming guidelines, many of the Women's surnames were either already applied to road names or did not comply for the reasons outlined below. However the history of all these Women should be acknowledged and put on the public record and for this reason details about the lives of all fifteen (15) Women are included in this report. All surnames were checked against the street directory with only four (4) names meeting the initial GNC compliance check. The remaining eleven (11) names were found to be non-compliant with six (6) names duplicated six or more times in total. A further three (3) names were duplicated in an adjoining locality or were less than 10 km from the City of Fremantle municipal district boundary lines. Finally, two (2) names were of Women who passed away only last year in 2014 and would not be considered by the GNC for at least two years after their date of death. The GNC road naming guidelines has been tightened in recent years - in the past, names duplicated more than six times were common with many examples listed in current street directories such as 'Thomas' with 36 duplications and 'Charles' with 18 duplications. The table below provides the proposed surnames checked by the City for compliance based on the Geographic Names Committee Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia Version 4.1 ('Standards').

Name with surname bolded Compliant - Yes or No

Compliance notes

1. Adams - Elizabeth (Granny)

No Duplicated 11 times including a duplication in O’Connor.

2. Parker - Dorothea No Duplicated 14 times including a duplication in East Fremantle.


24 June 2015

Page 49

3. Anderson - Flora No Duplicated 10 times.

4. Campbell - Joan No Duplicated 12 times.

5. Tangney - Dorothy No Duplicated in Samson and Kardinya.

6. Clune - Annie Jane No Duplicated in Coogee.

7. Walsh - Hilda May No Duplicated in Booragoon.

8. McPherson - Margaret No Passed away in August 2014 - the GNC will not consider a name for at least two (2) years after the date of death. The name complies with regard to duplications.

9. Rear - Margaret No Passed away in August 2014 - the GNC will not consider a name for at least two (2) years after the date of death. The name complies with regard to duplications. In 2016 to be considered for Park naming where the use of Margaret Rear's full name may be considered more appropriate. Park names require advertising in relation to a specific Park or Reserve to be named.

10. O'Connor - Kathleen No Duplicated 8 times including North Coogee.

11. Currie - Jane Eliza No Duplicated 6 times including Kardinya.

12. Rudeforth- Fanny Rose Yes - conditional

Complies however due to the number of letters in the name, Rudeforth may only be applied to the longer roads (in length) for mapping purposes. Also the name Rudeforth has a similar sound to 'Rutherford Entrance' in Success.

13. Friend - Mary Ann Yes Complies – 1 duplication (Friend Terrace) in Baldivis.

14. Whatley (nee Rutt) - Anne

Yes Complies - 1 duplication (Whatley Crescent) north of Swan River.

15. Pulford - Fanny Yes Complies - 1 duplication (Pulford Close) in Huntingdale.

Brief background description of the Women nominated above. Adams - Elizabeth (Granny) - 1808 - 1891 Elizabeth Adams came from a working class English background. She travelled to Fremantle with her husband Bill and their two children on the 'Rockingham' which became shipwrecked upon arrival in May 1830 - two weeks later she had their third child on Garden Island. Brought out as indentured servants by the land speculator Thomas Peel, they were released from their obligations when he could not feed them, leaving them to fend for themselves. While Bill crewed on trading vessels, Elizabeth Adams brought up their children and supported them by working as a domestic for 1 pound a week. It was after his death in 1867 that she set up as midwife to make a few extra shillings at her cottage in Short Street, Fremantle where she lived from 1880 until her death in 1891 aged 83. She would not shrink from walking out in all kinds of weather when there was an emergency claiming that she had never yet lost a patient and became known as 'the


24 June 2015

Page 50

Mother of Fremantle'. Many of Fremantle's citizens were born in Elizabeth Adam's cottage. Parker - Dorothea laura Hill M.B.B.S. - (1900 - 1992) 'First West Australian born woman to set up practice in W.A. as a doctor' Dr. Parker was born in East Fremantle and graduated from Melbourne University in 1924. She returned to W.A. in 1926 to set up practice at her parent's home where she continued until the end of World War II (WWII). In 1932 she married Harold Camm, a surveyor and they had a son in 1934. She gave honorary service at Hillcrest Hospital, North Fremantle, run by the Salvation Army which cared for approximately 20 unmarried girls at a time. She was the first Australian woman to be awarded a service medal by the Salvation Army. Dr. Parker's work at Fremantle Hospital included honorary work, pathology in a tin shed once used to house infectious cases, and during WWII she was sole doctor for gynaecology and operated long hours. Dr. Parker made night calls in an open 'Rugby' car. Upon retirement when asked about any special incidents she recalled one caller in the middle of the night saying 'Come quickly - my father is chasing my mother with a knife". She considered this was all in a day's work. She retired from medicine in 1967. Anderson - Flora - (1898 - 1996) Flora Anderson, a West Australian pioneer of library service, she was born in Fremantle in 1898. In the 1930s, widowed and with a child, Flora Anderson ran a private travelling library in the Perth metropolitan area. She was secretary/librarian to the Fremantle Literary Institute for some ten years from 1939. In 1948, the Fremantle City Council sent her to library school in NSW to equip her for the position in the new Fremantle Free Library which she opened in September 1949. She was the first City Librarian, and positively welcomed the library becoming a participant in the Library Service of WA in 1956. Mrs Anderson retired in December 1958, and remained active as a voluntary visiting librarian at Braemar Hospital in East Fremantle until 1991. Campbell - Joan - (1925 - 1997) Victorian born Joan Campbell moved to WA with her family at the age of 15 and married in 1947. She turned to craft as therapy when her third child was stillborn. Throughout her working life she pioneered new firing and glazing techniques, working with what was around her - clays, seaweed, and driftwood - to create forms which were distinctly Australian. Joan Campbell was elected to the International Academy of Ceramics in 1973 and was awarded an MBE in 1978 for her services to the arts. In 1997 she was presented with the Australia Council Emeritus Medal. In the field of the arts, Joan Campbell achieved international fame for her work created in the unlikely setting of the old kerosene store at Bathers Beach, Fremantle - a place she made a cultural and social oasis through her work and her vibrant personality. Tangney - Dorothy - (1911 - 1985) Dorothy Tangney came from a Fremantle working class background and became the first female member of the Australian Senate. An advocate for health and welfare, she served on the Joint Committee on Social Security 1943-1946 and served as a senator


24 June 2015

Page 51

from 1943 until she retired in 1968. Dorothy Tangney featured on the 45c stamp (1973) and the electoral division of Tangney in Western Australia is named after her. Also in 1999 the street, formerly known as Administration Place (Canberra), was changed to Dorothy Tangney Place. In the Queen's Birthday list (8 June 1968) Dorothy Tangney became the first Western Australian born woman to be appointed Dames Commander of the British Empire for services to the Western Australian Parliament. Clune - Annie Jane (Nurse Sheedy) - (1870 - 1945) Annie Clune was known for much of her life as Annie ('Nurse') Sheedy. Annie came to Fremantle with her husband James and five sons from New South Wales. When James died at the age of 40 in 1908, Nurse Sheedy started a small maternity hospital at her home. In 1920 she moved up to Ocean View (Maternity Hospital), a large, luxurious house in Solomon Street, built by Elias Solomon. It had been used as a military hospital since 1917 which must have had a particular poignancy for Nurse Sheedy, as two of her sons were killed in World War I. Walsh - Hilda May - (1899 - 1986) Hilda May (known as May) Walsh was well known around the area for her untiring work for the Salvation Army and underprivileged. She grew up in North Fremantle moving to Forrest Street, Fremantle on the death of her Mother. Originally a Methodist she joined the Salvation Army in 1933 and began a programme visiting the needy, teaching scripture and collecting funds. May Walsh was awarded an MBE for her work which ended when she retired to Hillcrest Nursing Home in 1983. May Wash passed away on 21 March 1986. McPherson - Margaret Anne- (1933 - 2014) Margaret McPherson was born in Fremantle and lived with her family in the house built in 1904 by her grandfather in Thompson Road, North Fremantle. Margaret McPherson attended school at North Fremantle Primary and Princess May School for Girls before starting nursing in 1951 at Fremantle Hospital. She worked as a staff nurse at Fremantle hospital in 1955 and continued nursing for over 36 years in various hospitals. Upon retirement in 1986 Margaret was working as a clinical nurse specialist at Fremantle Hospital. Margaret then took up academic history and graduated with an arts degree from Murdoch University and wrote her book "Within Limestone Walls", a social history of the Fremantle Lunatic Asylum. In 2001 Margaret was recognised for her volunteer work at the Fremantle Prison accessioning the Prison's vast collection of photographs and other images over the previous 5 years. Margaret McPherson passed away on 3rd August 2014. Rear - Margaret Isabel - (1934 - 2014) Margaret Rear devoted her life to working with unions in WA from 1961 to retirement in 1990. She played an instrumental part in the running and organisation of the Unions and worked for Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union (FMWU) in 1961 when Paddy Troy was secretary.


24 June 2015

Page 52

In 1997 she served as a volunteer working more than 40 hours a week with the Fremantle police and with her fellow volunteers being the driving force behind Fremantle's highly successful community policing project and coordinating Neighbourhood Watch. The Fremantle Port Rotary Club recognised Margaret Rear's work by presenting her with the Paul Harris Fellowship award which acknowledges outstanding community contributions. Margaret Rear passed on 7th August 2014 O'Connor – Kathleen Laetitia - (1876 - 1968) Kathleen O’Connor, an artist, was born Hokitika, New Zealand and the third child of Charles Yelverton O’Connor and his wife Susan Laetitia, nee’ Ness. Kathleen studied art at the Perth Technical School under James Linton and taught the subject part time at Evelyn Hill’s school, Perth. She exhibited with the Western Australian Society of Arts before working briefly in Sydney as a decorator. With her mother and sister Bridget, Kathleen O’Connor sailed for Europe in 1905. She remained in London studying art only briefly returning to Perth in 1909 for Bridget’s marriage to (Sir) Ernest Lee Steere. She settled in Paris and wrote about her Parisian experiences for Perth newspapers. She exhibited her work in Paris and London. In the 1920s she experimented with fabric painting, using bright floral patterns; the Australian National Gallery, Canberra, holds a vibrant velvet sample. Kathleen O’Connor spent 1927 in Australia where she designed fabrics and painted china, returning to Paris the following year where she won favourable review and exhibited regularly. By 1955 she returned to Western Australia exhibiting in Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide. Her work is in the National Library of Australia, the National Gallery of Australia, and all State galleries. Currie - Jane Eliza - (1794 – not known) Jane Eliza Currie was born in England. On the 14 January 1829, she married Captain (later Admiral) Mark John Currie of the Royal Navy and they left immediately for the new Swan River Colony in Western Australia (WA) where her husband had been appointed the first harbour-master. They arrived on the Parmelia on 1 June 1829, first living on Garden Island with the other Parmelia settlers then moved to Matilda Bay (now Crawley) on 01 June 1830 where they built a brick house. Jane Currie had two children born in the colony, Jane Eliza (b.1830) and Mark Riddell (b1831). While living in WA, Jane Currie painted miniature portraits, natural history subjects and views including the keeping of a diary. Her sketch, "Our First Hut on Garden Island" (dated June 1829), and her pencil drawing of Cockburn Sound with HMS Challenger and Sulphur at anchor (1829), are the earliest known views taken in the area. For almost three years she worked on a 26 x 304.8 cm watercolour panorama of the Swan River settlement. Excerpt taken from Design and Art Australia Online Rudeforth- Fanny Rose - (1885 - 1982) Fanny Rose Rudeforth, better known as Sister Alice, devoted her life to helping the sick and disadvantaged. With her sister, Elsie, she took over the Methodist church in Gingin


24 June 2015

Page 53

when the minister was called to the war in 1916. She joined the Fremantle Methodist Mission in 1923 working as a Sister of the People. Thirteen years later she set up her own non-denominational mission, visiting women working in brothels, prisoners at Fremantle, patients in hospital and aged homes including people she described as “the sad people on the river at Green Place”. She was made a Member of the order of the British Empire (MBE) in 1952 for social welfare service in Western Australia. Friend - Mary Ann (also found spelt as Anne) - (1794 - 1838) Mary Ann Friend was an author, sketch artist and lithographer capturing early impressions of Australia often depicting dry landscapes which highlighted the struggles of the early pioneers. She arrived at the Swan River settlement in Western Australia on 30 January 1830 upon the merchant ship 'Wanstead' with her husband and Master of the ship, Matthew Curling Friend. Mary Friend made a drawing of the camp at Fremantle on the banks of the Swan River where she, her husband and husband's brothers were living. Early drawings and sketches, such as the work of Mary Ann Friend provide an important and sometimes the only record of the landscape and dwellings of the early settlements. Whatley (nee Rutt) - Anne – (Born in 1806) Anne Whatley arrived in Fremantle with her husband, Dr. John Whatley on 22nd October 1829, she was 23 years old with 2 daughters born at sea. Anne Whatley documented her experiences in a detailed diary providing a valuable historical insight into the lives of the first European settlers of Fremantle and Perth. Mrs Whatley’s diary entries noted the hardships of day to day life contrasted with the beauty of seeing wild spring flowers for the first time. On 16th September 1830, Anne Whatley’s life in Perth and Fremantle was cut short when her husband drowned in the Swan River (Fremantle). It is recorded that Dr. Whatley and Captain Stryan both accidentally drowned whilst attempting to transport a cow to the other side of the river in a small boat unsuitable for the task. Mrs Whatley and her 2 children left Fremantle on the “Cleopatra” on the 15 January 1831 (a date obtained from the ships log) bound for Hobart, where she continued to document the events of the day in her diary entries before returning home to Britain. Pulford - Fanny – (1862 – not known) Fanny Pulford was the assistant teacher at Perth Girls School in 1861. She moved to Fremantle and occupied the former Rose and Crown Hotel on the corner of High and Queen Streets as a Girls School in 1867. In December 1867 the Fremantle Herald provided a very positive article regarding a visit and examination of the school by respected members of the community including the resident Magistrate. Mrs Pulford was complimented on her management, teaching skills and attendance records of the children. In 1872 Mrs Puford was the Headmistress of the Fremantle Girls School with an average daily attendance of 68 - noted as the first Government school in Fremantle. EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Neighbour Notification: Nil. The selection of names for roads is at local government discretion subject to the approval of the GNC. However approval is required from the appropriate Aboriginal people when using Aboriginal words or names for naming purposes. Further, all names where the use of a deceased persons surname is


24 June 2015

Page 54

proposed, requires written permission from the family where possible - this requirement relates to the application of a name for road naming and not simply including a name into the City's Reserved Road Names Register. Consultation is required by the GNC when naming ovals, pavilions, the naming or renaming of Parks and Reserves or the naming of Towns and Localities. CONCLUSION The proposed road names are in honour of Women who have contributed to Fremantle and the Fremantle Community in their life time. From the fifteen (15) surnames examined by the City (in accordance with the GNC Standards), the following four (4) surnames fulfil the basic compliance requirements. 1. Rudeforth - Fanny Rose 2. Friend - Mary Ann 3. Whatley - Ann (nee Rutt) 4. Pulford - Fanny It is therefore recommended that Council approve the four (4) surnames as detailed above for inclusion into the City of Fremantle Reserved Roads Register subject to the approval of the GNC. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council: APPROVE the inclusion the four (4) names as listed below into the City of Fremantle Reserved Road Names Register subject to the approval of the Geographic Names Committee;

1. Rudeforth 2. Friend 3. Whatley 4. Pulford

Cr R Pemberton MOVED to include Part 2 as follows: 2. Elizabeth Adams, Dorothea Parker, Flora Anderson be considered as

appropriate names for civic buildings, gardens, and other civic infrastructure.


24 June 2015

Page 55

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bill Massie Cr Ingrid Waltham


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council: 1. APPROVE the inclusion the four (4) names as listed below into the City of

Fremantle Reserved Road Names Register subject to the approval of the Geographic Names Committee;

1. Rudeforth 2. Friend 3. Whatley 4. Pulford

2. Elizabeth Adams, Dorothea Parker, Flora Anderson be considered as

appropriate names for civic buildings, gardens, and other civic infrastructure. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 56

Cr B Massie left the meeting at 6.59 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return.

PSC1506-2 DEFERRED ITEM - COMMERCIAL STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 104), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY, WITH LOFT, SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING - (TB DA0070/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 6 May - PSC1505-4 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Previous PSC Report – PSC1505-4

Attachment 2 – Revised Plans Date Received: 13 February 2015 Owner Name: Marija Vujcic Submitted by: Michael Polmear Scheme: Urban Zone Heritage Listing: Not individually listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


24 June 2015

Page 57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey, with loft, Single House and Ancillary Dwelling. At the previous Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting held on the 6th May 2015, the committee elected to defer the application to provide the applicant with sufficient time to amend the plans so as to reduce the building bulk as viewed from the eastern adjoining lot. The application has been assessed in conjunction with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires design principle assessment and discretions against the following:

Primary street setback (Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy)

Side Setbacks

Open Space

Visual Privacy

Lot area for an Ancillary dwelling

Boundary walls (Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development)

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination as objections have been received from neighbouring landowners that cannot all be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered supportable subject to conditions. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the southern side of Commercial Road and is east of South Terrace. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density code of R30. The property measures approximately 235m2 and currently contains a single storey Single House. The subject site is not contained on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the existing dwelling on the subject site has recently been granted separate planning approval on 14 May 2014, for the demolition of the existing single storey Single House (reference DA0155/14). A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. On 6 May 2015 PSC considered the application and resolved:


24 June 2015

Page 58

Cr A Sullivan MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit amended plans that reduces the building bulk as viewed from the east. DETAIL

On 13 February 2015, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House with loft and Ancillary Dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 104) Commercial Street, South Fremantle. On 10 April 2015, the City received amended plans which addressed some of the previous discretions sought. For further information regarding the detail of the application, please refer to the previous item. A copy of the development plans (as amended) is contained within this report as Attachment 2. Additionally, as per the PSC resolution of 6 May 2015, amended plans were submitted which showed alterations predominantly to the roofline. Specifically the changes provided by the applicant included:

1. Dormer reduced back from street along eastern Façade by 3.5m – see East Elevation

2. Dormer eave sizes facing east reduced by 500mm – now 450mm wide – see East, North and South Elevations

3. Hip Roof over first floor Bedroom 1 - pitch reduced from 43 degrees to 13 degrees to reduce roof bulk – see East and South Elevations

4. Hip roof amendment will also increase natural light/reduce overshadowing to Southern Property

5. Roof over Boundary wall to ancillary accommodation reduced in height by 300mm – see East Elevation

6. Dormers to be the same colour as the roof sheeting to soften the appearance and ensure the 2 elements are read as a single entity.

7. Images provided of view looking west and south along Commercial Street with amended dormer roof to illustrate proposal within the street context.

Refer to Attachment 3 for the revised development plans as per PSC resolution. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Please refer to the previous item. CONSULTATION

The application was previously advertised with four (4) submissions and a fifteen (15) person petition. The amendments relating to the reduction in building bulk that were requested at the PSC meeting on 6 May 2015 are considered to further address the concerns raised by submitters and therefore was not readvertised due to these amendments. PLANNING COMMENT

The amended plans do not remove the following previously proposed design principle assessments and policy discretions.


24 June 2015

Page 59

Primary street

Side Setbacks

Open Space

Visual Privacy

Lot area for an Ancillary dwelling

Boundary walls (Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development)

As these aspects remain unchanged and were not specifically required to be addressed by the May 2015 reasons for deferral, these matters are not discussed again in this report however are discussed in detail in the previous report that is included in Attachment 1. Building bulk At the PSC meeting on 6 May 2015, Council moved to defer the application to enable the applicant to amend plans in order to address Council’s concern relating to the building bulk to the eastern adjoining lot. The applicant provided amended plans on 13 May 2015 The impact of the proposed development is considered to reduce the overall bulk of the dwelling as viewed from No. 3 Commercial Street. It is noted that the setbacks and boundary walls remain the same as those presented to Council at the 6 May 2015 meeting. While no changes have been made to the boundary walls or setbacks, the bulk of the building is considered to be reduced as a result of the amendments made. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS For discussion regarding the strategic implications of the application, please refer to the previous item, included in this report as attachment 1. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with loft and Ancillary Dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 104) Commercial Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 April 2015, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 May 2015. 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. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0070/15, on

plans dated 13 May 2015 the window on the east elevation shall be either:


24 June 2015

Page 60






4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern and western

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

At Committee Cr J Wilson MOVED to defer the item to the Ordinary Meeting of Council in order to allow the applicant to submit amended plans. Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation and included the amendment from the Additional Documents (page 1) to read as follows: amend the plan date 13 May 2015 in conditions to 1 and 3 to 16 June 2015 That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with loft and Ancillary Dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 104) Commercial Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 April 2015, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 16 June 2015. 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. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0070/15,

on plans dated 16 June 2015 the window on the east elevation shall be either:


24 June 2015

Page 61






4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern and western boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan 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


24 June 2015

Page 62

At 7.03 pm the Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s SGS1506-10 for discussion.

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 17 JUNE 2015

SGS1506-10 OFFER OF LEASE TO ENKEL FOR NAVAL STORES

ECM Reference: 039/076 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: SGS1504-6 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Enkel Submission

Fremantle Foundation Submission Naval Stores Application Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group has considered applications for the Naval Stores at Cantonment Hill Reserve, received through the advertised Expression of Interest process which closed 26 May 2014. The purpose of this item is to recommend Enkel as the preferred applicant and request Council consider a Lease between the City of Fremantle and Enkel for the Naval Stores, 141 Canning Hwy, Fremantle.

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 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


24 June 2015

Page 63

expressions of interest were received with the majority focused on use of the Naval Stores. The Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group concluded that it is possible for more than one applicant to activate the Naval Stores with the possibility that there be one head lessee to manage the entire building. 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 head Lessee candidates were Fremantle Foundations acting on behalf of the Circus School, and Enkel. An item submitted to the Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2015 requested Council to consider the following Officer Recommendation; “For Council to approve; 1. An offer to Enkel valid for a period of 90 days to complete due diligence and submit

a business case to the City, without a commitment to a long term lease at this stage.

2. City Officers to source costs to improve the building’s structural integrity for review

by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group and presented to Council for budget approval.

3. City officers to prepare and negotiate a Lease between the City of Fremantle and

Enkel subject to points 1 & 2 of the Recommendation, for review by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group prior to being presented to Council for approval.”

An alternate Recommendation was adopted by Council being; Council’s Resolution: “To defer the item to the May Council Meeting to allow Enkel and Circus School to consider a joint proposal and to present to the next Informal Elected members Meeting.” The reason for the change to the Officers Recommendation was to allow for further discussion between the two potential tenants and the consideration of Enkel and the Circus School to occupy the Naval Stores together.

COMMENT

Both Enkel and the Circus School, represented by Fremantle Foundations, presented to Elected Members at the Informal Elected Members Meeting (IEM) dated 18 May 2015. Indications were that although both groups had tried to come to an arrangement of co habiting the Naval Stores, an agreement that both parties were comfortable with had not been made.


24 June 2015

Page 64

In light of no agreement being made between the two applicants, Officers present the background of the previous item dated 15 April 2015 for Council’s consideration; The two proposals offered entirely different business models, with Fremantle Foundations seeking a management authority to manage and tenant the Naval Stores on behalf of the City, and Enkel proposing to Lease the building from the City and then sub lease and hire to third parties. Both candidates were encouraged to interact and negotiate with other EOI applicants in a hope that a combination of applicants could co-exist. Unfortunately due to different logistical requirements and business models this was not possible in most cases. The two proposed candidates were assessed and graded by a panel of Officers on the basis of the following criteria; Activation Techniques – does the proposal include adequate activation of the building? Will the building be utilised to full capacity? Are they in line with the Character of Fremantle? Referees – written support of character and previous business endeavours. Business Design/Functionality (Strategic Imperatives) – Is the proposed business model and design functional within the Cantonment Hill Master Plan and reflective of the City’s Strategic Plan? Capacity – Will the use of the business model peak in numbers or have availability for continuous turn over due to public/retail/business use? What is the timing in which the building will be at full capacity and activated by the planned business model, will the business model outgrow the space? Expediential Growth (financial) – Will the proposed business model have growth rate to maintain financial viability and independence? Strategic Positioning – Will the proposed business model work at this location, is this the best location for this applicant? An average of the individual Officer grades then formed the basis for the selection of the preferred applicant. Detailed comments of the Officers and the proposals received by both Enkel and Fremantle Foundations are attached to this item for reference. Enkel’s proposal was to create a creative and interactive co-operative comprised of independent organisations and individuals, with the building modified to include team room and workshop ‘pods’, co working stations and event space, hospitality space, wood and metal fabrication, electronics and biotech lab.


24 June 2015

Page 65

Enkel has also negotiated with one of the other expression of interest applicants, an indoor climbing wall, to successfully accommodate them. Activation was proposed to be entered in stages based on the time line in which construction works can be undertaken for the building’s fit out, in line with Enkel’s business model. It is also proposed that Enkel enter into a joint application with the City for LotteryWest grant funding to support their financial commitment for fit out. If this funding option is not successful, Enkel are committed to investigating alternatives. They are also intending to contribute their own financial capital to the project. Based on the draft proposal from Enkel, the following are the basic terms and conditions for a Lease over the Naval Stores which are subject to further negotiation with the applicant and approval by Council; Land Description. Portion of Lot 602, on Deposited Plan 65368 being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 2747 Folio 159 Property Description Naval Stores Registered Proprietor City of Fremantle Commencement Date Proposed 1 August 2015 Lease Term/Options Initial Activation: One (1) year followed by “month by month” Construction period: “month by month” if activation is possible. Followed by:

Term one: ten (10) years Term two: five (5) years Term three: five (5) years

Annual Rental Initial Activation: rate to be determined based on level of activation. Construction period: rate as initial activation if climbing wall can remain active, if not, rent free. Lease: 6% return of the total interior capital works budget to be spend by the City of Fremantle on the Naval Stores building subject to agreement by both parties. From this figure will be deducted the value provided to the community based on performance criteria.


24 June 2015

Page 66

In addition, a negotiated percentage of gross profit from Enkel each year will be contributed to community based projects to be agreed upon by both Enkel and the City of Fremantle. Statutory Charges Lessee/Licensee will be responsible for outgoings including but not limited to;

All Service usage (electricity, water, phone etc)

Council Rates and State Emergency Services Levy

Land Tax

General Maintenance

Building Insurance Should activation continue during the construction phase a rebate on services will be negotiated whilst contractors draw on such services. Conditions Lease

1. The Lessee acknowledges that the premises are leased in an “as is” condition under the terms of the initial agreement.

2. A no warranty clause will be included in the lease whereby the City accepts no responsibility for the compliance of the building under the BCA for the initial activation.

3. Lessee to acknowledge future works are planned for the premises and surrounding area of Cantonment Hill Reserve and that the Lessor or its agents will require access to the site from time to time after providing reasonable notice and acknowledge some disruption to quiet enjoyment is expected.

4. The Lessee will not brand and secure any signage to the building, without the City’s prior approval.

5. The Lessee will not paint or undertake any works to the external of the building that will cause any damage to the mural and/or without the express written permission of the Lessor.

6. The Lessee acknowledges that the Lease is for the internal of the Naval Stores only and although consultation regarding surrounding works at Cantonment Hill will be made with stakeholders in the area, any decision regarding Cantonment Hill will be that of the Lessor’s.

The Lease will be subject to further special conditions and the addition of performance criteria. A large section of the buildings activation will be managed by membership (of Enkel) as distinct from sub lease or hire agreements. The proposed sub lessee arrangements will be grouped into three categories and will commence after the proposed “term one” between the City and Enkel. Any agreements prior to this commencement date must reflect the term of the Head Lease, including “month to month” periods.


24 June 2015

Page 67

The proposed sub lessee terms are as follows; Climbing Wall: 3 + 3 + 3 years Hospitality: 2 + 1 years Team Rooms: 6 monthly Although Enkel has proposed an activation of the Naval Stores in its current condition with a staged in level of activation based on forecasted construction works and fit out being complete, the building in its current form will require some remedial works to ensure all services are working and the building is structurally sound. Officer Comment Shacks Holden have recently relinquished the Licence for the Naval Stores which they were using as a storage area. The arrangement has been an interim solution that provided surveillance for the building until an activation purpose was approved. As the use was purely for storage, the Licensee has been able to use the building without the requirement of any repairs or maintenance.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Although Enkel is able to activate the building initially without any proposed fit out, the building will require some remedial works to ensure that it is safe and structurally sound. These works will include, but not be limited too, confirmation of basic services, window restoration, engineer reports, structural reports. Legal

A Lease and Licence would be subject to the Local Government Act WA 1995 and the Commercial Tenancy Act 1985 Operational

Nil Organisational

The City will need to undertake capital works on the building, in line with the permitted use of the proposed lease, prior to any occupation. It is yet to be determined the extent of those works.

CONCLUSION

It is recognised that by not recommending Fremantle Foundations to take management of the Naval Stores, the Circus School remains without a long-term leased premises and have no obvious alternative premises to relocate to. As an outcome to the IEM the Director of Community Development met with Artsource CEO and General Manager to discuss the possibility of the Circus School remaining in


24 June 2015

Page 68

their current location with the possibility of locating the planned Gallery for the space in Unit 4, J Shed which will become available in November 2015. Initial indications from the Artsource CEO was that any decision regarding the proposal of space swap would be subject to a decision by the Artsource Board. However it was the preference of the staff to use the space in one location as opposed to two. Artsource’s primary business is as a visual arts organisation with the view that the Circus School does not fit within their core business. The AGM for Artsource was held on 26 May 2015 at which a new Board was selected. The Acting Mayor wrote a formal proposal to the Board for the space swap concept, which was to be considered at the new Board’s first meeting on 9 June 2015. At the time of lodging this item, Officers were unable to obtain feedback as to the outcome of the City’s request.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

A community information session will be arranged during the proposed due diligence period to allow the community to hear further detail about Enkel’s proposed activation and business model.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


Council 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 Activation Working Group, prior to being presented to Council for approval.


24 June 2015

Page 69

Cr S Wainwright MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation change the wording of part 3 of the Officers Recommendation to state the following 3. City officers to prepare and negotiate a lease for part of the premises of the

Naval Store between City of Fremantle and Enkel and part of the premises (about 300m2 and 120m2 of mezzanine) of the Naval Store to WA Circus School, subject to points 1 and 2 above, for the review by the Cantonment Hill Activation Working Group, prior to being presented to Council for approval.

Lost: 3/4

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WA Circus School need a venue and have requested consideration of a part lease. Whilst the City is negotiating with Artsource WA to keep the Circus School in their current location, we do not know whether this outcome can be achieved. If this amendment is supported I would request the following conditions be considered in the lease negotiations; 1. The floor space for CircusWA to be about 300 m2 ground floor area, at the western

end of the building, and around 120m2 at mezzanine level immediately above. 2. The floor area of ENKEL to be the balance of the building (approx 700 m2) 3. The terms of CircusWA's tenancy are to be equal to ENKEL in relation to time. 4. CircusWA to pay a rental of $15,000 per annum for the first term of 5 years, terms

of conditions to be with council. 5. Finalisation of the partial lease between CircusWA and Council is dependent, for

both lessees on a 90 day independent due diligence. 6. Actioning of the use of CircusWA space is subject to a successful joint application

with Council for the required grant money to be used to convert the relevant space for CircusWA use.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council 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.


24 June 2015

Page 70

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 Activation Working Group, prior to being presented to Council for approval.

SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 71

At 7.08 pm the Mayor, Brad PettittName brought forward item/s SGS1603-3 for discussion.

SGS1506-3 PERTH FREIGHT LINK: MAKING THE RIGHT INVESTMENT IN PERTH'S FREIGHT TASK

ECM Reference: 165/012 Disclosure of Interest: None Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Paul Trotman, Director Strategic Planning &Projects Actioning Officer: Paul Trotman, Director Strategic Planning &Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Main Roads WA May 2015 Information Sheet on the

Perth Freight Link Perth Freight Link: Making the right investment in Perth’s freight task – report to Council by Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Perth Freight Link: Making the right investment in Perth’s freight task – Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item transmits to Council the Perth Freight Link: Making the right investment in Perth’s freight task report by the Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute. The report is to Council to inform their consideration of what position to take on the proposed Perth Freight Link and as such is for “receiving and noting” only. BACKGROUND The City of Fremantle’s vision for the future of Fremantle includes the retention of the Fremantle inner harbour as a working port. Current container trade figures for the inner harbour show an annual throughput of approximately 700,000 TEU’s: a TEU is a standard measure to express container traffic in, and means ‘twenty foot equivalent unit’ – thus a forty foot long container would be two such units. It is understood that the inner harbour has the capacity to grow that container trade (based on current technology and operational methods) to around 1.4 million TEU’s, or by a factor of two. Further, there are a number of significant bulk cargos sent and received at the inner harbour such as motor vehicles and live animals as well as cruise ship visits. The inner harbour’s future is also likely to be impacted by how any new owners of the port (should it be sold) view and manage their investment. Capacity for growth of the inner harbour is also likely to be limited by the ability of the road and rail transport systems that bring freight into and move freight out of the harbour. In considering the future of the inner harbour (and the Perth Freight Link) it is important to understand what that transport capacity limit is and when it will be reached. Whenever that point is reached (and realistically, before that point is reached) there must be an alternative freight option in place and operational, otherwise the economy of Perth will be severely impacted.


24 June 2015

Page 72

Known options currently available to the government for that alternative freight option are any or all of the following:

Replace the inner harbour with the outer harbour in Cockburn Sound;

Develop the outer harbour to take overflow from the inner harbour;

Expansion of an existing harbour in a regional area such as Bunbury or Geraldton, including development of landside transport infrastructure to support that function;

Expansion of rail capacity to the inner harbour; and

Expansion of road capacity to the inner harbour. Consideration of port access arrangements have been debated for many years with both the State and federal governments now moving towards a primarily road-based solution to the freight movement needs of the inner harbour. This proposed solution is known as the “Perth Freight Link”: a copy of Main Roads WA’s May 2015 information sheet on the Perth Freight Link can be found at Attachment 1. The Perth Freight Link (PFL) is an infrastructure project that seeks to increase the road capacity from the Perth Airport to the Fremantle Port by the creation of a freeway standard road between those two points, and ultimately linking to a larger road network of similar standard. The PFL, as currently articulated by the State government, has a project budget of $1.575 billion, with $925m of this coming from the federal government and $650m from the State (of which $59m is already committed to upgrades of High Street, Fremantle). Project development and contract procurement for the PFL commenced in early 2015 with road works planned to start in early 2016 for a June 2019 completion. The Main Roads WA procurement process involves an Expression of Interest period which closed mid-March 2015, followed by a Request for Proposals (RFP). Three proponents have been invited to participate in the Request for Proposals phase of the Perth Freight Link project: proposals are being sought for two sections as follows:

Section 1 – a 5.2km extension of Roe Highway (Stage 8) from Kwinana Freeway to just west of Coolbellup Avenue; and

Section 2 – upgrades to Stock Road, Leach Highway, High Street and Stirling Highway, spanning 8.2km.

The three proponents consist of consortia comprising the following teams:

BGC Contracting, Laing O’Rourke, Arup and Jacobs;

Clough, Brierty, WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff and Hyder; and

Leighton Contractors, Georgiou, GHD, AECOM, BG&E and WA Limestone. The consortia were chosen following the evaluation of Expressions of Interest applications submitted in March 2015. The consortia will now participate in the RFP stage of the procurement process and prepare detailed proposals for design and construction. Proponents for Section 2 are being asked to conduct a feasibility study for an alternative route during the RFP stage. The alternative route includes a section of tunnel and avoids


24 June 2015

Page 73

immediate upgrades to Stock Road and Leach Highway. It extends Roe Highway west of Stock Road along the Roe Highway road reserve in Hamilton Hill. It then heads north as a tunnel, starting just before Clontarf Hill and running underground to join Stirling Highway near High Street. The feasibility of an alternative route for PFL Section 2 will be considered against environmental, economic and social impact measures. A recommendation on the preferred route will be made to the State Government by the end of 2015 at which time any potential impacts on properties will become clearer. Alliance contracts are expected to be awarded in September 2015 for Section 1 and in December 2015 for Section 2. In developing the Perth Freight Link the Department of Transport has acknowledged and addressed a number of the community’s concerns identified through consultation on the previous High Street upgrade project. Nonetheless a number of issues still require attention before a reasoned position can be taken on the Perth Freight Link proposals, including:

drawing out the impacts of the Perth Freight Link on local communities;

drawing out the impacts of the Perth Freight Link on the urban environment;

drawing out the impacts of the Perth Freight Link on environmental assets;

drawing out the impacts of the Perth Freight Link on rail freight;

understanding what impact the Perth Freight Link would have on CBD regeneration;

understanding the capacity and future demand requirements for port freight;

understanding the likely future capacity of the port to handle containers;

understanding how the proposed sale of the port may impact on freight needs;

understanding the role of the proposed outer harbour in Perth’s freight system;

identifying how the Swan River is to be crossed;

identifying the impacts on North Fremantle of any proposed crossing; and

identifying and considering possible alternative freight options, including rail. Council has recently adopted an Integrated Transport Strategy; the relevant section (pg. 37) on freight transport states:

In summary, the City supports retention and expansion of the port and associated improvements to freight links subject to:

avoiding damage to the Beeliar Wetlands;

priority for initiatives and infrastructure which increase freight to rail in daylight hours;

minimizing effect of infrastructure on private property and community amenity (e.g. Leach Highway limit to 4 lanes, maintain mature trees);

resolving bottlenecks closer to the port (e.g. Tydeman Road, Curtin Avenue); and

funds being allowed for reconstruction/replacement of community amenity and facilities (e.g. pedestrian overpass, golf course).

The City believes that more sensible evidence based upgrades would suffice and the saved/remaining funds could be spent on other long term solutions which achieve more freight to rail, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and improved amenity and safety for residents and road users.


24 June 2015

Page 74

The City proposes work be done to explore alternative solutions and provide evidence to support the City’s proposal for a reduced impact solution.

COMMENT As part of implementing the Integrated Transport Strategy the City, through a Request for Quote process, appointed the Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute to explore alternative solutions and provide evidence to support the City’s proposal for a reduced impact solution for the inner harbour’s freight needs. Over the course of May and early June 2015 CUSP undertook their investigations and has now produced their report, a copy of which is attached to this item. The scope of this report is illustrated by the Contents page:

The report contains a considerable amount of inter-related information and is best summarised through inclusion of its Abstract:


24 June 2015

Page 75

Expansion of this can be found at Attachment 3 which is the Executive Summary. A useful “Options Matrix” can be found at page 56 of the report.


24 June 2015

Page 76

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial None Legal None Operational None Organisational None CONCLUSION The Perth Freight Link: Making the right investment in Perth’s freight task is a report to Council by Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute. It is intended to provide Council with some of the facts, figures and concepts for the inner harbour’s freight task and in turn to allow Council to determine what view it wishes to take in relation to the proposed Perth Freight Link. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Integrated Transport Strategy called for investigations and evidence in relation to the proposed Perth Freight Link. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple majority required. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: MAYOR, BRAD PETTITT That Council receive and note the Perth Freight Link: Making the right investment in Perth’s freight task report, dated 8 June 2015 from the Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute.


24 June 2015

Page 77

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 78

At 7.10 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s SPC1505-1 for discussion.

SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE 13 MAY 2015

SPC1505-1 NOTICE OF MOTION - CR JON STRACHAN - FREMANTLE COUNCIL'S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED PERTH FREIGHT LINK

DataWorks Reference: 216/012 Meeting Date: 13 May 2015 Author: Cr Jon Strachan Actioning Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Decision Making Level: Council ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY

The Western Australian State Government has committed to building the Perth Freight Link (PFL). Council has developed positions relating to aspects of the PFL, but has not decided to fully support or reject the proposal. It is now timely for Fremantle Council to make that commitment. BACKGROUND

Fremantle Council has been proactive on issues of roads and freight starting with a strong stand against the Fremantle Eastern Bypass (FEB), seeing its deletion as a road reserve in 2001. More recently Council resolved to not support the Roe Highway extension through Beeliar Wetlands, known as Roe 8. Prior to the announcement of the PFR the State Government proposed significantly increasing the capacity of High Street east of the Stirling Highway, Stirling Highway north of High Street and the intersection of the two roads. Council resolved to support this work, but only if it were limited to two lanes in each direction. In February 2015 Council adopted an Integrated Transport Plan (ITP), in which issues of Port related freight are discussed. The motion to adopt the ITP also included a point 3, which reads:

Officers undertake as a priority task for immediate action an evidence- based investigation into alternatives to the current Perth Freight Link proposals to address freight transport requirements associated with Fremantle Port, and report the findings to Council for further consideration.

Fremantle Council has a position of supporting a working port, and aspires to see a working port in long term planning for the future of Fremantle. However the predicted increase in container trade makes it essential an outer harbour is progressed as a matter of urgency. Fremantle Council, through the Integrated Transport Strategy, considers the southern extension of the heavy rail line reserve from Fremantle Station to the South Fremantle Power Station as ideal for Transit Infrastructure, and as such it should not be compromised by rail freight. COMMENT

Fremantle Council is clearly concerned about aspects of the PFL but has not developed a definitive position strongly against (or for) this proposed project. It is now an


24 June 2015

Page 79

appropriate time for Fremantle Council to make that decision and inform our community, the State Government, the South West Group and other key stakeholders of that decision. RATIONALE Unlike other urban centres in metropolitan Perth, Fremantle not only has to deal with freight needs associated with its city status, it also accommodates freight demands from Fremantle Ports; this eclipses all other freight challenges. Fremantle is home to Western Australia’s largest and busiest general cargo port. The Inner Harbour currently handles the vast majority of containerised freight imports and exports for the state. In addition the Inner Harbour also handles trade associated with:

Livestock

Bulk items such as scrap metal

General Cargo

RORO including cars, trucks and caravans

Cruise ships The port currently handles 700,000 TEU (twenty foot equivalent) containers annually (source: WA Minister for Transport), with strong growth in numbers predicted to grow to 1,400,000 TEU (source: South West Group) annually in the next decade. The State Government has committed to transporting up to 30% of containers by rail, yet does not have plans to upgrade rail infrastructure to meet that commitment. This aspiration is currently not realised with only 14% of containers transported by rail in 2013-14 financial year (source: WA Minister for Transport). The existing rail infrastructure cannot support the existing 30% target with current demand; it is unreasonable to contest it could support double that number of containers. It is essential that investment be made in rail infrastructure to transport containers. The proposed $1.575 billion PFL is a road based freight solution; however it is internationally acknowledged that more roads do not solve congestion; building freeways increases overall road use and contributes to worsening congestion (Leigh Glover, University of Melbourne). Furthermore, as a toll road, purportedly for trucks only, it can be expected to reach capacity with cars that do not pay the toll. Furthermore, by taking a longer route from Port to destinations than the existing truck route leads to a strong probability many truck drivers will choose to not switch to the PFL and continue to use Leach Highway. It is not clear how the planners of the PFL intend to deal with the North Fremantle section. There is no logical way to get trucks from the PFL to Fremantle Ports without maintaining the North Fremantle bottleneck, or alternatively extending the PFL through North Fremantle with potential devastating consequences. Whilst a container terminal is mooted for the Outer Harbour, progress is limited or non-existent; even with such a facility predictions still have TEU numbers through the Inner Harbour at 1,000,000 annually (source: South West Group). There are two options open to the state, continue to try and build congestion out of the road network, or embark on a strategic piece of rail network that will serve the state well into the future. We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we


24 June 2015

Page 80

created them (Einstein). The PFL is an attempt to do just that by attempting to solve road congestion by building another road, and as such is doomed to failure. A long-term solution to container freight transport issues based on rail as the key component would result in:

A more cost effective long term solution for freight transport

Saving the high values conservation area, Beeliar Wetlands, from decimation through road building

Minimise localised freight impacts, especially at High Street and North Fremantle

Reduction of carbon intensive greenhouse gas emissions

Reduction in community health issues related to road trauma and exhaust emissions

Better utilisation of existing road infrastructure CONCLUSION

The PFL is not in the best interests of Fremantle, its community or the population at large. It is doubtful it will address the serious freight issues associated with Fremantle Ports for anything other than a very short period. If built, it will destroy the significant Beeliar Wetlands that are crucial to Perth’s biodiversity, and will be in conflict with a stated position of this Council. The very significant budget associated with the PFL would better serve Western Australia through getting containers off trucks and onto freight rail. For these reasons this Council does not support the Perth Freight Link as currently proposed by Government. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS This Notice of Motion is consistent with existing positions held by this council relating to:

Fremantle Eastern Bypass

Roe 8

High Street upgrade The motion is also consistent with the Strategic Plan 2010 to 2015 Transport section that states:

(Fremantle will) Lead in the provision of environmentally and economically sustainable transport solutions.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Local Government Act does not require this item to go to formal community engagement. However its genesis was as a result of community concerns about the PFL. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required.


24 June 2015

Page 81

NOTICE OF MOTION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton

1. This Council does not support a road based response to significantly increased container trade at Fremantle Ports, and as such does not support construction of the proposed Perth Freight Link.

2. This Council believes the significant State Budget allocation to the PFL should be directed towards a rail based solution for container distribution related to Fremantle Ports.

3. This position is conveyed to the State Government, South West Group and other key stakeholders.

4. Council considers a budget amount of $100,000 to assist Officers develop alternative options for Port Related Freight as per point 3 of Council Item SPC 1502-2.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Special Projects Committee meeting in order to receive the results of the study commissioned to investigate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the Perth Freight Link. CARRIED: 9/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Sam Wainwright

At the Special Projects Committee meeting held on 10 June 2015, the Committee voted to support that the Notice of Motion, Fremantle Council's Position on the Proposed Perth Freight Link, be considered by the Strategic and General Services Committee meeting to be held on 17 June 2015. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council:

1. Rejects the State Government proposals for Sections 1 and 2 of the Perth Freight Link as there is insufficient planning and analysis of the many serious and negative implications associated with these proposals, and as it contradicts the planning that has been in place for many years.


24 June 2015

Page 82

2. Notes that analysis of the proposed Perth Freight Link shows it suffers from

a number of clear and serious faults, including but not limited to the fact that the project:

a) Is contrary to many decades of accepted planning for freight transport in the Metropolitan region;

b) Undermines the development of Latitude 32 and the Kwinana Intermodal Terminal as key parts of Perth’s freight strategy and the Outer Harbour;

c) Raises questions that have not been adequately answered in relation to the proposed sale of the Port of Fremantle;

d) Has severe impacts on the Beeliar Wetland and Banksia Woodlands; e) Negatively impacts the urban renewal of both the City of Fremantle

and the Town of East Fremantle by undermining their economic development through the creation of an effective “by-pass”;

f) Severing communities within Fremantle from the CBD and essential facilities including schools;

g) Creates uncertainty as to how the proposed river crossing might affect claimed travel-time benefits and the resulting cost/benefit assessment;

h) Undermines the viability of achieving the long-held aspirational target of putting 30% of freight on rail;

i) Puts additional pressure on failing intersections; j) Substantially increases diesel particulates with damaging long term

health effects; k) Increases truck flows down Curtin Avenue; l) Fractures North Fremantle and causes congestion at the port’s

entrance; m) Interdicts access by tourists and local beach users from access to

and through North Fremantle; and n) Involves poorly examined construction logistics with little or no

analysis of their community and local economic impacts. 3. Supports the planning and development of the Outer Harbour as a freight

planning and infrastructure priority that is in keeping with many decades of settled freight transport and urban planning.

4. Commits to working collaboratively with other local governments,

community groups and stakeholders to oppose State Government proposals for Sections 1 and 2 of the Perth Freight Link.

5. Requests the CEO develop a community engagement and advocacy plan. 6. Request the State government put the current Perth Freight Link Request for

Proposals process on hold, including the demolition of any homes, while long term freight planning is given due regard, and demonstrably better freight options are considered and developed, including through consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan


24 June 2015

Page 83

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 84

SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE 10 JUNE 2015

Cr R Pemberton MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SPC1506-1, SPC1506-2, SPC1506-4 AND SPC1506-5. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


The following item number SP1506-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPC1506-1 INFORMATION REPORT - STRATEGIC PROJECTS COMMITTEE - JUNE 2015

NOTICE OF MOTION – CR JON STRACHAN – FREMANTLE COUNCIL’S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED PERTH FREIGHT LINK DataWorks Reference: 216/012 Author: Paul Trotman, Director Strategic Planning & Projects Agenda Attachments: Nil At its meeting on 13 May 2015 the Special Projects Committee voted 9/2 to defer

consideration of the Notice of Motion Fremantle Council's Position On The Proposed

Perth Freight Link to the next appropriate Special Projects Committee meeting in order to

receive the results of a study commissioned by the Council on the Perth Freight Link. It is

expected that this study will be available in time to meet the 17 June meeting of the

Strategic and General Services Committee. Rather than wait until the July meeting of the

Special Projects Committee this Notice of Motion will be brought to the 17 June meeting

of the Strategic and General Services Committee with a view to it then coming before the

24 June meeting of Council. All Elected Members are able to attend and debate at the

SGS Committee meeting on the 17th.


24 June 2015

Page 85


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the Special Projects Committee:

1. Note this report. Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Officer’s Recommendation to read as follows:

That the Special Projects Committee Information Report of June 2015 regarding the proposed Perth Freight Link be noted and supported.

CARRIED: 8/0

For Against

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Bill Massie

REASON FOR THE CHANGE TO THE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION For the purpose of open and accountable governance.


24 June 2015

Page 86


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the Special Projects Committee Information Report of June 2015 regarding the proposed Perth Freight Link be noted and supported. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 87

The following item number SPC1506-2 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPC1506-2 REVIEW OF FREMANTLE ESPLANADE MASTERPLAN

ECM Reference: 148/015 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Special Projects Committee 10 June 2015 Previous Item: C1304-06 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft reviewed Fremantle Esplanade Masterplan dated

04 June 2015

PROJECT BACKGROUND

A Masterplan for the Esplanade reserve was adopted by Council in October 2009, with amendments in April 2013 related to the youth plaza. The purpose of the plan was to illustrate a long-term vision for the reserve and to provide a framework for the progressive upgrading of the park’s landscape and infrastructure. This current Esplanade Masterplan can be downloaded from http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/cityoffremantle/Strategic_and_key_documents There have been a number of major changes within the park since 2009. These changes include:

Continued deterioration in the condition of the turf within the park.

Development of the Esplanade Youth Plaza.

Location of the observation wheel within the park.

Proposed expansion of the Carriage Café and an application to extend the café’s lease.

Council resolved in April 2013 to review the Masterplan and identified the following issues that should be addressed by the review:

The extension of the central spine feature of the youth plaza as a continuous promenade to connect Essex Street to the Fishing Boat Harbour via the old pump station complex.

o Response: The draft Masterplan (copy attached) has proposed a

pathway network that integrates both spines of the youth plaza.

Options for the creation of undulating sculpted grass play features in the vicinity of the Esplanade Reserve.

o Response: Grass slopes have been provided as part of the youth

plaza. The draft Masterplan also proposes an additional low grassed embankment up to 600mm high and along part of the southern edge of the Reserve to provide attractive places to sit with a northerly aspect.

Further consideration of options to provide access to the park for service vehicles.

o Response: Options for vehicle access to and through the Reserve are

discussed later in this report.

http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/cityoffremantle/Strategic_and_key_documents


24 June 2015

Page 88

Options for locating ferris wheels and other semi-permanent amusement features.

o Response: The draft Masterplan proposes a ‘park hub’ in the vicinity of

the current observation wheel where these types of facilities could be located.

Review of the status of the Reserve to ensure it remains consistent with the Conservation Plan.

o Response: Council reviewed the Reserve’s status in June 2013 and

resolved that while it had no objections to change the classification to a Class A Reserve, it also resolved to give further consideration to the matter following the Masterplan review.

Resolution of the inherent conflict between the “preferred temporary stage location and retention of the grass mound”.

o Response: Development of the youth plaza reduced the capacity of

that area to accommodate special events and concerts and therefore the draft Masterplan proposes a new location for the temporary stage and other event infrastructure on an enlarged mulched area within the centre of the main events area. The grass mound was incorporated into the youth plaza.

These matters are addressed in more detail in the key issues section of this report. Council also referred the following issues for consideration as part of the City Centre Structure Plan process:

Options for the further redevelopment of car park no.11 to include land uses that assist in providing an activated frontage to the proposed promenade and the park generally.

Options for the extension of Norfolk Street to the Fishing Boat Harbour and options for the redevelopment of the land and buildings south east of the Esplanade Reserve, including the site and function of the Italian Club, through to the current level crossing into the Fishing Boat Harbour.

Options for significant car parking in the area south east of the Esplanade Reserve.

Consideration of future rail reserve needs in relation to increased freight movements and plans for light and/or heavy passenger rail.

An action plan for dealing with the long term consequences of climate change including the impact on current vegetation types and the rising ground water table.

The draft Masterplan illustrates the opportunities that could result from these issues; however they would be subject to further investigation by the City Centre Structure Plan. The youth plaza was completed in April 2014 and consequently the review commenced towards the end of 2014 to enable the impact of the youth plaza to be considered. This report presents a draft of the reviewed Masterplan, which has been prepared by a team comprising officers and Blackwell & Associates Landscape Architects, and recommends that it be released for comment before being finalised for Council consideration of adoption. The final plan will also include costs and a recommended implementation program.


24 June 2015

Page 89

KEY ISSUES

The following is a discussion on the key issues that have been addressed in the preparation of the draft revised Masterplan. The draft Masterplan is provided as an attachment to this report. Maintaining a high standard of turf A number of recent specialist reports on the turf and soil conditions of the Esplanade have confirmed that the following conditions are causing the poor growth and appearance of the Reserve’s grasses:

- Sting nematodes - Soil profile - Drainage - Water availability - Pedestrian and vehicle traffic - Shade

The specialist reports advise that the Reserve is contaminated with Sting nematodes which will have a major impact on any turf upgrade works and future turf management practices. The Sting nematode is the most damaging type of nematode on turf in the Perth region. It attacks the turf root system, leaving the turf with shallow and dysfunctional roots, making the affected turf more prone to moisture stress, nutrient deficiency and water damage. Specialist advice is that there are no effective control measures available for Sting nematodes, and it will not be possible to eradicate it from the Reserve in a redevelopment process. There is actually a high risk of spreading the nematode contaminated soil further around the site during any earthworks stage and therefore it will be necessary to treat the whole site in one process to aim to remove as much of the contaminated soil at the same time. The park was created in two stages - when land was reclaimed in South Bay in 1905 following construction of a railway across the bay, and then in 1970 with additional reclamation when the railway was re-aligned further into South Bay. As a result, the soil profile of the two areas is quite different and requires different responses. To upgrade the turf surface the specialist reports recommend that it will be necessary to remove all of the existing turf and soil to a depth of 5cm. The remaining soil in the 1905 section needs to be amended by incorporating mature, premium grade compost before replanting (sand should be avoided as it would provide a more favourable environment for Sting nematode activity). The 1970 section has subsoil fill of crushed rock close to the surface and therefore needs to be built up with at least an additional 10cm level of soil before replanting with kikuyu turf. There will also be a higher than normal level of turf maintenance required in terms of fertilising, watering and renovation, including the provision of localised turf replacement as required. Poor drainage has been found to be caused by a concentrated surface layer of root zone organic matter which is a common problem with turf grown on sand profiles. The poor drainage would be rectified by turf and soil removal and replacement.


24 June 2015

Page 90

The old and inefficient irrigation system at the Reserve should be replaced at the same time as the soil and turf replacement. This would allow hydrozoning of the park to enable more efficient water use as has recently been implemented at Fremantle Park. The hydrozone concept identifies different watering zones allowing for overall reduced water use. The draft Masterplan proposes enlarging mulched beds around the base of tree trunks to help reduce compaction damage, as park users are more likely to traverse lawn. The heavy shade in these areas typically results in poor turf performance in any case and the extra mulched areas will reduce water intensive grassed areas by approximately 40%. The shallow turf roots caused by the Sting nematode require daily watering and as a result there is significant stress to the turf during periods when the reticulation cannot operate for the duration of events. A new irrigation system should be designed to give better control and flexibility to reticulation to accommodate events and to reduce their impact on the turf as much as possible. The recent appearance of the park has clearly shown the impact of pedestrian movement with extensive bare patches and worn turf along major pedestrian desire lines. Advice has been that without the installation of pathways along key routes it will be necessary to have provision for regular turf replacement to repair wear damage. A temporary crushed stone pathway has recently been installed along one of the worn sections of turf and will provide a useful indication of how effective this approach is. The installation of pathways is also important for other reasons – particularly universal access and wayfinding – and will be discussed later in this report. The draft Masterplan therefore recommends:

- A plan for hydrozoning of the Reserve should be prepared in accordance with the final Masterplan.

- To prepare detailed plans and costs for installation of a new or refurbished bore and pump, and a new irrigation system to allow hydrozoning of the park to reduce water use and enable greater flexibility to cope with events.

- All existing turf and top layer of soil throughout the reserve be removed and replaced with new soil and turf in accordance with the detailed hydrozoning plan and specialist turf specifications.

Health of trees The 110 year old stands of Norfolk Island Pines are most important to the character and amenity of the Reserve and maintaining their health needs to be a high priority. The trees are also identified as elements of considerable significance in the Esplanade Conservation Plan. An arborist’s report on the health of the trees has shown that the majority are currently in ‘good’ health. Potential compaction and disturbance of the root zone is the major concern and to maintain their good health the draft Masterplan recommends mulching of the tree protection zone under all existing major trees as this helps to deter pedestrian and vehicle access at those locations. Heavy shade typically limits turf and other plant growth at those locations in any case and mulching supports hydrozoning of the park. .


24 June 2015

Page 91

The plan also proposes locating vehicle routes either away from trees or designed to minimise compaction when they are close to root zones. Ongoing management of vehicle access to keep vehicles to defined routes and away from vulnerable areas will also be important, however the size and frequency of larger vehicles requiring access to the Reserve for setting up and taking down large events will inevitably cause damage that will be difficult to control. For example, normal passenger vehicles may weigh 1500kg, 4 wheel drives are 2 tons or more, 2 axle trucks 10 to 20 tons and semi-trailers 40 tons when loaded. Accordingly, the draft Masterplan proposes that consideration should be given to progressively relocating large commercial events away from the Esplanade when current agreements with organisers have ended. This recommendation is discussed later in this report. The review also considered the potential removal of selected trees in the park’s northern section to open up long views across the park to the waterfront, particularly along the key approaches, such as Essex St and Cliff St. The review concluded, however, that it is important to retain the prominence of the trees in these views to reinforce the proximity of the park and the distinct green edge that it provides to the city centre. Experience of spaces across the street grid of Fremantle’s city centre is typically by ‘serial vision’, or a succession of shorter views, rather than the long vista. Serial vision can add interest and contrast to the pedestrian environment. On arrival at the Esplanade views open up under the trees and across the park, and can be further improved by ongoing under-pruning and avoiding any new planting at eye level. The reinforcement of entries and addition of pathways as proposed in the draft Masterplan will also assist in wayfinding to the waterfront. The draft Masterplan therefore recommends:

- The tree protection zone under all existing major trees should be mulched. - A management plan should be prepared to ensure active preservation strategies for

the current 100+ year old Norfolk Island Pine trees and appropriate planning for future replacement plantings of pines in the 1905 section of the park.

- Alternative tree species could be introduced into the 1970’s southern section of the park that would continue the approach adopted for the youth plaza design, although planting at eye level should be avoided to retain the general open-ness of the parkland. The younger Norfolk Island Pines in this area may be removed or relocated in accordance with a detailed planting design that would be prepared following finalisation of the Masterplan.

Use of the Reserve for major events The Esplanade is one of Fremantle’s most important green spaces and has been a place for passive recreation, public gatherings, ceremonies and entertainment, and play since its creation in 1905. The 1970’s extension of the park provided additional space that enabled this range of uses to continue in reasonable harmony at that time. Demand in more recent years for the park to accommodate larger commercially organised and ticketed events has increased competition for the Reserve’s limited space and the ability of its sensitive landscape infrastructure to cope. These concerns led to


24 June 2015

Page 92

the preparation of the Masterplan for the Esplanade in 2008/09. A key initiative of that Masterplan was to progressively relocate major events to the 1970’s or southern section of the park and the adjacent car park no. 11 - although the decision at that time to retain the grass mound restricted the space available for these events. Subsequent use of the southern section of the Reserve for the youth plaza has now removed that area’s availability for major organised events, other than for activities directly associated with the youth plaza. Events are now concentrated within the 1905 section of the park, and major fenced and commercial events, such as the Chili Festival, have even expanded beyond the park onto the streets surrounding the Reserve. As a result, the physical impact of these events on the park and environs has significantly increased with regard to access to the park and other facilities in the area, noise, traffic disruption and their visual presentation from outside the park. While the Council has committed to accommodating selected major events at the Esplanade for a number of years, such as the Chili Festival and Laneways Festival, it could be concluded that such major events have outgrown the park. As discussed earlier in this report, the draft Masterplan recommends that to significantly improve the health and appearance of the turf in the park all topsoil and turf should be replaced. While not yet fully costed, consideration will need to be given to whether such an expense is worthwhile if major events are to continue due to the potential wear and tear on the new turf. The draft masterplan therefore recommends:

- Major commercial, ticketed and fenced events, particularly those that currently extend beyond the Reserve, should be progressively relocated from the Esplanade when current agreements with organisers have ended.

- Events should be restricted to a clearly defined area within the park that is within the park edges and defined by pathways, low walls (at selected locations) and mulched areas.

- Parades, ceremonies and local community events (particularly those that are not fenced and ticketed) create less conflict with other uses and should continue at the Esplanade in recognition of their cultural benefits and popularity. The draft plan incorporates initiatives to better accommodate these uses, including upgrading of power and locations for event infrastructure, formalised pedestrian and vehicle access, and ceremonial access points to/from Marine Terrace for parades and recreation events such as fun runs that start and end at the Reserve.

Café, observation wheel and other commercial services for park users Current commercial facilities within the park are the Carriage Café (current lease expires 2019) and the observation wheel (2016). The current Masterplan identifies the current Carriage Café and recommends two possible future café sites, if required - one at each end of the Reserve. When adopting the Masterplan in April 2009 the Council resolved that “the Carriage Café is considered by Council as enhancing Esplanade Park’s facilities and community assets and as such it should stay in its current location”. No other commercial facilities were proposed.


24 June 2015

Page 93

In October 2014 the WA Planning Commission approved a planning application for modifications to the current Carriage Café that would relocate the kitchen into a new structure and convert the existing kitchen to a dining area to re-orientate the café towards the youth plaza. In November 2014 the Council resolved to defer consideration of a request to extend the café lease for an additional 15 years from April 2019 until after the Masterplan review. The Council requested that the Masterplan review consider “options for locating ferris wheels and other semi-permanent amusement features”. Accordingly the review examined options for locating all the various commercial and built recreation facilities that exist or may be desirable within the park. These options included grouping them along the western side of the proposed Norfolk St extension or at a more central location focussed on the current observation wheel location, or to maintain the current approach of dispersing them across the park. The review concluded that an area between the youth plaza and the current observation wheel be designated as a hub for any buildings and structures that are required to accommodate any future approved community and commercial facilities and services for park users. These facilities could include:

- Observation wheel and/or similar amusement facilities - Café - Bike and skate hire and repair - Public toilets - Shaded seating and al fresco areas.

At this location the ‘park hub’ is out of the 1905 area of parkland and would visually reinforce and activate the gateway to the Fishing Boat Harbour. It is also centralised and well located in relation to the playground and youth plaza and would have good service vehicle access from the vehicle route along the rail reserve. While it is anticipated that the Carriage Café will continue at its present location until the end of the current lease period, the proposed ‘park hub’ provides the opportunity to eventually relocate the cafe to a location where it would be integrated with other recreational and amusement facilities, would directly service the playground and youth plaza and be located on the major pedestrian route to and from the Fishing Boat Harbour. The ‘park hub’ location would also provide the potential for future expansion of the café if desired (the current café has progressively increased in size from 30sqm to approximately 220sqm) and would relocate it out of the special event area and reduce conflict between the two functions. The draft Masterplan recognises the importance of a café to meet the needs of park users, it is concluded that the current location is inappropriate for a café in the long term. There is the possibility that the café operation will detrimentally affect the health of the surrounding trees and that the condition of the trees could become a danger to users of the cafe. The café at the current location is also considered to have a detrimental impact on the heritage and landscape values of the 1905 section of the park, particularly with regard to views, character and identity, sense of place and ambience of the northern section of the reserve as a heritage place. The Esplanade Conservation Plan identifies that the Carriage Cafe is a place of low intrinsic heritage value in a setting of high heritage value whereas relocation of the carriage to the proposed ‘park hub’ would place


24 June 2015

Page 94

it on or close to the alignment of the early rail line south of the central line of trees and therefore provide a more appropriate context for it from a heritage point of view. The draft Masterplan therefore recommends:

- Allocation of an area of the Reserve between the youth plaza and the current observation wheel as a ‘park hub’ that would accommodate existing and future approved community and commercial facilities and services for park users. These facilities could include the observation wheel and/or similar amusement facilities, café, bike and skate hire and repair, public toilets, shaded seating and al fresco areas. The hub would predominantly accommodate existing facilities and there would be little net reduction in parkland.

- Detailed designs be prepared for the proposed ‘park hub’ that illustrate how the area could be developed, for further consideration by Council.

- Consideration be given to the relocation of the current café to the proposed ‘park hub’, potentially at the end of the current lease period.

Pedestrian access and circulation The draft Masterplan for the Esplanade that was prepared in 2008 recommended installation of several pedestrian pathways across the park to reduce wear and tear on grassed areas and tree protection zones. The pathways were deleted in the Masterplan that was subsequently adopted by Council in 2009. Experience in the six years since has shown that the level of use of the Reserve has resulted in an increasing number of worn areas that need to be regularly replanted. Turf specialists have also continued to recommend the need for pathways to help maintain a higher standard of turf. Accordingly, the draft Masterplan proposes the introduction of a number of linked pedestrian paths around and across the Reserve that reflect key desire lines and routes connecting facilities within the park and beyond. The purpose of the paths is encourage walking and exercising while reducing wear and tear on grassed areas and compaction around trees, and to provide universal access and clearer wayfinding across the park. The long term health of grassed areas and trees is considered critical to the Reserve

maintaining its attractiveness to users.

A major east-west pathway is proposed along the alignment of the former Owen

Anchorage railway between the 1905 and 1970’s sections of the Reserve. The route

would connect the pathway at Bathers Beach with longer routes to the south and east

for joggers, walkers and cyclists. Exercise and nature play activities could be integrated

with the route.

A major north-south route is proposed that would provide clear and universal access to

the playground, the proposed ‘park hub’ and onwards to the central rail crossing to the

Fishing Boat Harbour. The two spines of the youth plaza are also extended by the

proposed pathway network and connect the plaza to key entries into the park.

A low key path proposed to the northern and southern edges of the 1905 park and

inside the bounding line of the Norfolk Island Pines will provide a pleasant promenade

route. It will also help maintain the edge between the central grassland and the

mulched borders and define a boundary for special events.


24 June 2015

Page 95

Paths have generally been kept clear of the open grassed areas in the northern 1905 section of the park to maintain the simple character in that area of grass and trees. Shorter lengths of pathway are proposed through the mulched areas at the main pedestrian entry points into the park from Marine Terrace. The heavy shade in these areas typically results in poor turf performance and the paths will help focus pedestrian movement away from the mulched areas and tree root plates. Materials would be determined at the detailed design stage and may include crushed limestone subject to the outcome of the current trial pathway. The paths would be furnished with shaded seats at regular intervals and be well lit to provide safer routes across the park after-hours. Implementation of the low speed shared use concept recommended in the Fremantle Integrated Transport Strategy will provide a safer and more attractive pedestrian environment in Marine Terrace and connecting streets and help to reinforce the connection between the city centre, Esplanade and waterfront. It is recommended that the first stage should include the construction of raised plateau crossings on the east side of Essex St and the west side of Collie St. At these locations the raised crossings would also help to slow traffic in the section between Essex and Collie Streets. The draft Masterplan therefore recommends:

The introduction of a network of linked pedestrian paths around and across the Reserve that reflect key desire lines and routes connecting facilities within the park and beyond. The purpose of the paths is to reduce wear and tear on grassed areas and compaction around trees, to provide universal access and clearer wayfinding across the park.

The progressive conversion of Marine Terrace adjacent to the Esplanade to a low speed shared use street. The first stage would be the construction of raised plateau crossings on the east side of Essex St and the west side of Collie St.

Vehicle access and circulation The current Masterplan recommends provision of a durable route for maintenance and events vehicles along the full length of the southern side of the park adjacent to the rail reserve, with entry from car park no.11 and exit via Wardan Lane. Vehicles currently enter and exit the Reserve from car park no. 11 and a route between the youth plaza and rail reserve; however they then randomly traverse the remainder of the park. Exit via Wardan Lane is currently difficult due to levels at that location. There is also occasional access from Marine Terrace at Mouat St. Other options to provide access were investigated as part of the Masterplan review, as requested by Council, particularly a route along the central line of trees. While this route is closer to the event areas, it would result in more pedestrian / vehicle conflict and a greater visual presence across the middle of the park. Construction of the youth plaza has also physically restricted the width available for vehicle access along the southern side of the trees while avoiding the tree protection zones. The draft Masterplan therefore recommends that:


24 June 2015

Page 96

- One-way vehicle access should be kept to the southern edge of the Reserve where its physical and visual impact is minimised. The route would provide good access to the proposed ‘park hub’ of café and other facilities and to the potential services area for events.

- The route should be connected to the central events area by a defined accessway through the central line of trees to the west of the ‘park hub’.

- The exit via Wardan Lane should also be made available as a priority by an adjustment of levels and planting at that location.

Extension of Norfolk St to Mews Road and potential expansion of the park Reserve to Norfolk St The extension of Norfolk Street through to Mews Road has been proposed for a number of years by various reports including the State Government’s Fremantle Harbours Project, the City Centre Urban Design Strategy, and most recently was included as one of the Freo 2029 Transformational Moves. While it would be subject to traffic impact assessment and further detailed design, the purpose is to provide an improved connection to the waterfront for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and particularly as an emergency vehicle route to and from the Fishing Boat Harbour. The current rail crossing at Arundel St would be closed. A possible redevelopment of the Italian Club could be integrated with the street extension and incorporate additional commercial uses that could provide an active street frontage to the new roadway. The redevelopment could also incorporate additional public parking in a decked structure integrated with the club redevelopment. The extension of Norfolk St would provide benefits to the use and presentation of the Esplanade. The new rail crossing for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists would reinforce additional pedestrian movement options at the park’s eastern end and vehicle access to the Esplanade could be relocated to the Norfolk St extension. The new street would be mostly located within the current car park no. 11 and result in the loss of approximately 65 of the car park’s 197 bays. The remaining area of car park no. 11 would provide approximately 130 bays. Carpark no. 11 is a separate reserve to the Esplanade with the purpose of vehicle parking. The Metropolitan Region Scheme designates the carpark as a ‘parks and recreation’ Reserve. Alternatively, consideration could be given to the potential expansion of the Esplanade Reserve into the remaining area of carpark, resulting in an expansion of the Reserve by approximately 4400 sqm. The lost parking could be provided in a new multi-level carpark integrated with the Italian Club on the southern side of the new Norfolk St. Current provision of land reserved for parks, recreation and open space within the Fremantle Activity Centre (the city centre) and within a 5 minute walkable catchment is approximately 26.8ha/1000 residents – well above the desirable provision of 3.36ha/1000 residents. The open space provision in the future based on the target population of 8000 proposed by the draft Activity Centre Structure Plan and with no change to the area of open space available would be 3.6ha/1000 residents. While this is still higher than what is considered sufficient, any additional open space to meet the broad needs of the expanded city centre population would further reinforce central Fremantle as a desirable place to live, work or visit.


24 June 2015

Page 97

The expanded recreation reserve would provide potential for additional youth recreation facilities that could be integrated with the youth plaza and linked to an extension of the east-west pathway through the plaza and connecting to Norfolk St. The amount of use of the current youth plaza illustrates the level of demand for these facilities which is likely to further increase as the city centre population increases as anticipated. As the additional reserve area is achieved by expanding into the current car park no. 11, any hard paved recreation areas, such as a basketball court, would not result in the loss of any existing green space. Parts of the expanded Reserve, particularly those areas fronting Marine Terrace and the Norfolk St extension, could be designated for passive recreation. They would augment the existing passive recreation spaces along Marine Terrace as well as present an attractive landscaped vista at the entrance to the city centre along Marine Terrace and Norfolk St. The draft Masterplan therefore recommends that detailed investigations be carried out into the feasibility of redeveloping the current car parking areas and Italian Club site to:

- Enable an expansion of the Esplanade recreation reserve by approximately 4400sqm for a mix of passive and youth recreation.

- Extend Norfolk St to Mews Road for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians - Accommodate the needs of the Italian Club. - Provide public parking to replace the current car park no. 11.

Potential park expansion to the west The area between the western end of the Esplanade Reserve and the rail line contains Wardan Lane and carpark no. 2. Wardan Lane is a recently created road reserve to provide vehicle access from the Fishing Boat Harbour, and is particularly important as an emergency route. Carpark no. 2 accommodates 39 parking bays and is located partly in a separate reserve with the purpose of vehicle parking and partly in the Marine Terrace road reserve. The Metropolitan Region Scheme designates the area as a ‘public purposes reserve’ for car parking. The area was initially part of the Esplanade parkland and the Esplanade Conservation Plan recommends that “consideration should be given as to whether or not City of Fremantle Car Park No. 2 is required. If its removal can be justified, the reinstatement of the section of park removed to create it should be considered. If its removal cannot be justified, when the next thorough refurbishment is due, consideration should be given to replanning the parking to better reflect the former use as part of the park, including the reintroduction of Norfolk Island Hibiscus in accordance with documentary evidence.” The future of the carpark should be considered as part of a wider review of public parking, however if it can be removed the draft Masterplan supports expansion of the Esplanade Reserve into the area as recommended by the conservation plan. The expanded parkland would provide the potential to significantly improve pedestrian and cyclist connections to the Fishing Boat Harbour and Bathers Beach as well as providing space for passive recreation close to the waterfront yet in a parkland setting.


24 June 2015

Page 98

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple majority required.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton 1. That Council authorise the draft reviewed Fremantle Esplanade Masterplan

dated 04 June 2015 to be released for public comment for a period of 6 weeks.

2. That the final recommended Masterplan, together with a report on the

submissions received, be presented to the Special Projects Committee following the comment period.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 99


SPC1506-4 UPDATE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4

DataWorks Reference: 218/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Special Projects Committee 10 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the progress of various amendments to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme). The City currently has four Scheme amendments and one structure plan with the Western Australian Planning Commission for assessment and final determination. An additional four Scheme amendments are currently at various stages of the City of Fremantle Council’s consideration. Another Scheme amendment has recently been gazetted. The details of the Scheme amendments and structure plan, including the details of the gazetted amendment, are provided in the planning comment section of this report. It is recommended Council receive and note the information contained within this report. PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the progress of various amendments to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme). The City currently has eight Scheme amendments and one structure plan at various stages of WAPC and/or Council consideration. To present the status of each Scheme amendment simply the relevant information has been provided in the tables below. Further detailed information is additionally provided on the recently gazetted amendment for Council’s information. The following table provides an overview of current Scheme amendments and structure plans with the WAPC for final determination. Scheme amendments/structure plans with WAPC for final determination

# Amendment/ Structure Plan

Council adoption

WAPC Assessment

54 Collection of minor text and map changes (see below for discussion on changes)

22 May 2013

GAZETTED 22 May 2015

57 Change to the Residential Density and 28 Under assessment. No current


24 June 2015

Page 100

building heights at 19-21 & 23-25 Burt Street, Fremantle

January 2015

indication of likely final determination date.

Swanbourne Street Structure Plan 26 November 2014

Under assessment. WAPC has indicated date for final decision may be November 2015.

43 Rezone Strang Court Area, Beaconsfield from Development Zone - Development Area (DA14) to a combination of ‘Mixed Use’ zone and ‘Residential’ zone with associated development standards

26 Sept 2012

Modifications requested by the Minister prior to approval and subsequent gazettal. Modifications sent to WAPC 26 May 2015. Gazettal anticipated by end of June 2015.

61 Amend Sub Area 1.3.2 of Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre to include two additional sites, 35 William St (lot 101) and 135 High Street Mall (lot 381) Fremantle and as well as refining and updating the existing requirements.

26 November 2014

Modifications requested by the Minister prior to approval and subsequent gazettal. Modifications sent to WAPC 26 May 2015. Gazettal anticipated by end of June 2015.

The following table provides an overview of current Scheme amendments being considered by the City of Fremantle Council. Scheme amendments currently being considered by City of Fremantle Council

# Amendment/ Structure Plan

Status/Comment

63 Amendment to promote housing diversity Principles for the amendment agreed by Council 24 September 2014

Further research has been undertaken on the principles of the amendment to assist in drafting detailed provisions of the amendment for initiation. The findings of this research are to be reported back to Council in July

64 Modification of the Residential density of the Hilton Local Centre and amend associated Sub Area 7.3.1 development controls

Further consideration of draft amendment content and preliminary consultation with landowners and Main Roads WA currently being undertaken in accordance with Council resolution 25 March 2015 prior to formal initiation.

65 New Sub area and associated provisions to Local Planning Area's 5 & 6 - South Street local centre and adjacent residential properties (Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local planning areas)

Report recommending initiation pending Council consideration on 24 June 2015

66 New sub area and associated provisions for lots on the western side of the Hampton Road and South Street intersection

Initiated by Council 27 May 2014

Scheme amendment No. 54 – Collection of minor text and map changes GAZETTED 22 May 2015 Amendment 54 is a collection of relatively minor changes to the Scheme text and Scheme map. The majority of changes relate to incorrect clause numbering,


24 June 2015

Page 101

typographical errors and references to other planning documents that have since been reviewed or superseded. Other minor changes are also intended to improve the clarity and consistency of the Scheme document. The more noteworthy changes made by amendment 54 are summarised below. SCHEME TEXT MODIFICATIONS 1. The objective of the Mixed Use zone, clause 4.2.1(e)(i), was amended as follows: ‘Development within the mixed use zone shall – (i) provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, service 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;

(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;’

The previous objective of the Mixed Use zone effectively prohibited residential uses at ground level. It was considered that appropriately designed residential development at ground level would be consistent with the overall objective of the zone to provide a mix of land uses and therefore the objective wording was updated for this reason. 2. The requirements in Schedule 11 - Development areas for DA 2 – Daly and Hollis

Street tip site South Fremantle Landfill Sites, was amended to read: ‘Notwithstanding the above, on Lots 1, 4 & 5 on Plan 122 (Nos 40 and 38) Daly Street development applications received prior to the adoption of a structure plan shall be assessed against the Mixed Use zone provisions of the Scheme. However applications for any form of residential development and subdivision on Lots 1, 4 & 5 on Plan 122 (Nos 40 and 38) Daly Street shall be deferred in accordance with clause 6.2.4.’ The purpose of this change was to allow two properties (3 lots) in Development Area 2 that are in private ownership to continue operating as light industrial (or similar) uses as they have for a number of years. The previous provisions of Schedule 11 provided Council with no discretion to approve any form of development on these properties, even though the properties are located outside of the former tip site and are not subject to any current contamination classifications as viewed on the contaminated database on the Department of Environment and Regulation website. The provision to allow the Council to consider applications relating to these properties against the Mixed Use pro visions of LPS4 is consistent with other discretionary ‘interim’ clauses within other Development Areas under LPS4. 3. A map figure has been inserted for each Local Planning Area in Schedule 12. The inclusion of local planning area maps in Schedule 12 assists in the day-to-day use of the local planning scheme, particularly in situations where access to the City’s electronic


24 June 2015

Page 102

mapping system is unavailable. Including the local planning area maps is also consistent with the format of including the sub area maps in Schedule 12. Any future amendments to the local planning areas boundaries would then affect the Scheme map as well as the maps included in Schedule 12. NEW/AMENDED DEFINITIONS The following definitions are either new to the City’s Scheme or have been updated. The purpose of these changes is to:

provide definitions to terms included in Scheme clauses that were not previously defined; and

to update and refine definitions which have previously been ambiguous or contained reference to superseded documents.

New definitions Building height: the vertical distance at any point from ground level to the

uppermost part of the building above that point. External wall height: the vertical distance at any point from ground level to the

uppermost part of the wall of the building above that point. Updated definitions Floor area: when used in relation to a building that is used for –

(a) residential purposes, has the same meaning as the term ‘plot ratio area’ as in the Residential Design Codes; or

(b) purposes other than residential, has the same meaning as

in the Building Code of Australia (BCA) published by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB).

Storey: means that portion of a building which is situated between the top

of any floor and the top of the floor next above it and if there is no floor above it, that portion between the top of the floor and the ceiling above it, but does not include a loft, or any portion of a building that has 50% or more of its volume below ground level.’

The term ‘mixed use’ will now be ‘mixed use development’. SCHEME MAP MODIFICATIONS

Rezone ‘Development Zone (DA16)’ with a ‘Mixed Use’ zoning and applying a residential density coding of R160 to Lot 28 on DP21859 (No. 2 Doepel Street and No. 30 Kwong Alley) Doepel Street, North Fremantle – to reflect the built form and land use of recent development on the site.

Rezone the property addressed as No. 29 (Lot 31) Jarvis Street, O’Connor as “Commercial”.


24 June 2015

Page 103

Rezone Lot 9002 on DP42137 (Nos. 5-27 and 31-43 Longford Road, Beaconsfield) to Residential with a residential density coding of R35 – consistent with adjacent development and an approved subdivision for the land. Public Access Way 247 on DP42137 is not included in this zoning.

Zone the unzoned portion of Lot 324 on DP32503 (No. 399 South Street, Samson) to Residential.

Zone the unzoned portion of Lot 73 on DP40941 (No. 126 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle) to Mixed Use.

Delete ‘Development Plan 16 – Land Previously Reserved in the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the Fremantle Eastern By-Pass’ in its entirety and remove all reference to ‘DP16’ from the Scheme map.

Delete ‘Development Plan 19 – Beaconsfield’ in its entirety and remove all reference to ‘DP19’ from the Scheme map.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/ COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council receive and note the information contained within the officer’s report. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 104


SPC1506-5 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 64 - HILTON LOCAL CENTRE MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PROGRESS UPDATE

DataWorks Reference: 218/071 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1505-2 (13 May 2015) SPC1503-1 (11 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014)

PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014) Attachments: Nil


24 June 2015

Page 105

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a status update on draft Scheme Amendment No. 64 – Hilton Village Centre, following the item’s deferral at the Special Projects Committee and Council meetings in March 2015. A further report on draft Scheme Amendment No. 64 is planned to be presented to the Special Projects Committee and Council in the July or August 2015 meeting cycle. It is recommended that Council note the information presented in this report as an update on preparation of draft Scheme Amendment No. 64. BACKGROUND

On 25 March 2015 draft Scheme Amendment No. 64 was considered by Council for formal initiation, however Council resolved to defer the item pending further advice from officers with regard to a range of matters as outlined below: ‘That consideration of proposed Scheme Amendment No.64 be deferred to the next appropriate Special Projects Committee meeting to enable officers to investigate and provide further advice on the following matters:

a) Retention of dual density provision in the scheme, but with options for revised criteria for development at the higher density, including possible mandatory ground floor uses, and parking arrangements that would not require easements or purchase rights of way;

b) Possibility of greater height on certain larger lots where criteria for higher density

development are satisfied;

c) Revised minimum façade height requirements to ensure at least two storey development to South Street and Carrington Street; and,

d) Possible inclusion of residential properties at 286/288 Carrington Street in

Scheme Amendment. Additionally, prior to reporting back to Special Projects Committee on the above matters, officers should undertake consultation with land owners within the area and with Main Roads WA on controls of the South Street road reservation and public realm improvement opportunities.’ Previous Council Items At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 March 2014 (refer to Council item PSC1403-47 for full background) Council resolved to support the concept of amending Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) to provide for higher density development along South Street. As part of this resolution Council requested further investigation of the potential for existing Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre, Mixed Use and Commercial zones along South Street (including adjacent Residential zoned land) to function as nodes of mixed use higher density development with a substantial residential component.


24 June 2015

Page 106

Subsequently a report presented to Council on 24 September 2014 (refer to Council item SPC1409-03 for full background) identified the Hilton Village Centre as one of three nodal locations where mixed use higher density development should be focused. PLANNING COMMENT

This report provides a status update on the points raised by Council regarding Amendment No. 64 in its resolution of 25 March 2015 as follows:

1. Further consideration of the four specific development control measures addressed within the resolution, i.e.; retention of the dual density provision, possibility of greater building height on certain larger lots, and minimum façade height requirements.

2. Possible inclusion of residential properties at 286/288 Carrington Street. 3. Consultation with landowners and Main Roads WA on the South Street road

reservation and public realm improvements. It is anticipated that a further report to recommend initiation of Scheme Amendment No. 64 for public advertising purposes will be presented to the Special Projects Committee in July or August 2015, subject to the timing of receipt of required information from state government agencies and local landowners relating to point (3) above.

1. Further officer advice on: retention of the dual density provision, possibility of greater height on larger lots, minimum façade height requirements, and possible inclusion of residential properties at 286/288 Carrington Street.

Officers have reviewed these matters and provide the following advice:

Options for revised development controls incorporating retained dual density provisions linked to ground floor uses and parking arrangements will be presented in the next report on this matter for Council’s consideration.

Information regarding density, dwelling yield and building heights is being collated and analysed to ensure proposed density and building heights reflect realistic built form outcomes. This information will be reviewed in unison with feedback received as a result of consultation with landowners within the local centre and immediately adjoining residential properties.

Requirements for minimum building façade heights within the Local Centre will be included within the draft Scheme Amendment No. 64 documentation as part of the next report to Council in July or August this year. Given Council’s indication of its intent to maintain the dual density arrangement within the Hilton Local Centre, inclusion of a development standard requiring a minimum building height requirement is considered imperative to ensure that preferred urban design outcomes will be achieved, irrespective of the density of new development.

2. Possible inclusion of residential properties at 286/288 Carrington Street.

Although the resolution referred to properties at No.286 and 288 Carrington Street, Hilton, it is understood the property actually intended for further consideration for possible inclusion in the scheme amendment is the property located on the north-west corner of South and Carrington Streets – the correct street address of this property is No. 286/288 South Street, White Gum Valley (refer to map below indicating this property).


24 June 2015

Page 107

No. 286 and 288 South Street, White Gum Valley is not on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), Heritage List or within a Heritage Area. However, the property at No. 286 South Street, White Gum Valley is included on the current draft review of the MHI for consideration for inclusion with a Management Category of Level 3, as well as for inclusion on the Heritage List under LPS4. Although further investigation is required, preliminary advice form Heritage Officers indicates that the original Californian Bungalow (1937) should be retained and that the western additions to a portion of the house (constructed between 1953 and 1965) may be considered for demolition. The feasibility of including the property within the scheme amendment with specific provisions to safeguard retention of the original 1937 building will be reported upon by officers as part of the next report to the Special projects Committee on Amendment No. 64 as a whole.

3. Consultation with landowners and Main Roads WA on the South Street road reservation and public realm improvements.

To date officers have met once with representatives from Main Roads WA and Department of Transport (DoT) regarding the South Street road reservation management arrangements and public realm improvements. However to date no firm position on these matters has been expressed on these matters by representatives of the relevant agencies, and further meetings are required, which will also need to involve the Department of Planning, prior to a further report back to Council. Consultation with landowners within the Hilton Local Centre has commenced with stage 1 of a two stage process being completed. Stage 1 included a meeting between City officers, Ward Councillors and landowners to discuss the local centre. However only a small number of landowner representatives attended the meeting. Stage 2 of the consultation, to be undertaken shortly, will involve targeted survey questionnaire correspondence with all landowners seeking feedback on issues discussed at the stage 1 meeting.


24 June 2015

Page 108

CONCLUSION Further to Council’s deferral of Scheme Amendment No. 64 on 25 March 2015, this report provides a status update on the further investigations and other action required by Council prior to initiation of the amendment. It is recommended that Council note the information presented in this report, and further note that officers anticipate presenting a further report to the Special Projects Committee and Council on this matter in July or August 2015. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION /COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That Council note the information presented in this report as an update on progress with the preparation of draft Scheme Amendment No. 64. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 109

SPC1506-3 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - INCLUDE NEW SUB AREAS FOR THE WHITE GUM VALLEY AND BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE AREA INCORPORATING DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR DENSITY INCREASES - INITATION

DataWorks Reference: 218/072 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1505-2 (13 May 2015)

SPC1503-1 (11 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014)

PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014) Attachments: 1. Track changes to current Schedule 12 in LSP4 to show

proposed modifications EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to:

a) Insert a new Sub Area into Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 5 Beaconsfield – Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 5.3 stipulating minimum building height requirements and development controls to meet density bonuses; and

b) Insert a new Sub Area into Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 6 White Gum Valley – Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 6.3 stipulating minimum building height requirements and development controls to meet density bonuses.

The recommendation to initiate this amendment follows from Council’s resolution on 26 March 2014 to support the ‘in principle’ amendments to LPS4 to increase mixed use and residential density on nominated sites along the South Street transit corridor. Subsequently, on 24 September 2014 Council again supported the identification of four specific nodes along South Street transit corridor to implement more intensive mixed use redevelopment at key ‘nodes’. Officers have prepared a draft Scheme Amendment No.65 report for public advertising consistent with Council’s previous resolution on 24 September 2014 for the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre. BACKGROUND

In 2014 the City undertook investigations regarding its ability to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes. At its Ordinary Meeting of 26 March 2014 (refer to Council item PSC1403-47 for full background) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. As part of this resolution, Council


24 June 2015

Page 110

requested further investigation of the potential for existing Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre, Mixed Use and Commercial zones along South Street (including adjacent Residential zoned land) to function as nodes of mixed use high density development with a substantial residential component. Subsequently, a number of specific areas and nodes were identified as suitable for higher density redevelopment and were presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 September 2014. This resolution supported a range of amendments to strategic locations, this report addresses part b) of the resolution: 1. That amendments to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 be prepared for each of the

following locations, for consideration by the Special Projects Committee:

a) Hilton Local Centre zone: i. Prepare a draft scheme amendment to increase density and increase building

height.

b) 199-213 South Street, White Gum Valley and 214-230 South Street, Beaconsfield and surrounding residential area: i. Prepare a draft scheme amendment to increase density, increase

building height and criteria for vehicular access and car parking requirements in the Local Centre zone.

ii. Prepare a draft scheme amendment for residential zoned land adjacent to area (i) for a split density code to achieve a higher density and potential increase in building height, where minimum lot size criteria are met.

c) 234-244 South Terrace, South Fremantle:

i. Prepare a draft scheme amendment to increase density, increase building height and criteria for vehicular access and car parking requirements.

d) 95-109B Hampton Road (corner of South Street), South Fremantle:

i. Prepare a draft scheme amendment to increase density and increase building height where vehicular access and car parking criteria are met.

Council also resolved:

2. That further investigation be undertaken in relation to consideration of a scheme amendment to facilitate more intensive redevelopment of No’s 350-366 South Street & 6-9 Prichard Street, O’Connor for employment-generating land uses consistent with the current zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, and the outcomes be reported back to the next appropriate Special Projects Committee for further consideration.

PLANNING COMMENT This report is the third in a series of reports outlining specific amendments to LPS4 to increase density and outline development standards for specific sites along South Street to facilitate the implementation of the City’s vision for South Street outlined the Council’s resolution of 24 September 2014 above (part 1b).


24 June 2015

Page 111

In line with Council’s resolution, this report recommends the initiation of Scheme Amendment No. 65 to LPS4 to include minimum building height requirements and new development control provisions linked to density and building height increases for the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre and the surrounding residential area.

Figure 1

Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre Existing Planning Framework As shown on Figure 1, the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley centre is currently zoned Local Centre. A residential density of R20/25 applies to land on the northern side of South Street, White Gum Valley and a residential density of R20 applies to land on the southern side of South Street, Beaconsfield. The Local Centre consists of 17 lots with 9 landowners. The local centre has a range of existing land uses including restaurant, café, corner store, retail uses, computer repair, medical premises and a video store. The surrounding urban form is predominately single storey residential dwellings. MRS Primary Regional Road (PRR) Reserve The Metropolitan Region Scheme Primary Regional Road (PRR) reserve runs along South Street from Davis Street, Beaconsfield in the west to Stock Road and beyond in the east. The reserve encroaches approximately ten metres into the front setback of lots fronting South Street. The area of a lot subject to the PRR reserve is un-zoned and has no residential code under LPS4. Local Planning Policy The Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre is identified by Local Planning Policy D.G.W3 South Street Local Centre Local Area. The policy was adopted in 1995 and the modifications proposed as part of Amendment No. 65 would supersede this policy, therefore this report recommends to rescind Local Planning Policy D.G.W3 South Street Local Centre Local Area.


24 June 2015

Page 112

Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 65 The Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre is the second largest of the nodes along the South Street transit corridor identified by Council. The amendment seeks to review density and built form within the Local Centre zone and will also address the surrounding residential area to achieve the preferred built form outcome along the South Street transit corridor. As outlined earlier, the Local Centre straddles the boundary between two suburbs and subsequently the amendment will need to be incorporated into two Schedule 12 Sub-Areas being Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield and Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley. In line with the Council’s resolution of 24 September 2014 officers propose the following amendments to the Scheme:

Insert a new Sub Area into Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 5 Beaconsfield – Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 5.3 stipulating minimum building height requirements and development controls to meet density bonuses; and

Insert a new Sub Area into Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 6 White Gum Valley – Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 6.3 stipulating minimum building height requirements and development controls to meet density bonuses.

Although the amendment involves identical development control changes to the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas the amendment will be outlined in two parts:

a) Minimum building height requirement; and b) New Sub Area development controls and density bonus.

Proposed modifications (a) Minimum Building Height Provision: The amendment proposes to maintain the existing residential density codes for the local centre and residential zones as a base density, but also proposes to include a new requirement that all redevelopment within the Local Centre zone must be developed at a minimum building height of 7 metres which must include two active levels of development fronting South Street. The minimum building height requirement for the Local Centre also referred to as Area A within the sub areas will ensure that even if density targets are not achieved in the centre the preferred urban design outcome for a commercial node along a transit corridor can be achieved. This requirement would be consistent with the intent Council has recently expressed in resolutions relating to other South Street nodes at Hampton Road and the Hilton Local Centre. Proposed modification (b) New Sub Area – Development Controls and Density Bonus: The amendment area currently has two allocated density codes due to the area being located within two suburbs, split by South Street. The proposed amendments have been specifically developed with one set of development controls for the local centre and another set of development controls for the residential area. These have been identified within the Sub Area maps as Area A (Local Centre) and Area B (Residential), refer to


24 June 2015

Page 113

Figure 2 below. Both Area A and B have individual sets of development criteria to be met in order to trigger the capability to develop at an increased density of R80 (Local Centre) or R60 (Residential).

Figure 2

The proposed Amendment No. 65 provides for the opportunity to increase density within the Local Centre from R20/25 and R20 to R80. The amendment aims to provide consistent redevelopment outcomes within the Local Centre in keeping with the City’s vision for the South Street transit corridor. This vision will be implemented via the inclusion of new Sub Area 5.3.1 and new Sub Area 6.3.1 within the LPS4 under Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas. Within these sub areas specific development control criteria are proposed relating to building height and setbacks, vehicle access, as well as activated ground floor frontages and minimum open space requirements. Where these criteria are met, development within the Local Centre zone can be at an R80 density and associated maximum building height of 15 metres, in accordance with the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). In the Residential zoned area, the ability to develop at the proposed higher R60 density would be conditional upon the availability of a minimum site area of 1000 sq m (most likely to be achieved through amalgamation) as well as coordinated access requirements to minimise individual vehicular access points to South Street. These provisions are consistent with the approach endorsed by Council in the previous item on this topic in September 2014 (refer to SPC1409-03). It should also be noted that the proposed inclusion of Sub Area 5.3.1 and Sub Area 6.3.1 map and associated specific development controls are set out below. Furthermore:

only Sub Area 5.3.1 is shown below as these development controls will be replicated for Sub Area 6.3.1; and,

refer to Attachment 1, for the complete track changes to Sub Area 5 – Beaconsfield (only Sub Area 5 track changes are shown in attachment 1 although these will be replicated within Sub Area 6 – White Gum Valley).

5.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS


24 June 2015

Page 114

Sub Area 5.3.1

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying (b) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 5.3.1,

clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 5 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres (including a two activated levels)

applies within Area A. d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the criteria

and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

Area A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1

– Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Residential density R80. Maximum building height as per the Residential Design Codes (refer to 5.3.1 c) for minimum building heights).


24 June 2015

Page 115

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites with

frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be provided at

the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development with

frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads WA has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.

h) Open space can be reduced up to 30%

where development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.


24 June 2015

Page 116

Area B a) The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

i) Vehicle access to development sites with

frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part B above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.

Residential density code R60. Building heights as per the Residential Design Codes.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 5.1 above apply.

CONSULTATION

Should Council resolve to initiate this amendment to the Scheme, it will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment, prior to the commencement of advertising. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. CONCLUSION It is recommended that Council resolve to initiate Amendment No. 65 to LSP4 as described in this report. The amendment allows for redevelopment to trigger density increases in and around the White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield Local Centre, when specific development standards are met to assist in the delivery of the City’s future vision for South Street. This amendment is one in a series of three prepared to give effect to Council’s strategic aim of facilitating higher density development nodes, along South Street. The introduction of development standards to trigger density increases are intended to facilitate more intensive transit-serviced development in this location, having regard to its proximity along a primary public transport corridor. The amendment provides certainty for the existing community, now and into the future, by maintaining existing development controls whilst complementing these with the ability to redevelop at an increased density. Increased density opportunities are only triggered when development provisions relating to building height, vehicular access, building


24 June 2015

Page 117

setbacks, parking layout and site cover are met ensuring redevelopment outcomes are consistent with the City’s preferred built form objectives for the area. Given the local centres location on South Street has been identified by Council as an appropriate node for more intensive mixed use redevelopment, it is considered the proposed planning controls are appropriate to further encourage redevelopment and population growth in this location. Council is therefore recommended to resolve to initiate draft Scheme Amendment No. 65 as set out in the Officer’s recommendation below. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION


1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by replacing Clause 5.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 5.3.1)

b) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 5 - BEACONSFIELD


Sub Area 5.3.1


24 June 2015

Page 118

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 5.3.1,


c) A minimum building height of 7 metres (including two activated levels) applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the

criteria and standards set out in the table below:




Area A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table

1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites

with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be provided

at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.





24 June 2015

Page 119


f) The minimum street setback shall be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.



where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.


b) Vehicle access to development sites




Note: Where the above criteria are not


24 June 2015

Page 120

met, the height requirements in 5.1 above apply.

c) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by replacing Clause 6.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:



d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 6 – WHITE GUM VALLEY


Sub area 6.3.1


Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 6.3.1


c) A minimum building height of 7 metres (including two activated levels)

applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:


24 June 2015

Page 121













f) The minimum street setback shall be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street



24 June 2015

Page 122

setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.








Maximum building height 10 metres. Residential density code R60.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 6.1 of Local Planning Area 6 above apply.

2. Revoke the local planning policy DGW3 South Street Local Centre Area and

publish formal notice of the revocation as per clause 2.5.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 upon final adoption of Amendment No. 65.


24 June 2015

Page 123

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete the wording in Area A e) in both the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local planning areas shown in strikethrough below:

e) In the part of all new development with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

CARRIED: 8/0

For Against


REASON FOR THE CHANGE TO THE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION In order to rectify typographical errors. Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend the residential density in Area A from R80 to R100 in both the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local planning areas. CARRIED: 8/0

For Against


REASON FOR THE CHANGE TO THE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION In order to promote opportunity for greater development yield in these areas.


24 June 2015

Page 124

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to:

1. Amend the residential density in Area B from R60 to R80 in both the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local planning areas; and

2. Amend the wording in Area B in White Gum Valley local planning area to delete ‘Maximum building height 10 metres’ and replace it with ‘Building heights as per the Residential Design Codes’.

LOST: 1/7

For Against

Cr Bill Massie Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to replace Area A h) in both the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local planning areas with the following wording: h) open space can be reduced to 30% where development respects existing or

preferred neighbourhood character. CARRIED: 8/0

For Against


REASON FOR THE CHANGE TO THE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION In order to provide better clarity.


24 June 2015

Page 125

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION











Sub Area 5.3.1

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 5.3.1,



24 June 2015

Page 126


applies within Area A. d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the

criteria and standards set out in the table below:












frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall be



24 June 2015

Page 127

10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.


h) Open space can be reduced to 30%













24 June 2015

Page 128

d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:



Sub area 6.3.1


Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 6.3.1



applies within Area A.






Residential density R100.


24 June 2015

Page 129








frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.



Maximum building height as per the Residential Design Codes (refer to 6.3.1 c) for minimum building heights).


24 June 2015

Page 130

h) Open space can be reduced to 30% where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.





Maximum building height 10 metres. Residential density code R60.




SECONDED: Cr D Coggin Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Committee Recommendation to: Part 1b):

i) Delete the wording “Building heights as per the Residential Design Codes” from the table under Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield in the section referring to Area B and replace with the following wording: The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 6.0 metres and 9.0 metres respectively. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 15.0 metres but more than 5.0 metres from the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 9.0 metres and 12.0 metres respectively. In any other part of Area B the maximum external wall and roof ridge heights shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes.


24 June 2015

Page 131

Part 1d):

i) Delete the wording “Maximum building height 10 metres” from the table under Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley in the section referring to Area B and replace with the following wording: The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 6.0 metres and 9.0 metres respectively. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 15.0 metres but more than 5.0 metres from the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 9.0 metres and 12.0 metres respectively. In any other part of Area B the maximum external wall and roof ridge heights shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes.


For Against


Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Committee Recommendation to:

Amend the residential density in Area B from R60 to R80 in both the Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local planning areas;

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson


24 June 2015

Page 132

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION











Sub Area 5.3.1


24 June 2015

Page 133

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

5.3.1, clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 5 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres (including two activated levels) applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:




Area A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development



24 June 2015

Page 134

frontages to South Street. Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites


c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall be

10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.


where development respects


24 June 2015

Page 135

existing or preferred neighbourhood character.





Residential density code R80. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 6.0 metres and 9.0 metres respectively. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 15.0 metres but more than 5.0 metres from the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 9.0 metres and 12.0 metres respectively. In any other part of Area B the maximum external wall and roof ridge heights shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes.






d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:



24 June 2015

Page 136


Sub area 6.3.1


Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

6.3.1 clause 6.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 6 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres (including two activated

levels) applies within Area A.





Area A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to

Residential density R100. Maximum building height as per the Residential Design Codes (refer to 6.3.1 c) for minimum


24 June 2015

Page 137

ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.



c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.


Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.




building heights).


24 June 2015

Page 138






Residential density code R80. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 6.0 metres and 9.0 metres respectively. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 15.0 metres but more than 5.0 metres from the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 9.0 metres and 12.0 metres respectively. In any other part of Area B the maximum external wall and roof ridge heights shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes.





24 June 2015

Page 139


For Against



24 June 2015

Page 140

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 17 JUNE 2015

Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SGS1506-4,SGS1506-5,SGS1506-7, SGS1506-9, SGS1506-12 AND SGS1506-14. SECONDED: Cr S Naber CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


The following item number SGS1506-4 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SGS1506-4 PROPOSED SALE OF 73 HAMPTON ROAD

ECM Reference: 159/004, 161/006, 049/004 Property 73 Hampton Road,

Fremantle Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: SGS 1312-11, SGS1404-5, SGS1406-20 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Confidential Attachment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This item is for Council to consider approval to sell 73 Hampton Road, Fremantle (Lot 5 on Plan 571, Volume 2019, Folio 876), which was purchased in July 2014 to allow for drainage works to be undertaken at the site.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 28 May 2013 Council resolved to the purchase of 73 Hampton Road, Fremantle to allow for remedial drainage issues caused by a low point adjacent to the property.


24 June 2015

Page 141

The purchase allowed for a permanent solution to the flooding issues that had been occurring at the property. The City was alerted to drainage issues by the previous owner in January 2011, referring to flooding damage from a major storm event in March 2010. Further occurrences were noted in 2012 and 2013, and City officers worked with the owner to try and deliver a solution to the problem. Extra maintenance for the gully was undertaken in 2013 and a berm was installed at the property line to avert storm water. These measures were only partly successful. To provide an alternative solution, the City engaged engineering drainage consultants to design drainage plans to handle storm water at this trapped low point to avoid excessive flooding into the property. The recommended design involved work in three stages. However, because of the presence of significant utility infrastructure in the verge and footpath areas, the main drainage improvements would have had to be installed within the road pavement. With the proposed work to have been completed under the road pavement, there would have been significant disruption to traffic on what is a major distributor road within Fremantle, and this would have also increased any proposed project cost. Combined with the high possibility of encountering rocky outcrops under the surface, the proposed works were considered to be too expensive and too risky and were not undertaken. A lower risk option that provided the area with an overflow soakage area in the rear court yard and reinstatement of the driveway was the most cost effective solution. In order to achieve this, it was necessary that the City purchase 73 Hampton Road. Following the purchase of the property in July 2014, remedial works were completed in late November 2014 with five soak wells being installed within the rear court yard. City Officers have monitored the works during recent rain periods and there has been no evidence of flooding to the yard or house with the drainage working to the required standard.

COMMENT

The City purchased 73 Hampton Road, Fremantle through the finance of a loan with the sale of the property to cover the expense of this debt. As City Officers are content that the works undertaken at the property are sufficient to ensure no further flooding, it is proposed that the City proceed with sale. To ensure that the City is not put in such a position again with these premises the City will undertake the lodgement of a Restrictive Covenant and Easement on the Certificate of Title at the time of settlement. A Restrictive Covenant will set out the limitations of development of the property, in this case restricting the court yard from being landscaped or developed in any way other than to maintain the current drainage and soak wells. Although the City has statutory powers to carry out works for drainage on private land under the Local Government Act the City is still required to obtain consent of the owner or occupier of the land before entering to undertake works. A drainage Easement in favour of the City being registered to the Certificate of Title would provide the City with


24 June 2015

Page 142

the power to access the land in pursuant to section 195 of the Land Administration Act for access to maintain the drainage. The property is an older home and shows some signs of the water damage that has occurred, that includes areas where the floorboards have lifted or moved slightly due to moisture levels and visual signs to rising damp in the walls. Given the property was purchased by way of loan and the City has financed drainage works on the site it would be a condition of sale that the property is sold in an “as is” condition so that no further financial contribution to the property is expected by the City. Given that this is a residential property it is recommended that the process of sale be by public auction which is in line with the Local Government Act 1995 with the following being the proposed conditions of sale;

a) The property is sold in an “as is” condition. b) 10% deposit of purchase price will be paid within 30 days of successful bid, c) Settlement will occur within 60 days of deposit acceptance. d) A Restrictive Covenant will be lodged against the Certificate of Title at Settlement e) An Easement will be lodged against the Certificate of Title at Settlement.


Financial

The Reserve Price is to be 5% less than the determined independent market valuation under the confidential attachment (Direct Comparison Approach). 5% being consideration of the current market conditions that sees prices fluctuating on a general downward cycle. The draft 2015/16 budget provides for the sale of this property and settlement of the loan used to finance the purchase. Municipal funds have been included in the budget to account for the difference in purchase of the property and the funds to be received from sale. Legal

Local Government act 1995 – Under section 3.58 of the Act disposal must be undertake by way of public auction or public tender. The Reserve price must also be determined by an independent market valuation. Land Transaction Act – The City will lodge a Restrictive Covenant and Easement to the Title of the property at Settlement Operational

An agent will be appointed based on the selection from no less than three quotations. Funds from the sale of the property will be used to payout the loan used to purchase the property. Organisational

Nil


24 June 2015

Page 143

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the purchase of 73 Hampton Road, Fremantle was to enable the drainage issues to be resolved and ensure that the flooding issue was not repeated. The Restrictive Covenant and Easement will be advertised as a condition of sale and lodged at settlement to ensure that the City will be able to re-enter the premises should any further drainage issues occur without the need to repurchase the premises. Should Council agree to sell the premises by Public Auction, the Reserve price will be determined by the independent market valuation under the confidential attachment with Delegated Authority approved to the Chief Executive Officer to accept the bid equal or higher than adopted Reserve price. If no bids are equal or higher than the Reserve price any offers received will be submitted to Council for consideration.


Nil


Advertisement of this Land Disposal will be undertake in line with the Local Government Act 1995 by public notice giving the community fourteen days in which to lodge any objections to the transaction.


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approves; 1. The sale of 73 Hampton Road, Fremantle (Lot 5 on Plan 571, Volume 2019,

Folio 876) by way of Public Auction under the following conditions;

a) The property is sold in an “as is” condition. b) 10% deposit of purchase price will be paid within 30 days of successful bid, c) Settlement will occur within 60 days of deposit acceptance. d) A Restrictive Covenant will be lodged against the Certificate of Title at

Settlement e) An Easement will be lodged against the Certificate of Title at Settlement.

2. Adoption of the Reserve sales price to be 5% less than the determined

independent market valuation under the confidential attachment (Direct


24 June 2015

Page 144

Comparison Approach) to the June, 2015 Strategic and General Services agenda papers.

3. Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer to accept an Offer equal or

higher to the adopted Reserve price. SECONDED: Cr S Naber CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 145


SGS1506-5 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT TAPPER STREET MEWS - CO OPERATION HOUSING

DataWorks Reference: 023/006, 023/050, 038/036 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: TFC1209-1SGS1209-10;T1305-1;SGS1310-3;

SGS1401-3; SGS1403-1; SGS1404-7 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Management Agreement – Tapper Street Mews

Confidential Attachment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tapper Street Mews, which consist of 11 x 1 bedroom units for affordable accommodation managed under the Retirement Village Act 1992, were offered for sale by expression of interest expiring 18 September 2013. No proposals received from the Expression of Interest were equal or above the adopted reserve price so none were accepted. The City then received one formal offer to purchase which was equal to the market sales valuation from Catina Pty Ltd. At the 23 April 2013 Ordinary Council Meeting the following was resolved;

That Council;

1. Reject the Offer to purchase received from Catina Pty Ltd on 25 October

2014. 2. Approve Chief Executive Officer Delegated Authority to enter into a Legal

Agreement with Co Operation Housing for the management of Tapper Street Mews for transition to a rental housing cooperative for a three (3) year period with first right of refusal to acquire ownership at the expiry of the three (3) years.

In conjunction with Co Operation Housing (CoH) City Officers have drafted a Management Authority for the management of the Tapper Street units for a three (3) year period with the inclusion of a first right of refusal to purchase the premises at the adopted market valuation that was considered for the Sale of the site. The purpose of this item is to seek Council approval for the first right of refusal for purchase of the site and the draft Management Authority.


24 June 2015

Page 146

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle Trust Fund Committee resolved at its meeting on Wednesday 8 August 2012 that Tapper Street Mews, subject to legal advice, was to be sold to Access Housing. Ten (10) of the units at Tapper Street Mews have lease for life tenancies that operate under the Retirement Village Act 1992. The remaining unit has a residential lease. After investigating the financial viability of developing the site under these agreements, Access Housing informed the City that they had reconsidered their proposal for the property and no longer intended to proceed with the purchase. A recommendation was put to the Trust Fund Committee at its meeting on 8 May 2013 advising of Access Housings withdrawal and a resolution was made for the Trust Fund Committee to proceed to offer the Tapper Street Mews site for sale as a retirement village. The property was then put on the market for sale by expression of interest with the closing date being 18 September 2013. Four submissions were received all of which were under market valuation. None of these were accepted by Council. One perspective purchaser has since submitted a formal offer to the City equal to the market sales valuation which was put to Council for approval 29 January 2014. Council resolution was to defer the item until the next appropriate Strategic and General Services Committee meeting and for City officers to make contact with not for profit housing providers to gauge their interest in the property. A list of registered not for profit housing providers was obtained from the Department of Housing and those organisations with business models in which Tapper Street Mews would fit were invited to contact the City if they had interest in the property. Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on Wednesday 12 March 2014 to support City officers to continue to liaise with not for profit organisations until 4.00 pm on 4 April 2014. Of the 15 organisations contacted, one business proposal was received from Co Operation Housing (COH) on 4 April 2014 which was accepted by Council, giving Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a legal agreement with Co Operation Housing for the management of Tapper Street Mews for a three year period with a first right of refusal to acquire ownership at the end of that term. The City and COH has continued to liaise for an extended period of time since the Council’s resolution, prior to the drafting of an agreement to allow COH to fine-tune their concept for management of Tapper Street Mews and the plan to transfer the current management to a sustainable cooperative model.

COMMENT

COH's business model focuses on rental housing cooperatives by supporting and developing self-managed residential communities. The business proposal submitted by COH for Tapper Street Mews proposes a use of these principals.


24 June 2015

Page 147

The organisation has acknowledged that the property in its current state is not financially viable and proposes a transition to COH’s management principles over a period of three years. The aim is to make the property both financially stable and socially active. In addition to the management authority City Officers have negotiated a first right of refusal for CoH to purchase the property at any stage within the three year term of the agreement at the value of the independent market valuation which was adopted by Council as Reserve price on the property. The three year management of the site is proposed as follows; COH assumes responsibility for;

Rent collection of all new tenancies

Tenancy management

Tenancy consultation and management

New resident selection

Reactive and scheduled maintenance within the budget constraints

Capital Works and Renovations within budget constraints and subject to Council approval

Payment of property insurance premiums, council rates, electricity and water rates

Reporting and compliance under the Retirement Village Act 1992 (WA) and the Residential Tenancy Act 1987 (WA)

Staged transition to the rental cooperative housing model The City of Fremantle would;

Retain title to the land under the Retirement Village Act 1992 (WA)

Transfer the premium and rental payments to COH on a monthly basis to assume responsibility for reactive and scheduled maintenance.

Negotiate with COH on a mutually agreed arrangement for capital maintenance of the complex over a three year term, this will be based on the City asset grading process.

Responsibility for all structural maintenance.

Contribute payment to cover property insurance premiums, council rates and water rates under the annual budget.

Retain the Tapper Street Mews complex as affordable housing within the City of Fremantle.

Tapper Street Mews has been running at a loss under the current model with the City being required to add funds to the budget to ensure necessary compliance. CoH is a not for profit organisation with no financial backing to be able to contribute to these costs other than the funds provided by the premiums and rent collected from the units. To ensure a transfer to the COH affordable housing model the City will be required to contribute to the annual budget over the term of the management authority until the budget is feasible. Constraints have been placed within the draft management authority to enable the City to terminate the agreement should the City feel that the management is not in the best practice of the budget constraints or being mismanaged in any way. Additionally the City


24 June 2015

Page 148

will retain the management of the full premiums with only payment of monthly collected rent and premiums transferred to COH for the management of the village budget. COH have been fundamental in the adoption of the new 2015/16 budget which has now been submitted to the residents of Tapper Street units. This ensures that with the goal being COH to take on the management of the village by approximately 1 August 2015 the first parameters to make the property financial stable under their business model has occurred. Although the first right of refusal has been added to the draft Management Authority it has been discussed with the City’s Legal advisors and COH that a separate “First Right of Refusal” document be entered into given that COH has requested the sales figure, which is equal to the independent market valuation originally adopted by Council prior to advertisement for sale by public tender, be documented at the commencement of the Management Authority. Secondly, COH would also like to document that the City will be in support of the future removal of the memorial and caveats from the Certificate of Title to allow the property to be no longer be under the constraints of the Retirement Village Act and allow for a more comprehensive affordable housing model. Late last year the City received a letter of termination from the tenant of Unit 4, who has now vacated the premises due to illness. With this termination, two units at Tapper Street are vacant. The City has advised the current managing agents, Village Solutions, not to source new tenants due to the proposed transfer to COH.

City Officers and COH have viewed the vacant units which are in need of remedial works. It has been requested by COH that to enable them to offer the properties for Lease the City undertake some basic works on both units which will include painting, new carpet, window coverings and a minor revamp to the kitchens. The cost of these works has been estimated at $40,000 which has been included as a new initiative in the 2015/16 budget for approval.

Given that the City retains ownership of the property it is the responsibility as landlord to ensure that the units are tenantable to allow COH the opportunity to operate to financial capacity under their purposed business plan.

The draft Management Authority is in its last stages of being finalised with the document currently being reviewed by the COH Board. Although there may be still some minor amendments necessary the fundamentals of the document have been agreed to by COH and City Officers.

Financial

The proposal received from Co Operation Housing is to assume responsibility for management over a three year period with the first right of refusal. The City would retain responsibility for certain capital works, maintenance to structural aspects of the buildings, any expenditure beyond the constraints of the adopted managing budget and other landlord costs. As the model proposed by Co Operation Housing differs from the current management of the retirement village the City will monitor, under the terms of the Management Authority, the expenditure of the budget.


24 June 2015

Page 149

The agreement with COH under the “First Right of Refusal” also allows the City to gain the same financial return than if the Council had sold the property on the open market whilst still maintaining an affordable housing component. Legal

Any management agreement between the City and Co Operation Housing must comply with the Retirement Village Act 1992 and Residential Tenancy Act 1987 (WA) and the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (WA) The managing body must also comply to the Fair Trading (Retirement Villages Interim Code) Regulations 2014. Operational

The City currently has an external company managing the retirement village on a monthly authority with maintenance and scheduled servicing controlled by the City’s Technical Services Directorate and the financial aspects including the tenancy premiums, collection of rent and budget controls maintained by the City’s Finance Department. Under the terms of the Management Authority with Co Operation Housing, The City’s Finance Department will transfer monthly collections of the rent and monthly premiums to COH and approve the submitted budgets from COH every financial year. The Technical Services Directorate will continue control any capital, structural or replacement costs for the property with all reactive, scheduled and emergency maintenance to be undertaken by COH. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The COH proposal requests a three year period to implement a self-managed residential community. The time frame will allow Co Operation Housing to attempt to make the property viable prior to the possibility of acquisition from the City under a first right of refusal. The agreement between the City and COH must be a management authority to comply with the Retirement Village Act 1992 (WA) and Residential Tenancy Act (WA). A second legal agreement by way of a “First Right of Refusal” with the basic terms of agreed purchase price and City’s approval for removal of any caveats and memorials from the site when no person under a retirement village agreement resides on the site will allow security for both the City and Cooperation Housing.


Nil


24 June 2015

Page 150


Tapper Street Mews tenants have been engaged in the negotiating of the transfer to the Cooperation Housing Model.


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: CR A SULLIVAN That Council Approve;

1. The draft Management Authority between the City of Fremantle and Co Operation Housing for Tapper Street Mews.

2. Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise and approve

any amendments to the Management Authority prior to it being executed by both the City of Fremantle and Co Operation Housing.

3. Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a Legal

Document with Co Operation Housing under the title of “First Right of Refusal” which will include;

a. Purchase price as determined by the original independent market

valuation; and b. An obligation by the City to approve and support the removal of any

Caveats from the Certificate of Title should Co Operation Housing wish to remove the Memorial from the property and no longer operate under the Retirement Village Act 1992.

SECONDED: Cr S Naber CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 151


SGS1506-7 EXTERNAL CONSERVATION WORKS TO FREMANTLE TOWN HALL, 8 WILLIAM STREET FREMANTLE

DataWorks Reference: 214/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Heritage Project Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The exterior of the historic Fremantle Town Hall building is in need of urgent conservation work to arrest the rapid rate of deterioration occurring due to water penetration. It has now been almost thirty years since the last major capital expenditure on the building and key elements such as the roof cladding and rainwater goods need to be replaced before winter 2016. Problems caused by inappropriate surface treatments and repairs to masonry elements carried out in the1950s - 60s when there was little understanding of how to conserve traditional building fabric, also need to be addressed to prevent ongoing deterioration of masonry, embedded steel and timbers and decorative stucco work. Between 2013 and 2015 City officers prepared a conservation management strategy to guide the conservation of the Fremantle Town Hall. This report, which included advice from structural and hydraulic engineers and a quantity surveyor, recommended a costed list of works and options for how these works should be packaged up into projects for tendering for documentation and construction. This report focused on the conservation of the exterior of the building partly because of the Council’s plan to reconfigure the accommodation in the Town Hall in conjunction with the larger plan to build a new Administrative Centre and Library but predominantly because it follows a logical sequence of work to minimise water penetration through the external skin of a building before commencing internal refurbishment that could be damaged by moisture. The conservation strategy recommended that all identified external conservation works be carried out as one project. A preliminary estimate of probable costs (calculated 2014) for this work is $2,600.000 excluding GST and consultant fees. Consultant fees could be in the order of $260,000 bringing the total figure to approximately $2,860,000. This is significantly more than is available in the $2,000,000 reserve funds for the Town Hall. Therefore options for staging the works are identified in this report, although it should be noted that dividing the project into stages would result in considerable extra cost for setup and site establishment, especially as scaffolding is a major cost element and the works could cause considerable disruption in central Fremantle.


24 June 2015

Page 152

BACKGROUND 1887 Fremantle Town Hall constructed.

Today the exterior of the town hall looks much as it did in 1887 except: the rendered exterior was unpainted

- the exuberant roofscape of turrets and mansard roofs was clad with slate with cast iron finals rather than terracotta tiles as now

1960s Major refurbishment of Town Hall undertaken in conjunction with construction of new Administrative Buildings and relocation of council offices

- Most roof slates replaced with terracotta tiles (except to Tower) - Original corrugated galvanised iron sheeting replaced with Super 6

Fibrolite asbestos sheeting - Exterior of building completely painted for first time

1970s Heritage significance of Fremantle Town Hall recognised in 1974 by the National Trust and then in 1978 by the Australian Heritage Commission.

1985 First Conservation Plan prepared 1986-7 Conservation and refurbishment works carried out, including:

- Replacement of asbestos roof sheeting with Zincalume Custom Orb - Triangular courtyard covered with a glazed roof

1993 Fremantle Town Hall included on the State Register of Heritage Places 1996 Town Hall repainted with lime wash, however this provided little benefit to the

masonry as earlier layers of plastic paints were not removed first. 2004 Conservation plan updated – it contained a list of urgent conservation works to

be carried out within two years (by 2006) and included: - Repair roof cladding and rainwater goods to make building watertight - Repair and paint all timber joinery - Commission Structural engineer to investigate building structure - Commission hydraulic engineer to investigate if capacity of rainwater

disposal system was adequate This report also reiterated the earlier reports recommendations to: - Reinstate slate cladding and decorative cast iron elements to roofs - Remove paint on rendered façade and reinstate original finish

2007 Unsuccessful grant application to Lotterywest for funding to carry out urgent works listed in conservation plan. Project stalls.

2010 Clock tower condemned due to concerns about the ability of some floors to support a person. (These concerns have now been proven to be unfounded.)

2012 Mansard roof damaged in winter storm and loose tiles blow off into William Street causing a significant public safety hazard and allowing rain in to building where it damages ceiling linings and wall cladding. Urgent repair works carried out and loose tiles refixed.

2013 Successful application to Lotterywest for grant to fund urgent conservation works. Lotterywest agreed to contribute $75,000 to conservation work to make the roof watertight. The City then set aside $85,000 in their budget for these works bringing the project budget to $160,000.

2013 Investigative process commenced to developing a scope of works and commission a heritage architect to document the works. Investigations hampered by lack of safe access within tower and onto main roof. Clock Tower has been ‘condemned’ due to concerns about the structural integrity of the ladders and platforms.

2014 Ladders, handrails etc inside clock tower upgraded to allow consultants and contractors controlled access to tower and turret and out onto the main roof.


24 June 2015

Page 153

2014 Investigations discover that further deterioration of some elements has occurred since 2004 conservation plan requiring the revision of the scope of works from maintenance and repairs to large capital works including the replacement of roof cladding and rainwater goods. For this reason a Conservation Management Strategy report was prepared to take a holistic look at the exterior of the building to understand its condition and provide a prioritised and costed list of works. 2014 – 15 Budget included: - $400,000 for roof replacement which was taken from the $2 million reserve

funds for the Fremantle Town Hall. This money was not spent. - $165,000 for urgent conservation works to the roof - made up of the

$75,000 Lotterywest grant plus $85,000 of City funds. Of this money approximately $35,000 has been spent on consultant reports, $25,000 on the provision of safe access within the tower to allow inspection by consultants and contractors and $20,000 is to be carried over for investigations into paint removal, render and mortar composition, cast iron column conservation and render removal. None of the $75,000 grant money has been drawn down as this can only be spent on construction works. Lotterywest have been informed of the evolution of the scope of this project and have been supportive in our approach to the conservation of this historic building.

DETAIL THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REPORT, 2014 Purpose This report was prepared in 2014 to provide a holistic overview of the current condition of the building and a strategy to conserve it for the enjoyment of future generations. This report type is being developed by City officers as a useful tool to reduce the uncertainties associated with conservation works that occur because it is difficult to assess the true condition of the building until opening up works begin on site. The intention is to bring together consultant advice, targeted investigations and opening up works, chemical testing of samples and specialist advice from tradesmen and suppliers to gain a better understanding of how the building was constructed, the condition of the building, the cause of deterioration, and the type of conservation work that will be required plus time frames and costs. This information will be useful for documenting, programming and financial planning for future works and will limit some of the delays and expense of managing unforseen works during the construction phase. This is particularly important when projects must be carried out within a financial year for budgetary reasons. Based on recent experience with heritage projects carried out on City owned buildings it is clear that there would be great benefit from carrying out this preliminary investigative stage in the financial year preceding the works. For this reason we are working towards establishing a two stage process for the management of heritage buildings:

1. Understand the place – prepare a conservation management strategy report 2. Manage change – carry out specific projects defined by CMS


24 June 2015

Page 154

We are following this approach in the Town Hall project and also another small project at the Fremantle Boys School, which focuses on the masonry construction of the building and the subtle differences expressed in the various eras of development. Scope The conservation management strategy is intended to take a holistic look at the exterior of the town hall to address long term issues with water penetration, damp and deterioration of building fabric which is adversely affecting the building structure and the use and presentation of the interior and exterior of the town hall. The strategy does not directly address the conservation of the interior of the building or the back wall adjoining the existing Administrative Building as the future use of these areas is currently being investigated as part of the new Civic Library and Administration Building project. Instead work focuses on establishing a sensible sequence of conservation works that involves minimising water penetration and allowing walls to breathe and moisture to evaporate from external face of the building and not the interior. These works will help protect future internal conservation and refurbishment works and/ or provide useful accommodation for the period when the new building is being constructed. Key findings of the Conservation Management Strategy Report

1. Structural members are beginning to be affected by water ingress and while deterioration is not yet a cause for concern, the structural engineer has highlighted the need for urgent work to prevent water penetration into the building as if left unchecked damage will begin to escalate rapidly and cause structural damage.

2. The roof drainage system needs to be redesigned. While capacity of most

elements (except guttering to courtyard roof) is adequate, a lack of overflow points to cope with unexpected blockages (shoes, balls, dead birds) and extreme weather events has resulted in regular flooding and water damage. There are also areas where changes (c. 1980s) in roof geometry have led to tortuous gutter routes and areas of roof that do not drain.

3. Mid-century tiled roofs are performing poorly – especially the mansard roof to

the former Caretaker’s Quarters and need to be replaced. This is due to:

- poor construction (lack of sarking, flashings etc), - inappropriate materials choice

o the tile units are too large for the intricate geometry of the roofs

o some roof pitches are less than recommended for tiles

- deterioration of tile fixing (rusted wire ties and broken terracotta lugs) causing tile to slip down the roof or be blown off in high winds

The loose tiles are a major concern for public safety. In 2012 tiles blew off the roof onto the William Street footpath but luckily no one was hurt. Repair works were undertaken following this event to secure tiles but since then there have been further slippages on other faces of the mansard roof.


24 June 2015

Page 155

4. As recommended by the Conservation Plan 1985/2004, the slate roof cladding and decorative cast iron finials to the turrets and mansard roof of the Fremantle Town Hall should be reinstated. Similar projects have recently been successfully undertaken at St Georges Cathedral and the Treasury Buildings in Perth.

5. Corrugated zincalume roof sheeting (c. 1980s) is in poor condition in places and should be replaced with galvanised steel sheeting to replicate the original corrugate galvanised iron. This work will require the temporary removal and reinstallation of the solar panels on the auditorium roof. The corrugated metal sheeting should be replaced at the same time as the slate roofs because of the interconnectedness of the roofs and rainwater drainage systems and the need to avoid issues with bi-metallic corrosion.

6. The flat lead roof of the clock tower is leaking badly and water is running down

the inside face of the walls. Leaking is due to the poor design of the roof access hatch, failing joints in the lead sheeting, rusting balustrade fixings and the deteriorating flagpole and flagpole flashing.

7. The clock tower has the only remaining slate roof on the building. Some of

these 125 year old slates have been replaced but the condition of the remainder is difficult to assess as the exterior is inaccessible and the interior is lined with timber boards. Today suppliers give slate a 100 year life but obviously there are plenty of far older examples in Europe. What is known is that the fixings, flashings and accessories tend to fail first so while the tower slates may be in reasonable condition; their fixings may need to be renewed. Close inspection will not be possible until a scaffold has been installed.

8. Moisture and salt trapped in the solid masonry walls by plastic paints are

causing the following problems: a. Rusting of steel lintels, embedded structural steel and decorative iron

portico columns b. Damp and deteriorating plaster on inner faces of some walls c. Fretting of bricks on the inner face of the clock tower

Work on other City owned heritage buildings suggest that it is likely that the paint on the exterior of the town hall will also be concealing damage and deterioration in the following areas:

d. The tops of projecting cornices, pediments and parapet copings e. the backs of parapets f. decorative mouldings and embellishments – iron nails used in the

construction of these elements rust and expand causing them to fail

9. In accordance with good conservation practice, all plastic paints and cement patching to the external face of the walls of the Fremantle Town Hall needs to be removed and the render surface conserved to allow the walls to breathe. For further detail refer to attachments.

10. Removing the modern paint and conserving the original render finish of the

Fremantle Town Hall will not only improve the presentation of the place but will help enhance Fremantle’s unique character. This work will also contribute to


24 June 2015

Page 156

the revitalization of Kings Square and compliment the proposed new Civic Library and Administrative Centre.

11. Timber joinery is deteriorating due to a lack of maintenance and painting.

Works are urgently required to prevent the loss of significant fabric.

12. The replacement of the roof cladding provides the opportunity to upgrade the roof access system to encourage regular maintenance inspections and work to gutters, timber joinery, glass roof, flagpoles

13. The clock tower windows (dials) need to be re-glazed as they have cracks and

holes. The repair of these windows could provide the opportunity to service the clock mechanism, which is long overdue.

14. The glass courtyard roof (1987) is leaking causing slip hazards in the

courtyard. By modern standards the roof also has poor environmental performance but improving ventilation and using high performance solar glass could improve this.

PRIORITY OF WORKS AND PROGRAMMING FOR GREATER EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS Priority of works All external conservation works identified in the conservation management strategy are urgent. These works include (in no particular order):

1. Make roofs water tight

- replace roof cladding, flashings etc - upgrade rainwater disposal system

- remove redundant services and limit number of roof penetrations - make all roof penetrations watertight and remove redundant services

2. Structural repairs recommended by engineer 3. Reduce water penetration through walls

- repair cracks - repair parapets and projecting elements to shed water away from building - make windows watertight, especially to clock tower

4. Remove plastic paints to allow masonry walls to breathe so entrapped moisture and salts can escape. Conserve deteriorated masonry elements such as to parapets, copings, projecting cornices, decorative detail. Minimise water penetration of walls to a level that can be handled by natural evaporation.

5. Repair and repainting of timber joinery. NOTE: Internal conservation works, repainting of auditorium and courtyard etc should not be carried out until the above works are completed or there will be a risk of these works being damaged by moisture and damp. Programming The conservation strategy concluded that the highest priority works were those that minimised water penetration of the exterior of the building such as the replacement of the roof cladding to the tower and main building, redesign and replacement of the rainwater goods and repair and maintenance of the timber joinery and clock faces. The next level


24 June 2015

Page 157

of priority included removing cement renders and plastic paints to allow the walls to breathe, and conserving the stucco finish to the facades, the iron columns to the portico and timber flagpoles. However, all of these works are necessary before internal work can be commenced. As the erection of scaffolding was identified as a major expense and cause of public disruption in this project and because all recommended works have a high level of urgency, it would be most cost effective and efficient if the works were grouped according to area. In other words, when scaffolding was erected to replace the roof cladding, all masonry items accessible from the scaffold should also be conserved too. For this reason the works were grouped into three areas:

1. Roof replacement and high level masonry and joinery conservation a. Complete replacement of the existing roof cladding including the

reinstatement of the original slate roof and cast iron finials to the turrets and mansard roof and areas of soft zinc cladding

b. Replacement of all rainwater goods and upgrading the capacity of the system to cope with extreme weather events

c. Conservation of parapets, chimneys, mansard roof joinery and flagpoles 2. Tower and Portico conservation

a. Conservation/ replacement of slate roof to tower as well as flat soft zinc roof, wrought iron balustrade and flagpole

b. Conservation works to the glazed clock dials and clock mechanism c. Removal of paint and conservation of stucco facades and decorative

details such as pediments, swans, urns and swags d. Conservation of metal items including columns to base of portico

3. Courtyard and Façade conservation a. Repair and painting off all external joinery - doors, windows, flagpoles etc b. Removal of plastic paint on all masonry to allow walls to breathe and

reinstate original finish, texture and colour of facades Project Costs and Staging OPTION 1 Based on a consideration of the urgency of the works, efficient working methods, cost minimisation and disruption to the CBD the Conservation Management Strategy Report recommended that all the recommended works be carried out as one large project. As a part of this report schematic drawings were prepared to describe the recommended works and these were used by a Quantity Surveyor to prepare a preliminary estimate of probable cost for carrying out all works as one large project. Refer to appendix for Quantity Surveyor’s Report and a more detailed breakdown but note that these figures cannot be treated as a shopping list as many costs and works are interlinked. Estimate Summary for all recommended works (figures exclude GST, escalation costs)

Tower $500,000 Facades $600,000 Main Roof $1,100,000 Design and construction contingency $400,000 SUB TOTAL $2,600,000


24 June 2015

Page 158

Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $260,000 TOTAL $2,860,000

The recommended works can be staged but this will have a number of implications:

- Increased costs due to reduced quantities of scale

- Increased costs to set up site and erect and take down scaffolding several times - Increased time when public use of Kings Square and William Street will be affected - Increased time until internal repairs/ refurbishments can be carried out to Town Hall - Reduced visual impact on the presentation of Kings Square Following the receipt of these figures the Quantity Surveyor was asked to provide costs to break the project into three stages, Tower, Facades and Main Roof. Using these figures several scenarios were prepared for staging the project. OPTION 2 Carry out the recommended works as a two stage project focussing first on the main part of the building (roof and facades) and then the clock tower. This scenario, while not as efficient as Option 1, has the following benefits compared to Options 3 and 4:

- Scaffold for the main part of the building will only be erected once

- Period of disruption to Kings Square and Town Hall reduced - Exterior of main building conserved first to allow conservation and

refurbishment of interior to be commenced earlier.

- Greater visual impact as walls and roof completed together (however there will be a period when the tower does not match main building)

The risk associated with this scenario is that the second stage of works to the tower will be delayed resulting in deterioration of the tower and possible structural issues. Estimate summary for Option 2 (figures exclude GST, escalation costs)

STAGE 1 – Main Roof and facades to William and High Streets Main Roof and Facades $1,750,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $315,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $206,500 Total for main roof and facades $2,271,500 STAGE 2 – Tower Tower $500,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $90,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $59,000 Total for Tower $649,000 TOTAL FOR 2 STAGES $2,920,500

OPTION 3 This option focusses on making all roofs watertight as the first priority to reduce the risk associated with deterioration of roof structure. While it is good conservation practice to start with the roof and work down, this scenario has some negative outcomes:

- Greater cost for scaffold to main building to be erected and taken down twice - Greater disruption to public areas in Kings Square and William Street


24 June 2015

Page 159

- Increased time before internal repairs and refurbishments can be carried out Estimate summary for Option 3 (figures exclude GST, escalation costs)

STAGE 1 – Main Roof and Tower Main Roof and Tower $1,750,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $315,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $206,500 Total for main roof and tower $2,271,500 STAGE 2 – Facades Facades $650,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $117,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $76,700 Total for Facades $843,700 TOTAL FOR 2 STAGES $3,115,200

OPTION 4 Carry out the recommended works as a three stage project. While this scenario has financial benefits in spreading the costs over a greater period of time, the extension of time will also increase many of the negative outcomes associated with Option 3, such as:

- Greater cost due to scaffold being erected and taken down twice

- Greater disruption to Kings Square and William Street - Increased time before internal repairs and refurbishments can be carried out - Inceaced time before urgent conservation works are addressed

Estimate summary for OPTION 4 (figures exclude GST, escalation costs)

STAGE 1 – Main Roof Main Roof $1,250,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $225,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $147,500 Total for main roof $1,622,500 STAGE 2 – Tower Tower $500,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $90,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $59,000 Total for Tower $649,000 STAGE 3 – Facades Facades $650,000 Design and construction contingency (approx. 18%) $117,000 Consultant fees (approx. 10%) $76,700 Total for facades $843,700 TOTAL FOR 3 STAGES $3,115,849


24 June 2015

Page 160

Documentation of the works and increased accuracy of costing The costs for staging this project cannot be further broken down or manipulated without affecting their accuracy. The completion of working drawings would provide the basis for far more accurate costing of the project and greater certainty in financial planning. CONCLUSION The conservation management strategy report for the Fremantle Town Hall has identified that the exterior of the building is in need of urgent conservation work to arrest the rate of deterioration caused by rainwater, moisture penetration and the entrapment of salt and moisture within the masonry walls. All external conservation works identified in the report are urgent, in particular, the roof cladding and rainwater disposal system need to be replaced before the winter of 2016. These works need to be carried out prior to any works to conserve or refurbish the interior of the building. A preliminary estimate of probable costs (calculated 2014) to carry out all the recommended conservation works is $2,860,000 ex. GST which is significantly more than is available in the $2,000,000 reserve funds for the Town Hall. While the most efficient and cost effective approach to the conservation of this building would be to carry out all external works as one large project, staging of the work has been investigated in recognition of the need to work within the City’s resources. For this reason the preliminary estimate also provided costs to divide the works into three projects, the main roof, the tower and the William and High Street facades. The conservation works, consultant fees and contingencies for the works to the main roof were costed at $1,622,500 and could be completed using the $2,000,000 reserve funds for the Town Hall. These works should be undertaken as Stage 1. Further works could be completed using the remaining $400,000 but detailed documentation of the works (full working drawings and specification) are required to allow a quantity surveyor to provide more accurate costs for the purposes of financial planning. Instead, $140,000 of the remaining funds in the reserve is recommended to be used to employ consultants to document and cost the second stage of works - those to the tower and facades of the Town Hall. If documentation commenced on this project at the beginning of the 2015/16 financial year, more accurate cost information would be available by December 2015, which would allow the final scope of work to be fixed before tendering. These figures would also provide the council with a cost to complete the remainder of the works so supplementary funding sources could be investigated at that time. Further, if all the works (i.e. Stage 1 and Stage 2) were put out to tender for construction and separate prices were obtained for Stage 1 (Main Roof) and Stage 2 (Tower and Façades), with the invitation to tender making it explicit that Stage 2 will only proceed if Council is able to allocate funding for this stage of the project, then Council could decide whether to fund both stages and realise the cost savings, programming benefits and efficiencies of completing all works as one large project.


24 June 2015

Page 161

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Approves the allocation of $1,622,500 from the $2,000,000 reserve funds in the Fremantle Town Hall Refurbishment Reserve in the 2015/16 budget for implementation of the project Stage 1 Fremantle Town Hall Conservation - Main Roof Replacement including the cost of consultant fees for documentation, construction and contingencies (ex GST).

2. Approves the allocation of $ 140,000 (ex GST) from the $2,000,000 reserve

funds in the Fremantle Town Hall Refurbishment Reserve in the 2015/16 budget for expenditure on consultant fees to document Stage 2 Fremantle Town Hall Conservation -Tower and Façades.

3. Instructs officers to prepare a further report once documentation of the

Stage 1 and Stage 2 works referred to in recommendations 1 and 2 above has been completed and a tender estimate for the works received (by no later than December 2015), for the purpose of enabling Council to consider the funding options for implementation of the Stage 2 Tower and Façades works.

4. Approves putting the entire conservation project (i.e. Stage 1 and Stage 2)

out to tender for construction to obtain separate prices for Stage 1 Main Roof Replacement and Stage 2 Tower and Façades, with the invitation to tender making it explicit that Stage 2 will only proceed if Council is able to allocate funding for this stage of the project.

5. Notes that:

a. Works need to be carried out to the Fremantle Town Hall to replace the main roof and the rainwater disposal system before the onset of the 2016 winter. This work is essential to protect the structure of the building and avoid more costly works in future.

b. Works need to be undertaken to address ongoing deterioration of the

masonry facades to William and High Streets caused by impervious paint and cement patching and prevent structural damage, deterioration of embedded steel and timber elements and loss of significant decorative detail. Not only will this work allow the walls of the building to breathe, it will also provide the opportunity to improve the presentation of the place.

c. If sufficient funding can be made available to enable both stages 1

and 2 of the roof replacement and façade conservation works to be carried out as one project, improved efficiencies of scale and cost effectiveness would be achieved by reducing scaffolding and setup costs and minimising the duration of disruption and other impact on Kings Square and the surrounding area, for example disruption to public parking and service access arrangements for local businesses.


24 June 2015

Page 162


For Against



24 June 2015

Page 163


SGS1506-9 WEXFORD WAY FULL CLOSURE TRIAL ASSESSMENT

ECM Reference: 165/022 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: SGS1409-3 Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To address traffic management issues related to the volume of traffic and speeding in Wexford Way, a full road closure at the intersection of Wexford Way and Bellamy St was trialled from mid-December 2014 onwards. This trial closure of Wexford way onto Bellamy Street has had a positive effect on eliminating through traffic into the area and achieved resident’s expectations in this regard. Traffic data has shown a reduction in traffic volumes throughout and speeds on the key road of Wexford Way. The trial period of six months has come to a conclusion and the next step in this process is to advertise the closure formally to all stakeholders. The retention of the closure is seen as a responsible action in terms of creating a safer environment for the community as well as managing the expectation of the residents on providing this traffic management solution. This report shows the traffic data comparison for the area including post treatment analysis and seeks endorsement to proceed with a six month advertisement period of the closure.

BACKGROUND

At the council meeting on 24 September 2014 it was resolved; That Council 1. Approves the full closure to vehicular traffic at the Wexford Way and Bellamy

Street intersection…for a trial period of six months. 2. Seeks a further report on the outcomes of the full closure to vehicular traffic at

Wexford Way and Bellamy Street following the trial period.


24 June 2015

Page 164

The full closure was implemented in mid-December 2014 and now concluded. Details of traffic movement and speed data were collected prior to and after the closure was instituted and the results are presented in the comments section.

COMMENT

The traffic data comparison shows a gradual decline in average weekday traffic in the area over the course of treatments undertaken in the past few years. Most notably, the southern entrance off South Street was originally at almost 900 vehicles per day whereas the current volume is 337 vehicles per day.

To ensure the City has informed the local residents and users of the network, the full closure of Wexford Way will need to be advertised by the City of Fremantle. This will be done via local media, newspaper and letters to residents and stakeholders including emergency services informing them of the changes on a permanent basis. This advertising will be undertaken for a period of six months to ensure all agencies and residents are completely satisfied with the road changes and are accustomed to the change. Local speeds were shown to decrease on the key indicator of Wexford Way mid-block which is between Terrene lane and College Corner. This section would be the shortest route for through traffic and is a good indicator of traffic using Terrene Lane. Overall it can be seen that a significant reduction in the number of vehicles and a general reduction in speeds improves the safety of this development. This more resembles the intent of the original structure plan.


24 June 2015

Page 165

The closure does not involve surrendering any part of the road reserve to either of the adjacent lots or to create a new lot. To this end no changes to the lot numbering or road need to be made. Previous comment from Landgate does not require the suffix on Wexford Way to be altered.


Financial

Some additional funds will be allocated to the advertising of the closure for a period of six months. No additional physical construction work is planned over and above what is currently in place.

Legal

The area of road reserve that physically controls vehicle access from Bellamy Street and Wexford Way is under regulatory control approved by Main Roads WA. The section of road reserve remains under the care of the City of Fremantle. The Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) requires that a local government give local public notice of the order to close the intersection. However, prior to making this formal closure notice it must also firstly consider the proposal through local public notice, giving sufficient details of the closure; and inviting, and subsequently considering any submissions made on the proposed closure. Notice is also to include prescribed persons as allowed for under the Act. It is considered that the further review/advertising period of six months will meet the requirements of the Act to allow a reasonable time for submissions to be made, and give extra assurance to council when considering the results of the proposal for closure.


24 June 2015

Page 166

Operational

The area at the closure will need to be maintained to allow pedestrian and cycle access.

Organisational

No significant organisational impact is expected apart from some ongoing monitoring of the road closure devices.

CONCLUSION

The full closure of Wexford Way at Bellamy Street has effectively removed the through traffic element for the residential area immediately north of Bellamy Street. The process to formalise the closure on a permanent basis requires further community engagement process including advertising in local media and notification to emergency services.


The improved traffic management of the area aligns with;

Urban Renewal

Community and Safety


The previous community engagement provided the option to close the access point at Bellamy Street and Wexford Way and other internal traffic calming. The results of this engagement showed a majority support for the closure and traffic calming on Terrene Lane. Council elected to proceed with the closure of Bellamy Street and Wexford Way and that internal traffic calming is not required. The option to have the closure as a trial was a Fremantle initiative resulting from the engagement process. This trial period was to assess any issues with the closure and the changes in traffic volumes and driver behaviour. A significant reduction in complaints has occurred and it is considered residents are supportive of the proposal and do not require any additional treatments. This is demonstrated by the collated data and the closure achieves the desired traffic calming requirement for the community.


Simple Majority


24 June 2015

Page 167

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: CR A SULLIVAN Council:

1. Advertise the City's proposal for permanent full road closure of the intersection of Wexford Way and Bellamy Street, to address traffic issues on Terrene Lane, O'Connor and receive feedback over a six month period.

2. Based on any submissions made during this period, consider formal closure

of the Wexford Way and Bellamy Street intersection.


For Against



24 June 2015

Page 168


SGS1506-12 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - MAY 2015

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SGS 17 June 2015 Previous Item: SGS1505-14 of 27 May 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Finance Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to 31 May 2015

Statement of Financial Position as at 31 May 2015 Determination of Closing Funds (Net Current Assets) as at 31 May 2015 Schedule of Accounts Paid May 2015 Investment Report to 31 May 2015 Debtors Outstanding as at 31 May 2015 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) for May 2015 (viewed electronically) Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for April 2015 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City adopted its annual budget for 2014/2015 on 2 July 2014 with an estimated municipal surplus brought forward from 30 June 2014 of $1 969 947 and estimated municipal surplus at 30 June 2015 of $100 000. After the budget review adopted by Council on 25 February 2015 the estimated surplus at 30 June 2015 was reduced to $0.00. This report highlights any issues that may impact on the financial position to 30 June 2015 and the opening funds for the 2015/2016 Budget.

BACKGROUND

The 2014/15 budget was adopted on 2 July 2014 with an estimated municipal surplus brought forward from 30 June 2014 of $1 969 947 and estimated municipal surplus at 30 June 2015 of $100 000. At its meeting on 23 July 2013 (Item SGS1407-11 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and a threshold of $300 000 as the level for explanation of variances. At the budget review adopted by Council on 25 February 2015 the municipal surplus at 30 June 2015 was estimated at $0.00.


24 June 2015

Page 169

COMMENT

In finalising the 2014/15 budget, it was estimated that we would have a closing municipal surplus at 30 June 2014 of $1 969 947 which in turn became the opening municipal surplus in the 2014/15 budget. The external auditor issued an unqualified audit certificate for the financial statements to 30 June 2014 with a surplus of $1 856 988. A review of the annual budget is required to be undertaken no earlier than 31 December in the financial year and that review was adopted by Council on 25 February 2015. The $112 959 deficit between the estimated and actual closing position at 30 June 2014 as reported in the previous paragraph was addressed as part of the budget review. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) made orders to quash the differential rates imposed by the City on undeveloped properties in the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years. At its meeting of 26 November 2014, Council reimposed new differential rates and readopted budgets for the three (3) years. The total estimated cost impact of the SAT decision over the three years is $86 247. This matter was also included in the February 2015 budget review. Organisational Revenue Below is a graph for actual operating revenue by month versus their revised budget. Rates have been excluded as $38 million is brought to account in one month and distorts the picture as does profit on sale of assets which is non cash and has also been excluded.

The graph shows that since budget review in February revenues have been consistent against year to date budget and the material upturn in revenue anticipated in June is commented on further below under capital grants.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Operating Revenue Budget versus Actual (excluding rates and profit on sale of assets)

Operating Revenue - Revised Budget Operating Revenue - Actual


24 June 2015

Page 170

Organisational Expenses Below is a graph for actual operating expenditure by month versus their revised budget. The non-cash entries of depreciation and loss on sale of assets have been excluded from the graph as they can distort the picture.

The big spike in proposed expenditure in June is a combination of:-

Employee costs as there is the equivalent of three salary pays in June with the end of financial year accrual. This accrual has already been allowed for in budget phasing therefore should not impact on the variance for June. Also if we look back at December where there was also three salary pays it explains why expenditure in that month was high.

In materials and contracts officers are expecting to spend an extra $1.8 million compared to May and is likely to be a combination of end of financial year accrual, e.g., we will have the equivalent of two months waste disposal tipping fees brought to account in June plus a reflection of how some projects have been phased.

Nature and/or Type Comments In the recurrent budget there were only fees and charges plus employee costs that exceeded the threshold levels for reporting on the variance however comment has also been provided on other items where issues could impact on the closing position at 30 June 2015. Capital Grants and Contributions Though the variance between actual and year to date budget does not fall within the required reporting limits officers have phased the budgets to receive 47% (i.e., $1,165,455) of the revised budget in June 2015. Works on the 2015/2016 budget suggest that $560,000 of the budgeted $2.5 million in capital grants will not be received by 30 June 2015.

-

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

7,000,000.00

Operating Expenditure Budget versus Actual (excluding rates and profit on sale of assets)

Operating Expenditure - Revised Budget Operating Expenditure - Actual


24 June 2015

Page 171

Fees and Charges The increased fee revenue is from:-

Arts Centre. Increased events and patronage has increased Activities and Events $234,000 over year to date budget and Education and Cultural Service $118,000 over year to date budget. The increased activity has also resulted in increased expenditure over the year to date budget.

Parking. Parking revenue was $150,000 above the revised year to date budget but infringement revenue was $29,000 under the revised year to date budget. In addition with parking infringements costs for referral of outstanding fines to the Fines Enforcement Registry was $115,000 over year to date budget.

Employee Costs Employee costs are $783,000 (previous month $996,000) under year to date budget with the major reason being unfilled positions as follows:-

There are unfilled positions in some business units. However, with agency labour which is expensed under Materials and Contracts, if we exclude City Works agency labour it is $439 000 (previous month $399,000) over year to date budget which means that level of saving is required from the employee budget.

City Works is $237 000 (previous month $476,000) under year to date budget and most of that would relate to unfilled wages positions however they do not necessarily translate to budget savings as the work is likely to be undertaken by contractors and expensed under Materials and Contracts.

Materials and Contracts Though the variance between actual and year to date budget does not fall within the required reporting limits there are some items of over and under which are netting one another off and making it look better than perhaps it is. These items are:-

Arts Centre. The additional revenue of $334,000 already noted has a level of contra expenditure which is being offset by under expenditure of $248,000 on the Martu funded project and $113,000 on public art.

Infrastructure Services. The directorate is over year to date budget by $1,019,000 and it is being offset by under expenditure in other directorates. Savings in City Works employee costs of $416,000 reported above can offset half of this amount and the balance is essentially under recovery of overheads in relation to the capital works program.

Capital Program Excluding the $7 800 000 for the acquisition of 2 Jones Street O'Connor and with 92% of the financial year elapsed, capital expenditure is still lagging against year to date budget as can be seen from the following graph.


24 June 2015

Page 172

At 31 May 2015 the capital program was $6.9 million under its revised year to date budget. From work on the 2015/2016 Budget it is being estimated there will be around $5.5 million of uncompleted capital works at 30 June 20015. Proceeds from Disposal of Assets and Reserve Transfer It is unlikely the sale of the Kings Square business plan properties to Sirona will occur before 30 June 2015 plus 7 Quarry Street will not be settled before 30 June 2015. As a consequence property sale proceeds are likely to be approximately $35.5 million under budget at 30 June 2015. The contra transfer to reserve will also be impacted by the same amount. Cash investments With cash investments, action continues to manage the revised policy SG41 to limit investments in financial institutions which provide direct or indirect support of fossil fuel companies. During the month, funds on deposit decreased by $2 888 000 plus a maturing deposit with an institution that supports the unlocking of carbon (as per marketforces website) was reinvested with Suncorp who now have confirmation on the marketforces website that they do not support the unlocking of carbon. As a result our percentage of investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon activities (http://www.marketforces.org.au/banks/map) increased from 65% to 70%. Looking forward, the current financial institutions with which we have investments and don't support the unlocking of carbon are generally at or slightly above their counter party limits under the city's investment policy. In the short term until June 2015 when we raise our budgeted loan borrowings and in the absence of property sales, we are likely to continue to reduce the amount of cash held which in turn is likely to further increase our percentage of investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon activities. In the medium term to further increase our total percentage whilst maintaining returns and risk will become more difficult as we need to identify new and suitably rated financial institutions that are offering competitive interest rate returns.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Budgeted Capital Expenditure - Prior to Budget Review

Budgeted Capital Expenditure - Post Budget Review

Actual Capital Expenditure

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


24 June 2015

Page 173

Below is a graph of the maturity profile of our investments with the green coloured bars representing investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon. The graph shows longer term investments made to lock in interest rates before the 0.25% interest rate reduction announced by the Reserve Bank on 5 May 2015 and those funds are all with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon.

Below is a graph showing the cash investment situation at 31 May 2015 and the carbon support/non-support position by financial institution.

0.00

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

$5,929,483

$2,000,000

$5,000,000 $5,154,693

$2,550,618 $2,500,000

$5,000,000

$4,034,521

$2,000,000

$990,000 $2,077,000

Maturity Profile of Investment Portfolio

AMP, $7,550,618 , 20%

ANZ, $1,738,956 , 5%

BOQ, $7,000,000 ,

19% ME Bank, $2,077,000 , 5% NAB, $9,345,220 ,

25% Rural Bank,

$4,034,521 , 11%

Wide Bay Bank, $2,000,000 , 5%

Beyond Bank, $990,000 , 3%

Suncorp, $2,500,000 , 7%

Other, $26,152,138 ,

70%

Counterparty Exposure


24 June 2015

Page 174

Purchase Card Expenditure Reports Officers had not finalised the detail for their May 2015 purchases at the time this agenda closed so the May 2015 purchase card report will be tabled at the July 2015 meeting.


Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to keep track of how the allocation of costs and receipt of revenues is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget 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 keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2014/15 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Additionally at this stage of the financial year it is also informing of issues that need to be taken into account when developing the 2015/2016 budget and the opening position for that budget. Organisational

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

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during May 2015, purchase card transactions during April 2015 and cash deposits at the end of May 2015. Also attached is the year to date statement of financial activity and statement of financial position for information. At 31 May 2015 the closing position was a surplus of $2,933,929 whilst the February 2015 budget review was predicting a $0.0 closing position. Given the current level of


24 June 2015

Page 175

under expenditure on capital works it is to be anticipated that the final position at 30 June 2015 could be in the range of $2.5 million to $3.0 million surplus.


Nil


Nil


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Closing position for the period ended 31 May 2015 is received,

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for May 2015 plus purchase cards for April 2015, 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



24 June 2015

Page 176


SGS1506-14 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2015 - 2020

DataWorks Reference: 069/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Director: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development &

Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Economic Development Strategy

2011-2015 Attachment 2: Economic Development Strategy Implementation Progress Update, May 2015 Attachment 3: Draft Implementation Plan 2015-2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fremantle is currently experiencing unprecedented levels of investment and renewal with the combined levels of private and public investment in the pipeline totalling more than $1 billion. This can be attributed in a large way to Council’s concerted efforts in recent years to revitalise the city centre, and to the success of its Strategic Plan 2010-2015 and award winning Economic Development Strategy 2011-2015. The implementation of the previous Economic Development Strategy included planning scheme amendments related to CBD height limits and improved development outcomes. This initiative has built investor confidence in Fremantle and consequently, a number of new hotel, retail, residential and commercial developments have been approved. Over the past eight months, officers have been developing a draft Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020 with input from the business community and Elected Members. The draft strategy 2015-2020 aims to build on the success of the previous Strategy and continue the momentum already gathered towards Fremantle’s revitalisation. In developing this draft strategy, the City conducted an extensive survey of businesses and held several workshops with business groups. Throughout that process, countless worthy and interesting ideas were proposed by the community. In a broad sense these helped shape the focus of the draft strategy and in a specific sense, they have been included in the attached implementation plan that outlines the major projects that are critical, achievable and within the City’s ability to deliver. The draft strategy’s vision for Fremantle’s economy in 2020 is:


24 June 2015

Page 177

“Fremantle's economy is robust, diverse and continually evolving. Local businesses are flourishing and high-quality property developments provide a strong return on investment for their investors and improve community wellbeing. Visitors to Fremantle are highly satisfied with an experience that is unique, authentic and unpredictable.” To achieve that vision, the draft strategy has six desired outcomes:

Primary Centre: By 2020 Fremantle achieves the status of a ‘Primary Centre’ as defined by Directions 2031 (or equivalent State Government document).

More investment: Fremantle is welcoming to investment and is an attractive destination for high-quality property development.

More people: A greater number of people to live in, work in and visit Fremantle.

Certainty: The Fremantle business and investment community has certainty around the use and purpose of the City’s major property assets, and on the scope and timing of Council’s major activities that are intended to improve the quality of the urban environment and/or support an economic development outcome.

Differentiated: A shared vision that clearly differentiates Fremantle’s offer is developed and delivered by stakeholders for Fremantle’s population-driven and knowledge-based economies.

Informed: Key stakeholders have access to the support and information required to collaboratively act on major issues affecting business performance and industry development.

The implementation of the draft strategy is comprised of four program areas:

Place Management, Activation and Urban Realm

Customer Experience, Marketing and Business Improvement

Development and Management of Council Properties

Attraction of Business, Industry and Investment. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to distribute the Draft Strategy 2015-2020 for public comments for the period of Thursday 25 June to Monday 27 July (four and a half weeks). It is intended that public comments can be incorporated into a final draft of the document that will be put before Council for adoption on 26 August 2015.

BACKGROUND

The City’s current Economic Development Strategy 2011-2015 was adopted by Council on 27 April 2011 and has guided the City’s economic development approach for that five year period. An item to Council on 18 December 2013 provided a comprehensive summary of the progress of each action and task outlined in the 2011-2015 Strategy. An updated progress report is included as Attachment 2. The 18 December 2013 item also highlighted the need to prepare a new economic development strategy in early-mid 2015. In line with that timeframe, officers have developed a Draft Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020 (Attachment 1) with input from the business community and informal Elected Member meetings.


24 June 2015

Page 178

COMMENT

Desired outcomes The draft strategy includes six desired outcomes that need to be met in order for the vision to be achieved by 2020. These are as follows:

Program areas Implementation is comprised of four program areas which are described below, taken verbatim from the Draft Strategy. 1) Place management, activation and urban realm Description of this program area: Place activation (or place making) aims to increase vibrancy in city streets (commercially and socially) and rejuvenate inactive areas of the city. It involves: linking user attractors (e.g. events, public art, seating, urban gardens) to core activity hubs; facilitating economic development by concentrating activity to encourage density and vibrancy; maximising linkages to transport infrastructure for easy access, and channelling pedestrian traffic past social and commercial offerings at street level.


24 June 2015

Page 179

It aims to produce a more pedestrian friendly city to capitalise on the outdoor experience Fremantle has to offer, providing pedestrian scale intimacy and adventure. The Fremantle of the future should provide opportunities for people to assemble and socialise, with a range of activities for enjoyment. It should constantly surprise its people with new adventures and its cultural milieu. Why focus on this program area?: We want to create a city that encourages people to talk, listen, see and seek authentic and memorable experiences. As well as enjoying Fremantle’s unique cultural and built heritage, Fremantle should also include more opportunities for stationary activities. If many people walk through a space yet nobody stops to sit, then something very important is missing. By improving in this area, Fremantle can benefit from an even stronger sense of identity and belonging, increased knowledge and understanding, and even greater community resilience. The art of place making aims to create or transform spaces into places that engage people so that they want to be involved in them and want to linger in them, rather than merely passing through them. Successful place making creates authentic places that offer a rich uniquely Fremantle experience and a sense of belonging that encourages greater and longer visitation. It also results in social outcomes such as social engagement and improved perception of safety through increased passive surveillance and on-street activity. 2) Customer experience, marketing and business improvement Description of this program area: A city’s brand is the promise of its value. City branding is about deliberately creating, developing and demonstrating Fremantle’s value through appropriate ‘on brand’ actions. This may consist of investments, physical improvements to the city, attraction of major events and festivals, and small activities by the public and private sectors that improve the customer’s experience of Fremantle. City branding is not something that is the sole preserve of local government, it is a shared responsibility and practice of Fremantle’s stakeholders. What is more powerful than having the stakeholders jointly define and realise the brand of their city, using their own particular strengths to ensure the world receives a compelling, joined-up and consistent message about the city? This program area includes supporting retail and hospitality businesses that add to Fremantle’s unique brand. It also involves a range of marketing activities designed to attract greater visitation to Fremantle, increase length of stay per visit and add layers of authenticity to that experience. That includes delivering an integrated place marketing strategy (“Fremantle Story”) that includes hosting a diverse range of events and festivals throughout the year that generate immediate and long-term benefits for Fremantle’s business and residential communities. Why focus on this program area?: 21st century cities compete on the value that they provide in terms of their physical and service offer, their heritage, their ambitions and their authentic character. In short: they compete on their brand and will develop in line with it. City brands are exemplified and brought alive through the valuable experiences that they offer to consumers. It is these experiences that determine people’s perceptions of the city. Creating an authentic customer experience is vital to the success of Fremantle’s population-driven industries.


24 June 2015

Page 180

Population-driven industries in Fremantle have struggled in recent years. While part of this trend has been caused by factors beyond the immediate control of stakeholders (e.g. global economics, on-line retailing), Fremantle has performed at a level below the expectations of its stakeholders. This program area aims to improve the ‘on-the-ground’ visitor experience in Fremantle with the aim of maximising the length of visitation and frequency of repeat visits. It will involve improvements to the details of visitor experiences in Fremantle and the implementation of a high-quality place marketing strategy, a comprehensive events and festivals program, and the roll-out of improved way-finding and signage throughout Fremantle. 3) Development and management of Council properties Description of this program area: The City of Fremantle owns a significant amount of property within its local government area. The City can leverage the use of this property portfolio to enable achievement of strategic imperatives across a variety of areas, including for the purpose of the Draft Strategy. As City-owned properties become available for lease or sale, the City will conduct a strategic review of each asset in order to determine the scope for its best possible use. This may be in response to changes in the local economy or community and commercial opportunity that arises, or both. Why focus on this program area?: The City recognises that it has a unique opportunity to use its own property portfolio to catalyse strategic projects. This may be the revitalisation of under-performing precincts such as Kings Square or to provide a vital service to the Fremantle community or its stakeholders. Upgrading our buildings or improving the quality of their street-level frontages develops the value of an urban area and the City will aim to achieve this in the coming years. Interesting facades, visible activities inside and on the street, and the light of windows at night contribute to safety and provide motivation for walking and stationary activities. Human senses are primarily horizontal and we have evolved to look in front, left and right (and to beware what is behind us) which emphasises how important ground level activity is in a city and for the stimulation and well-being of its people. 4) Attraction of business, industry and investment Description of this program area: This program area aims to accelerate the development of Fremantle’s economy by proactively identifying and attracting key businesses, industry and investment to Fremantle. It involves lobbying and advocating for change that has a positive effect on the Fremantle region, reducing regulatory barriers (the City’s and others’), showing leadership on key issues that affect Fremantle and developing partners with major stakeholders that can positively influence Fremantle’s revitalisation. Attraction of business: proactively incentivise and accelerate the attraction of businesses that add value and something unique to Fremantle’s offering as a visitor destination and generate benefits for its residents, workers, visitors and the business community in the long-term by improving Fremantle’s overall appeal. Attraction of industry: the benefits of industry clusters and agglomeration economies are well known. Fremantle has a range of competitive advantages and economic strengths that are explored in the Context and Analysis document that informed development of this Strategy. The City will work with private and public stakeholders to attract industries to Fremantle that can leverage off those competitive advantages and thrive in Fremantle


24 June 2015

Page 181

over the long-term, with a particular emphasis on knowledge-based and marine-based industries. Attraction of investment: this includes private and public investment. The City will proactively engage with the State Government and property developers to promote the benefits of investing in Fremantle in the long-term. This includes identifying potential investment opportunities and connecting parties with common interests and providing key market information. This program area also involves engaging the State Government to encourage its ongoing investment in Fremantle and to encourage it to release its underutilised land holdings for strategic purposes that help achieve the objectives of Directions 2031 and the Draft Strategy, and enable a shift towards a self-contained sub-regional economy. Why focus on this program area?: Attraction of business: major centres around the Perth metropolitan area provide competition for Fremantle. However, Fremantle does not define itself by large department stores and car parks – it is an eclectic range of locally owned stores, arcades and products that cater for a new wave of retail enthusiasts that cherish not only merchandise but also its origin and surroundings. Fremantle’s business mix needs to reflect its character and leverage is strong brand attributes. Efforts within business attraction will include identifying and attracting a variety of boutique small businesses with their own story and personality. Additionally, it involves working with major property owners to identify and attract the right balance of medium and major retailers to Fremantle to support the overall offering. Attraction of industry: The value of creativity and innovation in driving tangible economic outcomes is well recognised, as there is a strong link between creativity and innovation and real productivity growth. Productivity growth is a key driver of the economy’s long-term development potential, real incomes and economic wellbeing. Efforts in this area will focus around attraction of knowledge-based businesses and industries. Attraction of investment: Fremantle is primed for a residential led recovery and there is a window of opportunity to leverage the State Government’s asset sales program to encourage the sale of under-utilised State Government land in Fremantle and to make the land available to the market for a use that meets Fremantle’s strategic needs, particularly residential developments. This course of action would support the intent of Directions 2031 in achieving greater density of activity in major activity centres in Perth and Peel. Detailed implementation plan (Draft) A detailed implementation plan has been drafted (Attachment 3) that provides detail on the proposed projects for year one of the draft strategy and an outline of the projects proposed for years two – five. KPIs, implementing and reporting back to the business community The City will report back to the community on an annual basis to provide an update on this strategy’s implementation and progress towards the key performance indicators outlined in the draft strategy. This will mean engaging with key stakeholder groups within the business community at the end of each implementation year and providing a written


24 June 2015

Page 182

update on progress. This will provide ongoing opportunities to seek further input and guidance from the community as projects are delivered.


Financial

Proposed projects for year one that require financial commitments have been included in the City’s Draft Budget 2015/16. Legal

Nil Operational

It is intended that under the direction of the draft strategy, City projects involving economic development, marketing and capital works can be most effectively applied in combination to compound their positive effect on a business precinct. Organisational

The Manager Economic Development and Marketing will lead the delivery of the strategy with support from other business units responsible for delivery of certain parts of the strategy.

CONCLUSION

The draft strategy focuses on Fremantle and therefore the issues it addresses are local in nature. However, it is important to recognise the role that the City of Fremantle has in working with stakeholders to facilitate the development of the greater Fremantle and sub-regional economy. The following key considerations are engrained throughout the draft strategy and have been considered in developing the four program areas and the projects outlined in the Draft Implementation Plan 2015-2020 attached. Innovation and creativity Creativity, innovation and knowledge-generation are acknowledged throughout the Draft Strategy as vital characteristics of global economies. It aims to help local businesses and industries foster these attributes in order to develop a smarter and more resilient local economy. Place management Additionally, the draft strategy places emphasis on people, the notion of authentic place management and the way local identity and character can enable Fremantle to compete more effectively to attract people, businesses and investment. To achieve that aim, it is intended that City projects in economic development, marketing and capital works be applied in combination to compound their positive impact on a geographical area. Importance of liveability and lifestyle National and global competition to attract residents and knowledge-based workers has intensified in recent years. The City of Fremantle recognises that Fremantle’s lifestyle and liveability factors are important drivers of regional competitiveness.


24 June 2015

Page 183

This means that drivers of economic prosperity such as such social capital, social diversity and a stimulating urban environment are now seen on major factors in driving Fremantle’s competitiveness, along with more traditional factors. In practice, this means that we must continually invest in improving its urban environment to support the attraction and retention of residents and workers to Fremantle. Innovation and Technology Encouraging innovation is a large part of developing the creative class and the knowledge based economy. Innovation is about applying knowledge and ideas in new ways to create value and to deliver economic development outcomes. It thrives in diverse networks where ideas can spread and be developed. Linking capital works to economic development Good economic development strategies are closely linked to a locality’s capital improvement strategies to ensure that necessary infrastructure and public realm is developed to support economic development activity in a timely way. Therefore, the Draft Strategy integrates closely with the City’s capital works program. This is because physical improvements like re-paved streets, lighting improvements and landscape beautification, along with access to transportation and parking, and the availability of cultural and recreational facilities will support economic development outcomes. City projects involving economic development, marketing and capital works can be most effectively applied in combination to compound their positive effect on a precinct. Availability of land One major factor affecting the productivity of Fremantle’s economy is the availability of land for development. A significant amount of undeveloped land in Fremantle is owned by the State Government of Western Australia. Therefore, a large part of the 2015-2020 Draft Strategy involves working collaboratively with the State Government to free-up under-utilised sites, prepare them to be taken to the market, then taking them to the open market to be redeveloped for a purpose that meets Fremantle’s strategic needs. With the loss of the State’s AAA credit rating and some serious economic challenges ahead, it is clear that the W.A. State Government cannot ignore the need to increase revenue from sales of under-utilised assets to improve the State’s financial position


If adopted, the final strategy will become an ‘informing strategy’ within the City’s integrated planning and reporting framework.


Community engagement to date has included:

A comprehensive survey of Fremantle businesses.

Two workshops with the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce.

Three informal Elected Member meetings.

Workshops with the following business precinct groups:

South Terrace / Cappuccino strip traders.

Wray Avenue traders.


24 June 2015

Page 184

South Fremantle traders.

Fishing Boat Harbour traders. The public comment period for the draft strategy is considered to be the final stage of community engagement before it is put before Council for adoption.


Simple majority required.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. Council approve distribution of the Draft Economic Development Strategy 2015-

2020 for public comments for the period of Thursday 25 June to Monday 27 July (four and a half weeks).

2. Council note that information received from the public comment period will be

considered and a final draft of the Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020 will be presented to Council for adoption.


For Against



24 June 2015

Page 185

SGS1506-6 FORMER WARDERS' COTTAGES, 7 - 41 HENDERSON STREET, FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 219/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2014 Previous Item: 21 December 2011- PSC1112-221; 26 June 2013 –

SGS1306-9; 29 January 2014 - SGS1401-4 Responsible Officer: Paul Trotman, Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Paul Garbett, Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Part 8 of the conservation plan – Graded zones, sections

and elements of significance. Previous item SGS1401-4 (29 January 2014) Decision of item PSC1112-211 (21 December 2011)

Figure 1. Map showing location of the Warder’s cottages terraced housing


24 June 2015

Page 186

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the conservation works currently being undertaken on the Warders’ cottages and present for Council’s consideration a discussion on potential future uses and ownership/tenure arrangements for the cottages, having regard to the existing planning, building and heritage legislative context, and the City’s overall economic and social revitalisation objectives for the part of Fremantle city centre in which the cottages are located. Based on consideration of these factors the report recommends an approach the Council may wish to support and recommend to the State Heritage Office to influence decisions regarding future ownership, management and use of the cottages. Council conditionally supported the principle of strata titling of the Warders’ cottages to facilitate their sale into non-government ownership in a resolution passed in 2011. Since 2011 the Kings Square redevelopment project involving redevelopment of the City of Fremantle administration centre and the Queensgate and former Myer buildings has evolved, and planning approvals have been granted for a number of major developments including one on the Spicer site. Implementation of these projects will have a transformational effect on this part of the city centre and result in it becoming an area of much more intensive mixed use activity. Additionally the government has recently announced that the former Fremantle Police Station and old Court House complex is to be sold for adaptive reuse/redevelopment. These factors have significantly changed the context for decision-making regarding the future of the cottages. It is therefore considered timely for Council to reconsider its position on preferred future ownership, management and use of the cottages. Officers recommend that Council revokes its previous December 2011 resolution regarding strata titling of the cottages, and authorises the CEO to advise the State Heritage Office of Council’s current position on matters relating to future ownership, management and use of the Warder’s cottages.

BACKGROUND

The Warders’ Cottages (fmr) (‘Warders’ cottages’ or ‘the cottages’) consist of three limestone convict built terrace buildings (see figure 1 above). They were established in the early 1850s as residential terraces to accommodate the warders of Fremantle Prison. The Warders’ cottages are the first row of houses built by the Colonial Government in the State and define the western boundary of the Convict Establishment precinct, which includes the world heritage listed Fremantle Prison, the Barracks for the Royal Sappers and Miners (now part of the Fremantle Police Station), the Fairbairn Street ramp and the Comptroller Generals Residence (now part of Fremantle Hospital). The cottages are also the first limestone terraces built in the State and rare examples of simple Victorian Georgian convict built terraced accommodation, possibly only comparable to buildings on Norfolk Island. The three terraces comprise of:

First Terrace 19-29 Henderson Street (1851), currently has three cottages

Second Terrace 33-41 Henderson Street (c1853), currently has six cottages

Third Terrace 7-17 Henderson Street (1858), currently has six cottages


24 June 2015

Page 187

Following the closure of the prison in 1991 the Warders’ Cottages were transferred to Homeswest (now Department of Housing) who leased the cottages for inner city public housing. The properties were vacated in 2011 and have since stood vacant. In December 2011 Council considered the strata titling of the cottages. In its resolution Council supported strata titles for the cottages on the condition that the Department of Housing (DoH) upgraded the buildings and undertook conservation works, including urgent works required as per the Warders’ cottages conservation plan (Kelsall Binet Architects July 2011). In 2013 DoH offered the cottages to the City of Fremantle for a fifty-year peppercorn lease in return for the City taking financial responsibility for their conservation, refurbishment and ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Council considered this in a report on the matter 26 June 2013 and resolved to accept the offer in principle subject to the state government covering all or part of the costs to complete stage 1 conservation works and the preparation of a business plan for the regeneration of the cottages. The business plan was to include identification of future uses for the place and any required adaptions that:

are consistent with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

generate sufficient income to repay the initial loan and fund future ongoing costs; and

can be accommodated in the buildings and meet the requirements of the Building Act 2011 and BCA.

On 29 January 2014 Council considered a further report on the matter following preliminary financial modelling of the expenditure and income associated with the City assuming control and responsibility for the cottages on a 50 year leasehold basis along the lines of the proposal considered by Council in June 2013. Council resolved to request the State Government to consider a revision of DoH’s original offer from a 50 year peppercorn lease to transferring the Warders’ Cottages’ freehold title to the City and/or making a substantial contribution to the initial conservation costs required to retain the heritage significance of the place. This resolution was influenced by the City’s preliminary financial modelling which indicated that an approach as outlined in the June 2013 resolution above would not be financially viable for buildings which would not ultimately be a City asset (i.e. the City would only have a leasehold interest in the property). The title to the properties was subsequently transferred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) on the 25 March 2015. The State Heritage Office is currently using a $2million revolving heritage fund to carry out maintenance works to the buildings. The City’s understanding of the revolving fund is that the money taken from the fund for maintenance and repair needs to be replenished within two years of the works. The SHO has not indicated, at this time, what the preferred option is to generate income from the cottages in order to replenish the revolving fund, however scenarios to generate income from the cottages are likely to include leasing agreements and the individual or grouped sale of the buildings to the private market or other public authorities. HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE The Warders’ Cottages (fmr) are of the highest heritage significance at the local and State level and are also of world heritage significance by virtue of location and relationship to the Fremantle prison. The cottages are included on the Heritage Council


24 June 2015

Page 188

of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places, the City of Fremantle’s Heritage List and are a management category Level 1A on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. Fremantle Prison has been inscribed on the World Heritage List as part of a series of Australian Convict Sites. The Fremantle Prison’s entry onto the National Heritage List includes the Warders’ Cottages as part of the convict establishment. In July 2011 the Warders’ cottages conservation plan (WCCP) was completed for the cottages. The conservation plan outlines the complete history of the cottages and includes statements and assessment on cultural heritage significance as well as a comprehensive conservation policy. The cottages provide a line of interaction between the significant convict establishment and central Fremantle. For much of its history the former convict establishment was distinct from other areas of Fremantle. More recent development has decreased this legibility however. The conservation plan advocates for the reinstatement of the former convict establishment’s legibility as part of an integrated planning process to interpret the Warders’ Cottages role in the convict establishment and complement the world heritage listed Fremantle Prison. Specifically, the Warders’ Cottage buildings have a high degree of integrity and authenticity in their own right. Changes in use over the years have remained compatible with the original residential purpose of the cottages’ construction. Changes to the structures were the result of a comprehensive and consistently implemented programme of work that caused little or no change to the original fabric and earlier periods of construction e.g. kitchen and bathroom additions to the rear and verandahs to the front. As a result the various stages or ‘time periods’ remain legible and much of the later work has had little impact on the earlier stages of development. This means the cottages include zones, sections, and elements that are of varying significance. The assessed gradings of significance of these constituent parts are identified in the WCCP. Information on the gradings of significance is provided in attachment 1 (Part 8 of the conservation plan – Graded zones, sections and elements of significance). Overall, the significance of the Warders’ Cottages is vulnerable to the effects of incompatible alteration or extension if not properly considered. Works to the cottages The works currently being undertaken to the Warders’ cottages are to the stonework on the elevations and front walls. The works are part of the priority conservation works identified in the Warders’ cottages’ conservation plan. The outbuildings to the rear are not included in the works. The works involve:

removing layers of render and paint to reveal the original surface;

removing cement washes in the stone so as to not damage the substrate stone; and

replacing filler and mortar joints with a reconstituted lime-based stone mix and mortar.

Scaffold has been erected to facilitate these works and further inspect the buildings. This work has revealed evidence of earlier modifications including changes to both the Henderson Street and rear elevation window sills. They have also revealed damage caused by embedded ferrous metal fixings, several minor defects such as failed flashing


24 June 2015

Page 189

fixings and cracked window putty and gutters, and downpipes corroding on the inside face. These aspects will require repair and replacing in the near future. The next stage of work involves upgrading the in-ground drainage required to increase the capacity of the stormwater disposal system and help alleviate one of the main causes of dampness in the walls of the buildings. This work is ready for tender and has been designed in a manner to allow the works to commence concurrent with the stonework project. The upgrade will include laying a stormwater pipe in the Henderson Street reserve. Structural investigations and inspections into the two-storey verandah on Block 3 and other external timber elements on all blocks have been undertaken and will assist in scoping future work packages, some of which may be undertaken to take advantage of existing scaffold access. As generally anticipated, the condition of the W3 verandah is poor and there is considerable work required. Subsequent stages of works are in the process of being scoped for budgeting.

COMMENT

There are a range of different and to some degree conflicting heritage, planning, building compliance and economic/social revitalisation considerations that are relevant to the cottages and their surroundings, and the interrelationship between these considerations complicates the context in which decisions regarding future ownership/tenure, management and use of the cottages have to be considered. Planning Context The cottages are located in the Central City zone under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and the City Centre zone under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). As the Warders’ cottages are on land that is zoned under the City’s LPS4 the City is the decision making authority for any application for planning approval. Any application would also be referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) for comment and advice as required for any State Registered place under section 78 of under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. Currently the SHO has ownership of the properties and comment can be provided concurrent with the application, however if ownership of the properties transferred to another public or private entity the SHO would comment on any application submitted by a new owner. The City has to take into account comments made by the State Heritage Office in assessment and determination of an application as well as heritage assessments for the place (based on the Burra Charter and levels of significance) and the conservation plan. The current use of the Warders’ cottages in statutory planning terms is considered to be Grouped Dwellings as defined in LPS4 (Schedule 1) and the Residential Design Codes. Use for most (but not all) other land uses under LPS4 would require planning approval for a change of use, and irrespective of their use any physical works (internal and/or external) to the cottages would require planning approval under LPS4 due to their State Registered heritage listing. The need for planning approval for works would include internal works required to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) in the event of a different use being proposed for some or all of the cottages.


24 June 2015

Page 190

Under LPS4 all uses in the commercial, entertainment, and services and public use classes are capable of approval in the City Centre zone, and some are permitted without planning approval being required. Most Industrial use classes and the Small Secondary Dwelling use under the Residential use class cannot be granted approval in the City Centre zone. These scheme provisions apply irrespective of ownership of the properties now or in the future. It has been stressed in previous reports that the most important aspect of conserving the cottages is to find a compatible use that respects the cultural significance of the place and requires no, or minimal, alteration to the significant fabric of the building(s). As stated above some uses are permitted without planning approval; however it is almost inconceivable that any renewed use would not involve at least some internal works that would require planning approval. Examples of uses that could be undertaken in the cottages, and the planning and BCA approval requirements associated with those uses, are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1. Potential uses for the Warder’s cottages Use Planning comment BCA comment

Residential Use Class

Grouped Dwelling (long term residential occupancy by owner or tenant)

Considered to be the existing lawful planning use – no change of use required.

Consistent with current use – No BCA requirements necessary. Potential upgrades to Australian Standard AS 1428 Design for access and mobility may be required.

Other uses

Short Stay Dwelling (Grouped dwelling used predominantly for providing short term accommodation for tourists)

Discretionary (‘A’) use under LPS4

Upgrade to current BCA standards may be required.

Tourist Accommodation Discretionary (‘D’) use under LPS4

Upgrade to current BCA standards likely to be required.

Interpretive display/ community use

Community purpose or civic use – both discretionary (‘A’) uses under LPS4 Could include pop-up interpretation/display uses associated with festivals/other events - may work combined with short-stay accommodation use as an accommodation cottage could be pre-booked for annual events

Upgrade to current BCA standards likely to be required.

Small bar and/or restaurant

Approval of change of use not required under LPS4, but approval required for adaptation works associated with use. Restrictions presented by building size and configuration may inhibit commercial

Upgrade to current BCA standards required.


24 June 2015

Page 191

viability of use and/or require significant adaptations

Office See comment for Small bar use above


Shop See comment for Small bar use above


Consulting rooms Approval of change of use not required under LPS4, but approval required for adaptation works associated with use.


In addition to land use and development, the WA planning system regulates the subdivision of land including certain classes of strata subdivision. The City is not the determining authority for applications for survey strata subdivision; it is a referral agency and provides comments to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) as the determining authority. Each of the three terraces of cottages currently stands on a single freehold title (lot). In the event of a future application for strata subdivision of some or all of the existing lots on which the cottages stand, the City in providing comments and recommendation to the WAPC on an application could request the imposition of conditions in the event of approval being granted. Recommended conditions could, for example, include a requirement for the placement of a notification on title under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893. This might be done to inform owners and prospective purchasers of obligations and requirements due to the State Registered heritage status of the properties, and/or to advise that non-residential activities characteristic of a city centre environment exist or can be approved in the vicinity of the cottages and as a result the properties are likely to be affected by activities and noise not normally associated with residential development. Building Act of Australia considerations A key issue in considering the future use(s) of the Warders’ cottages will be the need for compliance with the Building Code of Australia and other applicable Australian standards. Under the new Building Act 2011 new works and compliance with the current BCA is only required if the original use of the building(s) changes. The cottages were originally built and used for residential accommodation. General upgrades would be needed to modernise the dwellings’ facilities, but more major and potentially detrimental (in heritage terms) works to bring the buildings up to current BCA compliance standard would not be required if the buildings stayed in their current use as grouped dwellings. However if the buildings were to be used for social housing purposes, they would probably be required to comply with Australian Standard AS 1428 Design for access and mobility. Ownership (including strata titling) can change without a requirement for compliance with the current BCA provisions providing the buildings are in good repair. However, if the buildings change use (i.e. from grouped dwelling to other uses) certain aspects of the cottages, such as the staircases, would require updating to meet current standards. The buildings are significant for their high level of intactness, which needs to be retained to maintain their heritage significance. Achieving compliance in a manner which is practical


24 June 2015

Page 192

and also sympathetic to the heritage values of the existing building fabric (including its level of intactness) would be extremely challenging. The Building Act 2011 does not provide an exemption from current BCA requirements for heritage listed buildings. Preliminary advice provided by professional building surveyors in 2013 to the National Trust WA in respect of a different heritage listed property suggests that any use of the Warders’ cottages other than long term residential will trigger the need for full BCA compliance. The only saving grace under the BCA for heritage-listed buildings is a clause that allows for the Building Commissioner to use powers under the act to vary or waive standards as long as there is no increased risk to health or safety. Finding alternative solutions that meet the performance requirements of the BCA will require lateral thinking and expert advice. Given the potential detrimental effect that this new legislation could have on heritage listed buildings in Western Australia, the State Heritage Office has, in the past, expressed an interest in using the Warders’ Cottages as a case study to work through the building permit application process. Future use(s) of the warders’ cottages In December 2011 Council resolved to advise the Department of Housing as then-owner of the cottages that the City would be prepared to support a strata building approval certificate, conditional upon certain actions being undertaken prior to any sale of new strata titles to the cottages, with a view to private residential occupation. These actions included completion of urgent conservation works in accordance with the previously prepared conservation plan, and the imposition of notices on titles relating to requirements for any future works by new owners to also be in accordance with the conservation plan, and drawing attention to potential noise exposure due to adjacent land uses and activities such as Fremantle Markets. Council’s resolution in 2011 was passed at a time when the then-owners of the cottages had no firm plans, or available government funding, to enable them to implement any conservation works and strata titling the properties to enable their sale to facilitate further investment by new owners appeared the only option to arrest further deterioration of the cottages’ condition. Four years on the cottages are, albeit only recently, undergoing preliminary conservation work, their ownership has transferred to the SHO and City-led plans to revitalise the wider surrounding area have become clearer. Given this significant change in context, officers believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider whether it wishes to review its previous position in respect of individual and private ownership of the cottages for ongoing residential use. The cottages are located in what is likely to become an increasingly well-activated commercial and entertainment precinct. The redevelopment of King’s Square is a key transformational move intended to drive an increase in the intensity and diversity of activity in the area into the future. The former Myer building, Queensgate and the Spicers site are large redevelopment sites; these sites alone have planning approval for approximately 29,500sqm of office space and 10,550sqm of retail space. Additional to this the former Fremantle Police Station and old courthouse complex adjoining the W2 cottages is proposed to be sold by the Government for re-use and development and could further activate the area.


24 June 2015

Page 193

It is likely that as the area develops, market interest in commercial use of some or all of the cottages will increase. Due to the special nature of the cottages, it would be realistic to expect firm interest from retail and hospitality operators that see the buildings’ heritage character as a significant asset that can be leveraged and used to create an establishment that is available to the general public to enjoy. The City’s Economic Development Manager considers that high-quality operators would be interested in operating a hospitality establishment from one or more of the cottages, especially in block W3 due to its proximity to Fremantle Markets and the South Terrace entertainment ‘strip’. Perth’s hospitality market has matured significantly in the last ten years and hospitality projects of this nature are starting to be fairly common. Examples of comparable projects include: Bread in Common, Whisper Wine Bar, the National Hotel, and the Attic in Fremantle; and Stables Bar, Helvetica Bar, Andaluz Restaurant, Laneway Lounge, and the various ground level tenancies within Brookfield Plaza in Perth. Specific to the Warders’ cottages, an established hotel operator interested in using the cottages for short stay self-contained accommodation managed under shared management arrangements with a conventional hotel has already informally approached the City with a preliminary plan. Appropriate retail, hospitality, and/or short stay tourist-orientated uses would achieve a level of activation and interaction with Henderson St Mall and neighbouring land uses significantly greater than reuse of the cottages as dwellings for long stay residential occupancy. From an economic development perspective, individual private residential use of the cottages would be a major lost opportunity to build on Fremantle’s appeal to visitors, particularly in the case of block W3 which is located next to the Fremantle Markets. Considering the extensive development due to occur in the immediate surrounds of the cottages, including all the components of Kings Square and the State Government’s imminent sale of the old Police Station complex, Henderson Street Mall will be further activated and there will be an increased demand for entertainment and hospitality uses in the area. Short-term accommodation would help to activate and complement the redevelopment of the area as it is used for holiday and business trips and brings in tourist dollars. Additionally users of this accommodation type generally spend more time and money in the locality and generally do not mind if the area is active at all hours, including after normal working hours. On the other hand, privately owned dwelling occupiers tend to prefer quieter surroundings and are less likely to activate the area as much as other users. Reoccupation of the cottages as conventional dwellings by owner/occupiers or long-term tenants could increase the prospect of a conflict of uses. The Henderson St Mall taxi rank, for example, has been identified as a conflicting use to private residential occupation of the cottages as well as the markets’ early morning operation hours, the Sail and Anchor live music and late operation hours and other non-residential uses in the vicinity. From a planning perspective, whether the cottages in the future are individually owned or held in a single ownership, any proposed works would require the same level of heritage assessment and planning approval. Officers acknowledge however that individual ownership is likely to lead to greater pressure for multiple and less consistent proposals for further alterations, to suit owners’ individual needs, than if they were owned by one entity. For this reason, minimising the number of separate owners of the cottage blocks in the future is regarded as preferable in conservation terms as it offers the best prospect of a unified approach to ongoing conservation and maintenance. This is particularly


24 June 2015

Page 194

important given the high level of intactness the cottages currently have. The Warders’ cottages conservation plan supports the cottages being retained in single ownership residential use and recommends the following:

Policy 10 The preferred use for these buildings is that they continue as residential accommodation. Ideally all terraces should be kept under single ownership or an alternative form of control (covenant) that ensures that the culturally significant unity of these buildings is retained.

POTENTIAL FURTHER ACTION BY THE CITY TO INFLUENCE FUTURE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE WARDERS’ COTTAGES As stated earlier in this report, at this point in time the SHO has not indicated whether it has yet decided upon a clear course of action in relation to the cottages beyond completion of the current scope of urgent conservation works. However the current works are being funded from the State’s Heritage Works revolving fund, and the announcement at the launch of the fund in 2014 stated: “Proceeds from the sale or lease of reactivated properties will be returned to the fund and reinvested in new projects.” Therefore it would seem reasonable to assume that the SHO will need to sell or lease some if not all of the properties in the relatively near future in order to generate income to replenish the revolving fund. Before the SHO makes firm decisions on how it intends to proceed, it would be timely for the City to consider how it can influence and hopefully assist the SHO towards an approach that reconciles preferred heritage, property management and land use outcomes with financial imperatives. Further action by the City could take the form of continued dialogue and partnership working with the SHO, exercise of its powers as a planning authority, financial intervention – or a combination of all three. Reviewing the broad range of factors outlined earlier in this report has led officers to conclude that two key considerations should guide any further action by the City – firstly, future ownership arrangements should seek to minimise the number of separate owners to foster a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages; and secondly, a ‘one size fits all’ approach to future use of the three terraces of cottages will not deliver optimum outcomes particularly in terms of relationship to neighbouring land uses. If Council agrees with officers’ views on these two points, it would seem appropriate as a first step for Council to formally move away from its previous position of conditional support for a strata subdivision of the cottage terraces on the existing lots. A resolution to revoke the previous 21 December 2011 resolution of Council would achieve this, and would give fresh direction to officers in further discussions with the SHO and in dealing with any future strata subdivision application(s) referred to the City. Recommended action – that Council revokes its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages.


24 June 2015

Page 195

If Council agrees with this recommendation, it logically follows that Council is indicating a preference for each of the three blocks of cottages to be held in single ownership through the existing freehold titles (although not necessarily all in one ownership). Council could adopt this as a preferred position without prejudice to future use(s) of each block, or in conjunction with a position in respect of preferred use(s). In either case it would be beneficial to communicate this position to the SHO at the earliest opportunity. Recommended action – that Council authorises the CEO to inform the State Heritage Office that the City is no longer supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the City strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages. With regard to further action to try to secure the most beneficial future ownership and land use arrangements for the cottages, an individual assessment of each of the three terraces is provided below. This assessment draws upon information previously presented to Council in January 2014 in item SGS1401-4 (see Attachment 2). This preliminary investigation considered the financial viability and heritage compatibility of various reuse options for the cottages, and concluded that the use which came closest to being financially viable, and at the same time could sustain the heritage values of the cottages, was short stay tourist-orientated accommodation. Nevertheless at that time the financial viability of such a use could not be confirmed, because the modelling was based on the offer by Department of Housing of a 50 year lease only, rather than sale of the cottages as an asset to a new owner, and only very preliminary assumptions could be made regarding costs of conservation and adaptation works in the absence of detailed designs of necessary alterations. Additionally the estimated capital expenditure costs included the cost of some of the external conservation works that are now being carried out by SHO with funding from the revolving fund. The removal of these costs might reasonably be expected to have some positive effect on any further financial appraisal carried out now.

First Terrace (Block W1) 19-29 Henderson Street (1851)

The W1 block fronts Henderson St Mall and the lot has a side (north) boundary to William Street. It directly adjoins Fremantle Markets to the rear and a laneway from Henderson St Mall into the Markets on its southern side boundary. It is therefore exposed to significant levels of noise and activity associated with the Markets on days they are in operation. It has the largest rear garden area of all three blocks; this area is well-treed and offers a degree of buffering from Market activity which could be useful if the properties were reoccupied for short stay accommodation or as long term dwellings, alternatively the area offers potential to be opened up to limited public access associated with other uses of the cottages (most likely hospitality uses) which, if handled in a sensitively designed way and appropriately managed, could allow wider public appreciation of the qualities of this space.

Second Terrace (Block W2) 33-41 Henderson Street (c1853) The W2 block directly adjoins the former Police Station and Courthouse complex. These cottages are the least intact in terms of their original heritage fabric, and already have off-street car parking in the former rear garden area accessed via William Street. They are the most remote from noise and activity generated by entertainment and hospitality


24 June 2015

Page 196

uses in Fremantle Markets, Henderson St Mall and South Terrace, which might be seen as conducive to residential reuse; however given the State Government’s intention to sell the former Police Station complex future adjoining uses are uncertain at this time. This factor, added to the close physical relationship between the two sites, suggests that the future reuse of both sites should be considered as a single integrated package. The degree of previous alterations to the W2 block could provide greater scope for consideration of alternative uses in conjunction with reuse of the Police Station complex without significant impact on the heritage qualities of this block. A further consideration is that this section of Henderson Street currently has no uses which generate significant amounts of pedestrian activity, and therefore consideration of a range of uses across the W2 block and Police Station complex as an integrated package could deliver wider place activation benefits. Third Terrace (Block W3) 7-17 Henderson Street (1858)

The W3 block directly adjoins Fremantle Markets and fronts Henderson St Mall close to other highly activated land uses such as the Sail and Anchor pub and the Old Shanghai food court. Additionally the weekend night time taxi rank operating in Henderson St Mall is situated directly in front of this block. For these reasons block W3 is exposed to even higher levels of noise and activity than W1 and therefore officers consider any reuse for accommodation purposes should be limited to short stay tourist-orientated use only, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area. Short stay accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. Recommended approach to try to secure preferred ownership and use outcomes for Blocks W1, W2 & W3 Having regard to the above assessment, officers recommend that Council adopts the following position in relation to preferred uses of each of the three blocks, and communicates this position to the SHO: Block W1 – due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets, future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The City is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area. Block W2 – future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The City would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form


24 June 2015

Page 197

(short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole. Block W3 – due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The City is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area. Apart from continued dialogue with the SHO to try to align decisions regarding future ownership and use of the cottages with Council’s position on these matters, options available to the Council to further influence outcomes revolve around use of its planning powers and/or direct financial intervention through acquisition of some or all of the cottages. As stated in the ‘Planning Context’ section of this report, the cottages are on land zoned under the City’s Local Planning Scheme (LPS4). In addition to its powers as a decision-making and referral body for planning applications and subdivision (including strata titling) applications respectively that might be submitted in relation to the cottages, the City could contemplate amending current provisions in LPS4 to further direct future use of the cottages, particularly if the Council adopts a position of not supporting their reuse as grouped dwellings for long term private occupancy. As already stated in this report, the current City Centre zoning of the cottages combined with the zoning table and clause 4.3 in LPS4 allows City Centre zoned land to be used for a broad range of uses, including all types of residential use. This is consistent with the Council’s strategic aim of promoting a diverse mixture of uses and activity in the city centre. It would therefore be counter-productive to contemplate restricting or prohibiting residential land uses through zoning provisions, however there is capacity in LPS4 (Schedule 3 – Restricted Uses) to designate specific land uses on specified land as being not permitted, or only permitted subject to special conditions, notwithstanding their general permissibility under the zoning table. This approach could be considered as a mechanism to restrict certain forms of longer term residential occupancy, as defined in LPS4. However, officers would caution against pursuing this option for the following reasons:

The scheme amendment process is lengthy – it would take a minimum of 12 months to complete to the point of an amendment being gazetted, and in the meantime current scheme provisions would apply to any sale or planning proposal in respect of the cottages;


24 June 2015

Page 198

The SHO would be a key referral agency on the scheme amendment and given their interest in the properties might reasonably be expected to object to such an amendment;

The final decision on approval of a scheme amendment rests with the WAPC and ultimately the Minister for Planning, not the Council. An amendment as outlined above would be highly unusual (seeking to restrict residential occupancy of buildings built and used for their entire existence except for the last 4 years as dwellings) – this, in the view of officers, creates a significant level of risk of the amendment not being approved.

A final option Council may wish to consider is the possibility of the City acquiring the freehold title to one (or more) of the blocks of cottages. As a landowner the City would obviously have direct control over the use, management and conservation of the properties in question, including options such as leasing the cottages to one or more other parties to be operated for purposes consistent with the City’s requirements. This could be of particular value in trying to facilitate adaptive reuse of blocks W1 and/or W3 for the purposes recommended above, although acquisition of any property inherently involves some level of risk. This is a position the Council adopted, with qualifications, in its resolution of 29 January 2014 (see Attachment 2) at a time when the properties were owned by the Department of Housing not the SHO. However, as outlined in the previous item, significant further financial and technical investigations would need to be carried out to establish whether the constraints upon financial viability, and the impacts upon the heritage values of the cottages, as previously identified could be resolved. Previous preliminary investigations suggested the expenditure of further resources necessary to prepare a full business case to evaluate this option was not warranted; however it is open to Council to instruct officers to proceed with this work if it considers this option merits more detailed examination. If Council does wish to proceed with this work, it would be appropriate to move an amendment to the officer’s recommendation as set out at the end of this report to add the following wording as a new part 3 to the recommendation:

3. Authorise officers to prepare a business case relating to the potential acquisition by the City of the freehold title to the properties in Blocks W1 and/or W3 for the purpose of securing their conservation and adaptive reuse for uses consistent with the City’s position as set out in recommendation 2 above, noting that preparation of such a business case would require significant further financial and technical investigations to be carried out at the City’s expense.


Financial

If Council resolves to undertake a business planning exercise in relation to possible acquisition of any of the Warders’ cottages expert external consultancy and/or legal advice is likely to be required. It is anticipated that the cost of such advice could be met from approved operating budgets for consultancy and legal services. The purpose of preparing a business plan would be to enable potential financial implications and risks associated with acquisition of the properties to be properly evaluated.


24 June 2015

Page 199

Legal

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.

(3) This regulation does not apply to a change of decision unless the effect of the

change would be that the decision would be revoked or become substantially different.

The officer's recommendation - part 1 must be moved, and seconded by at least four other members of council, and decided in favour of by absolute majority before the officer's recommendation part 2 can be moved. Operational

Further work by officers as a consequence of consideration of this report by Council is anticipated to form part of normal professional and administrative functions. Organisational

None

CONCLUSION

Council conditionally supported the principle of strata titling of the Warders’ cottages to facilitate their sale in December 2011. Since then the Kings Square redevelopment project involving redevelopment of the City of Fremantle administration centre and the Queensgate and former Myer buildings has evolved, and planning approvals have been granted for a number of major developments including one on the Spicer site. Implementation of these projects will have a transformational effect on this part of the city centre and result in it becoming an area of much more intensive mixed use activity. The ownership of the cottages has transferred to the SHO who have commenced urgent conservation works using the Heritage Works revolving fund launched by the state government in 2014, and the government has recently announced that the former Fremantle Police Station and old Court House complex is to be sold for reuse/redevelopment. These factors have significantly changed the context for decision-making regarding the future of the cottages. It is therefore considered timely for Council


24 June 2015

Page 200

to reconsider its position on preferred future ownership, management and use of the cottages. Officers recommend that Council revokes its previous December 2011 resolution regarding strata titling of the cottages, and authorises the CEO to advise the State Heritage Office of Council’s current position on matters relating to future ownership, management and use of the Warder’s cottages as outlined in this report.


Conservation and adaptive reuse of the Warders’ cottages for purposes complementary to overall city centre activation and regeneration aligns with several of the Council’s strategic imperatives, particularly in relation to economic development and character (embracing built heritage).


Nil. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION- PART 1 MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Moved: Seconder 1: Seconder 2: Seconder 3: Seconder 4: That Council:

Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION- PART 2 That Council:

1. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Heritage Office advising that the City of Fremantle’s position in respect of future ownership and use of the Warders’ cottages is as follows, and that the Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the State Heritage Office to try to achieve an effective outcome for the long term conservation and reuse of the cottage consistent with the City’s position:

The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages


24 June 2015

Page 201

each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.

In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED Part 1 of the Committee and Officer's Recommendation as shown below: That Council:

Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in


24 June 2015

Page 202

Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015.

SECONDERS: Cr D Hume Cr J Wilson Cr J Strachan Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


Cr A Sullivan MOVED Part 2 of the Committee and Officer's Recommendation as shown below: That Council:


The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.



24 June 2015

Page 203

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.



For Against



24 June 2015

Page 204

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015.

That Council:


The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.


In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be


24 June 2015

Page 205

supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.



For Against



24 June 2015

Page 206

SGS1506-8 2016/17 BLACK SPOT PROJECT PROPOSALS

ECM Reference: 106/050 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director of Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: South Street and South Terrace intersection upgrade

Watkins Street and Wiluna Street roundabout Marmion Street and Petra Street seagull island Hampton Road and Wray Avenue signals upgrades Adelaide Street, Parry Street and Queen Victoria Street signal upgrades Hampton Road and Lefroy Road signal upgrades

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year, the City is invited to submit for consideration projects qualifying for Nation Building and State Black Spot Funding. The closing date for the 2016/17 Nation Building submission is 31 July and the State Black Spot Programs is 28 August 2015. Advice of the successful projects funded will be provided in the first half of 2016. This year, City officers have prepared 6 nominations totalling approximately $980 500. Council may be required to contribute up to $328 000, one third of the projects value should the funding bids be successful. This report seeks endorsement from Council to submit the proposed projects for consideration in the 2016/17 Blackspot funding scheme.

BACKGROUND

The National and State Road Safety Black Spot Program is a Commonwealth and State Government initiative administered by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA). The program targets road locations where crashes are occurring and aims to fund cost effective and safety oriented projects by focusing on where the highest safety benefits and crash reductions can be achieved. All submissions are considered on their merits and evaluated against the criteria set by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Separate criteria apply for the Nation Building Black Spot Program and its State counterpart. MRWA collects all data relating to road crashes and has developed two funding programs, Nation Building Black Spot and State Black Spot for approved projects for local governments.


24 June 2015

Page 207

The criteria used in the assessment to determine the benefit / cost ratio (BCR) are:

crashes for the 5 year period 2010 to 2014 inclusive for qualifying audits;

crash costs based on crash type cost and

all capital costs, including contributions by others, and ongoing maintenance costs.

The Australian Government Black Spot Program for 2015/16 and 2016/17 guidelines have changed, effectively improving the prospects for projects to be funded as well as an increase in the total funding pool from $6.585 million to $17.56 million. The below table summarises the proposed treatments and costs for the Fremantle 2016-17 Black Spot Submissions;

COMMENT

The schedule of projects has been developed from crash data available to the City. An online ‘crash analysis record system’ (CARS), developed by MRWA. CARS uses crash data and the results obtained from other known treatments to determine the appropriate solution to minimise the incidence of the crash type. The BCR is the probable savings in the incidence of crashes against the capital cost of effecting the improvements. Based on the criteria, intersections were identified as warranting treatment and each of the intersections has a record of either rear end, right angle or multiple type crashes. These projects are programmed for completion by June 2017.

Street 1 Street 2 Street 3 Crash Casualty Proposed

Countermeasure

Estimated

Total Cost

COF

Budget

(33%)

South Street South Terrace 33 3 reconstruct median

islands on north &

south approaches

$95,000 $32,000

Watkins Street Wiluna Street 12 2 roundabout $150,000 $50,000

Marmion Street Petra Street 10 2 seagull island $30,000 $10,000

Hampton Road Wray Avenue 42 5 overhead mast arms

on N & S approaches

$190,000 $64,000

Adelaide Street Parry Stret Queen

Victoria Street

14 3 overhead mast arms

on E & W

approaches,

upgraded

pedestrian facilities

$335,500 $112,000

Hampton Road Lefroy Road 29 7 overhead mast arms

on N & S approaches

$180,000 $60,000

CITY OF FREMANTLE 2016-17 BLACK SPOT SUBMISSION PROPOSALS


24 June 2015

Page 208

Where applicable, improvements to cycle functionality were addressed and included in the project submission When upgrading a major signalised intersection, the ability to install head start cycle facilities can be relatively inexpensive requiring only the relocation of the signal loop detectors, some additional line marking removal and reinstatement as well as the green surface treatment. Although not able to be funded under the Black Spot guidelines, their inclusion was shown to portray the ultimate design for intersections that are on bike routes. The South Terrace and South Street upgrade adds head start facilities on the north and south approaches on South Terrace and will provide a direct link to the proposed South Terrace south of South Street project. A similar link will be proposed for the resubmitted Hampton Road and Wray Avenue project along Hampton Road. The Adelaide Street and Queen Victoria Street upgrade will also provide cycle links into the City as well as provide an opportunity to create enhanced pedestrian areas adjacent to the Princess May Park in conjunction with the proposed future upgrades here. Bike symbols are included at the roundabout on Watkins Street and Wiluna Avenue. The upgrade proposed for Hampton Road and Lefroy Road is to mitigate the number of rear end collisions and focuses on the signalling and electrical component of the intersection. No significant civil works are proposed. The City has ‘Agreement in Principle’ with MRWA to carry out the following projects involving the upgrading of these signalised intersections;

South Terrace and South Street

Adelaide Street, Parry Street and Queen Victoria Street

Hampton Road and Wray Avenue and

Hampton Road and Lefroy Road


Financial

For the proposed projects in the 2016/17 financial year, the estimated total cost is $980 500. If all project submissions are successful in attracting grant funding Council may be required to contribute one third of this cost being $328 000. The funded cost to undertake the works relates only to the design and construction of the road treatment designed to improve the safety of road users. Ancillary works such as landscaping, artworks, improved cycle functionality and decorative lighting to enhance the urban streetscape will need to be funded by the City. Legal

All works are designed in accordance with the Road Traffic Act and designs will need final approval from Main Roads WA prior to implementation. Operational


24 June 2015

Page 209

Capital works will need to be scheduled for the awarded projects in 2016/17 and will be carried out by the City’s construction unit. Organisational

The works complement the long term Infrastructure plans for the City of Fremantle by completing the existing bike routes and the South Terrace South Fremantle project improvements. The Queen Victoria Street and Adelaide Street upgrade project will also align with the Princess May Park proposed works. The Strategic Projects team have reviewed this proposal and are satisfied it aligns with the City’s urban design strategy.

CONCLUSION

The 6 projects nominated for consideration in the 2016/17 Black Spot Program were selected based on criteria for improving functionality and efficiency at busy signalised intersections, as well as providing enhanced pedestrian and cycling facilities to address road safety issues within the City. The projects, if successful, represent a significant investment in improving road safety and sustainable transport for the City.


Bike Plan 2014 - 2018 Strategic Plan 2010 - 2015

Transport

Community Safety


Community engagement will take the form of information and project communication in accordance with the City's Community Engagement Policy.




24 June 2015

Page 210

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: CR A SULLIVAN That Council supports the 2016/17 State Black Spot Program submission for the projects as listed below;

a) South Street and South Terrace intersection upgrade adding turn pockets on South Terrace

b) Watkins Street and Wiluna Street roundabout c) Marmion Street and Petra Street seagull island d) Hampton Road and Wray Avenue signal upgrades e) Adelaide Street, Parry Street and Queen Victoria Street signal upgrades f) Hampton Road and Lefroy Road signal upgrades

SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 211

SGS1506-11 DELEGATED AUTHORITY REGISTER REVIEW 2015

DataWorks Reference: 100/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Melody Foster, Governance Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Delegated Authority Register 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A review of the Delegated Authority Register has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). The register has been reviewed to ensure all delegations from the Council and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is relevant and appointed to the appropriate officer. Council approval is being sought for the Council delegations as reviewed.

BACKGROUND

Under the Act, local governments may delegate the exercise of any of its powers or duties to a committee of Council or CEO, except those powers specifically identified under the Act. The CEO may then delegate these powers (or part thereof) to other officers but only in accordance with the delegation set by Council. The last review was undertaken in April 2014. The Act requires that a local government authority is to review its delegations at least once every financial year. An annual review of delegations, ensure that they remain up to date with Council expectations, legislation and council policy.

COMMENT

Last year council made a few minor changes to the delegation register, with an additional 2 delegations numbered 3.45 and 4.22 to be included. This year a major review has been undertaken of the Delegated Authority Register to remove any delegations that are no longer required due to legislation, policy or organisational changes. The significant changes that have been made to the register have been listed within this report for reference. Minor changes have been made to the register in regards to employee title changes due to an organisational restructure and the wording of some delegations have been changed to better reflect the intent of the delegation and provide more clarity. The format of the document has also changed from the previous register to make it easier to read.


24 June 2015

Page 212

All changes have been highlighted within the Draft Delegated Authority Register 2015 as shown in attachment 1 of this agenda item. Delegations by council to committees (Section 1 and 2)

Title of Delegation Page Reason for change

1.1 Delegation of powers and duties - Strategic and General Services Committee

4 The inclusion of xviii) Approval of Parklet applications in accordance with council policy.

Adopted by Council on the 27 November 2013.

1.2 Delegation of powers and duties – Audit and Risk Management Committee (NEW)

5 This delegation has been moved from section 3 and was previously number 3.37. It has been moved to this section as it is a committee delegation.

Delegations by council to the CEO and by the CEO to employees (Section 3)


3.8 Expenditure – Authorisation of

15-20 This delegation has been amended to remove the schedule of authorised officer’s appendix as it is considered an administrative function of the CEO and does not require Council approval, therefore has been removed from this register. Employee expenditure authorisations that have been approved by the CEO will be listed in the register of delegated and authorised officers.

3.10 Painting of house numbers on roadside kerbing

22 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is considered a general administrative function that does not require delegation and will form an internal policy/procedure. Applicable legislation, policy, procedures or local laws will be used to carry out these tasks.

3.11 Advertising signs on sporting reserves

23 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is considered a general administrative function that does not require delegation. Applicable legislation, policy, procedures or local laws will be used to carry out these tasks.

3.12 Banners – Cantonment Hill Cliff and Princess May Park

24 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is considered a general administrative function that does not require delegation. Applicable legislation, policy, procedures or local laws will be used to carry out these tasks.


24 June 2015

Page 213

Delegations by council to the CEO and by the CEO to employees (Section 3) continued…

3.18 Building licenses – Extension of

30 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is now redundant due to the implementation of the Building Act 2011.

3.20 Stop work orders and seek injunctions – issue of


3.21 Swimming pools - private 33 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is now redundant due to the implementation of the Building Act 2011.

3.22 Permits - annual 34 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is no longer applicable. Applicable legislation, policy, procedures or local laws will be used to carry out these tasks.

3.25 Workers compensation insurance

37 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is considered a general administrative function that is a statutory requirement. Any applicable legislation, policy, procedures and/or local law will be used to carry out this task.

3.26 Native title claim – Swan Valley

38 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is no longer applicable and therefore does not require delegation.

3.27 Assign classifications and issue a certificate of classification


3.28 Materials – not to be deposited on streets without license


3.29 Certain provisions about land – persons with express authority

41-44 This delegation has been amended to remove appendix 1 as it is not required in the register. The information from the appendix will form a procedure that will be adopted by management group for expressly authorised persons. Applicable legislation, policy, procedures or local laws will be used to carry out these tasks.


24 June 2015

Page 214

Delegations by council to the CEO and by the CEO to employees (Section 3) continued…

3.30 Western power – pruning agreements

45 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is considered a general administrative function that does not require delegation. The City will work with Western Power to ensure our tree pruning and tree species fit within the legislative requirements and services for tree pruning will go through the appropriate tender process.

3.31 Placement of regular newspaper column and advertising

46 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is no longer applicable due to the changes in our processes and does not require delegation in this form. Applicable legislation, policy and procedures will be used when placing columns and advertising for the City.

3.35 Filming policy 50 This delegation has been removed from the register as it is not required. Applicable policy and procedures will be used when approving filming requests.

3.37 Annual meeting with the auditor

52 This delegation has been moved from section 3 to section 1 and re-numbered, as it is a committee delegation.

3.46 Approval of land use for community gardens (NEW)

61 This delegation was adopted by Council at its meeting of the 28 May 2014 (SGS1405-16) and therefore has been added to the register.

Delegations by council to employees from other legislation (Section 4)


4.7 Functions delegated under LPS4

68-70 Some parts of the delegation were deleted due to changes in procedure. These changes will enable the delegated officer/s to carry out tasks more efficiently.

4.13 - This delegation was deleted in the last review.

4.14 Fireworks – approvals for display of

77 This delegation has been reworded to better reflect the intent of the delegation – the Council can only provide consent to a firework display application and the Dept of Minerals & Energy is the approving body.

4.15 Dog numbers at premises within the City of Fremantle

78 This delegation has been reworded to better reflect the intent of the delegation, no major changes have been made.

Delegations by council to employees from other legislation (Section 4)


24 June 2015

Page 215

4.16 Building licence – issuing of


4.19 Appointment of authorised persons under the Building Act 2011 (NEW)

82 This delegation is a new delegation to comply with the requirements of the Building Act. It will replace Functions delegated under the Building Act 2011 (Authorisations) which has been included in delegation 4.20.

4.20 Functions delegated under the Building Act 2011

83 This delegation combines the delegations from the previous 4.19 and 4.20. It was felt they should be combined due to the nature of the delegations. No major changes have been made.

4.22 Appointment of authorised persons (Cat Act 2011)

Previously named - Functions delegated under the Cat Act 2011

85-86 This delegation has been renamed and rewritten to better reflect the intent of the delegation and meet the requirements of the Cat Act.

4.23 Performance of functions under the Bush Fires Act 1954. (NEW)

87 This delegation has been created to cover the requirements in Bush Fires Act 1954.


Financial A number of delegations provide ability for officers or committees to exercise power to approve tenders or commit funding. These delegations are only provided where within policy and adopted budgets set by Council. Legal Section 5.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 makes provision for local government to delegate some of the powers and duties under the Act to committees, except for 5.17 which precludes some of these powers. Section 5.42 of the Act makes provision to delegate some powers and duties to the CEO, except for exclusions under section 5.43. The Act also enables the CEO to further delegate these roles to officers, but only to the extent that Council has delegated power to the CEO. All delegations need to be in writing and this will occur by way of letter signed by the Mayor to the CEO, and by the CEO to officers where delegation has been passed on. Section 5.18 and section 5.46 (2) of the Act requires that an annual review of delegations to committees and the CEO be undertaken. This report complies with this requirement.


24 June 2015

Page 216

Council is also requested to review the appointments of the Chief Executive Officer and other nominated officers under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960, Health Act 1911, Strata Titles Act 1985 and Local Planning Scheme 4. The delegation will enable the officers to attend to specific matters for which delegation is possible in those Acts and Local Planning Scheme 4. Operational All officers are provided with written notice of their delegation by the Chief Executive Officer and advised of their obligation to declare an interest where they have a conflict of interest. If no alternative officer is delegated to process a matter where delegation exists it will either be the Chief Executive Officer that determines the matter through a recommendation from an appropriate officer, or the matter will be referred to council/committee. A delegated responsibility does not necessarily need to be determined under delegation on every occasion, however it is generally the case. Organisational All delegations can only be exercised within Council Policy or within the requirements of the statutory power originally provided and only within the level of delegation provided by Council.

CONCLUSION

Delegations provide for an effective and efficient delivery of services to the Fremantle community. The recommendations contained in this report ensure that these delegations remain current to Council’s structure, policies and procedures.


The requested ongoing delegations assist in administering the strategic direction of Council.


Nil


Absolute Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: CR A SULLIVAN That Council adopts the Delegated Authority Register 2015/2016 and noted the change which was provided in the Additional Information at Council on 25 June 2015, which is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and other related legislation as attached to Strategic and General Services Committee agenda.


24 June 2015

Page 217

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 218

SGS1506-13 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - SALE OF MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY

ECM Reference: 038/012 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 June 2015 Previous Item: C1502-5 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Memorandum of Understanding – Material Recovery

Facility Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider signing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council and Members to provide agreed principles for the process of consideration of offering the Materials Recovery Facility for Sale. This report seeks council approval for the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign the proposed MoU.

BACKGROUND

In December 2014 the Chairman of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council (SMRC) wrote to members of the SMRC seeking consideration and support to market test the sale of the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). All members, including the City of Fremantle considered this request early in 2015. Fremantle approved the process to market test in February; “Cr S Wainwright MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow: 1. The SMRC to prepare business cases for both the retention and sale of the MRF as

identified in the confidential consultant's report so that the financial consequences of each option can be properly considered.

2. Both the SMRC and the City of Fremantle an opportunity to prepare their own

reports canvassing the strategic implications of sale or retention of the MRF for their waste and resource recovery strategies.”

COMMENT

The SMRC has appointed a consultant to draft the Business Plan for consideration and engaged commercial lawyers to assist with ensuring legal compliance with legislation, including relevant anti-competition legislation. The first draft was received early May and since this time officers have been in discussion with the SMRC to finalise the Plan so member councils may consider it.


24 June 2015

Page 219

As members are still in dialogue on the draft Plan, the SMRC has sought the members to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) so the SMRC may commence discussions with the market. The process for consideration and possible sale of the MRF is as follows;

June – Members consider an MoU in relation to the Project

June/July – SMRC undertake Market Sounding

July – SMRC and members finalise Business Plan and seek member endorsement

August/September – SMRC advertise Business Plan

September/October – SMRC and members consider adopting Business Plan and possible advertising sale of MRF by Tender

November – Evaluate Tender Submissions

November/December – SMRC and Members consider tenders. Member Council’s will need to individually consider and decide on the Business Plan in July. It is not yet known whether all members need to approve the Plan for the SMRC to be able to advertise it, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, but current advice suggests that all members will likely need to adopt it for the SMRC to keep moving through the process to the point of advertising the sale. The MoU attached is a fairly straight forward agreement that requires members to work together, progress and consider decision points in a timely manner, communicate in a timely manner, agree not to withdraw from the SMRC whilst the project is underway and agree to supply recyclable materials to the MRF for between 10 and 20 years. The City is not yet comfortable with the timeframe being contemplated in the draft Plan, however this can be considered further once bids are on the table.


Financial

Nil Legal

Awaiting legal advice at the time of finalising the agenda Operational

The MoU provides an opportunity for the SMRC members to establish the grounds rules for proceeding with the process. Officers from the City will continue to work with the SMRC and members to consider the proposal for the sale of the MRF. Organisational

The MoU requires council to consider decisions at various points through the process. The intent of the MoU is that Council will consider and make decisions when called upon to do so. The MoU cannot seek council to make either a positive or negative decision though.


24 June 2015

Page 220

CONCLUSION

It is considered appropriate that the SMRC and members enter into an MoU to set principles for and during the process of considering the sale of the MRF. The process will likely take between six and eight months to complete from this point.


The consideration of the sale of the MRF may influence the strategic opportunities the City of Fremantle has available in the future. The long term strategic view will need to be kept in mind when considering future decision points in this process.


Nil.


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: CR A SULLIVAN The City of Fremantle endorses the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign the proposed Memorandum of Understanding – Materials Recovery Facility Project between the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council and Members, as attached to the Strategic and general Services Committee Agenda for June, 2015. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 10/1

For Against

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

Cr Sam Wainwright


24 June 2015

Page 221

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

Nil.

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1506-1 INFORMATION REPORT - JUNE 2015

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC445/15 FOR PLUMBING SERVICES

DataWorks Reference: 39/073

Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Plumbing Services to be awarded to Charter Plumbing & Gas and AAA Hillary’s & Gas as a panel of contractors for the estimated sum of $200,000.00 excluding GST per annum for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2017. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services 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 REJECTION OF TENDER FCC440/15 FOR SUPPLY & CONSTRUCT SERVICES FOR TRI GENERATION INSTALLATION AT FREMANTLE ARTS CENTRE.


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Supply & Construct Services for Tri Generation Installation at Fremantle Arts Centre to reject all tenders. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager


24 June 2015

Page 222

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

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER WFCC02/12 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING COLLECTION EXTENSION OF CONTRACT


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Residential Recycling Collection to be extended from 1 October 2015 to 20 March 2017 under the WALGA Waste Collection Tender for the estimated sum of $450,000.00 excluding GST. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services 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

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER WFCC17/15 FOR SUPPLY EXTRUDED CONCRETE KERBING


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Supply Extruded Concrete Kerbing to be awarded to L D Total for the sum of $51,300.00 excluding GST for the period 1 July 2015 to 28 February 2017. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services 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


24 June 2015

Page 223

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The information report for June 2015 be received. SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 224

C1506-2 FINANCIAL COUNSELLING SERVICE CESSATION OF FUNDING

DataWorks Reference: 023/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 24 June 2015 Previous Item: SGS1407-8 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Helen Emery, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is coming straight to council as the Department for Child Protection and Family Support requires an exit plan to be sent to them as soon as possible. The City of Fremantle is funded by Department for Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS) to provide a financial counselling service. On Friday 5 June 2015, DCPFS informed all funded metropolitan financial counselling services that funding would cease as of 1 October 2015. Services were asked to submit an exit strategy to the department for approval. DCPFS will provide one more quarterly payment from 1 July to 30 September 2015. Council is required to decide whether it will continue/not continue to provide the financial counselling service at Fremantle Community Legal Centre (FCLC) in 2015/2016 and thereafter. BACKGROUND The financial counselling service is a regional service delivered at Fremantle Community Legal Centre (FCLC). Financial counselling is available to Fremantle residents plus residents from the following suburbs: Alfred Cove, Applecross, Ardross, Attadale, Bateman, Bicton, Booragoon, Brentwood, Bullcreek, Kardinya, Leeming, Melville, Mt Pleasant, Mosman Park, Murdoch, Myaree, Palmyra, Willagee and Winthrop. In addition to financial counselling, the following services are delivered by the financial counsellor:

Emergency relief in the form of Coles vouchers as part of the financial counselling service. Also, $40,000 of emergency relief is distributed annually funded by Lotterywest.

Assistance to clients with Hardship Utility Grants (HUGS) and WA no interest loans (WANILS) applications.

COMMENT The FCLC financial counselling service currently has a two to three week waitlist. There were 180 cases opened during the 1 July to 31 December 2014 period. Of the 163 cases


24 June 2015

Page 225

closed in the six month reporting period, 60 were residents of City of Fremantle and 103 were residents from outside the City of Fremantle. 6 one-off advices were provided during the six month period to people living in Fremantle. The City of Fremantle currently receives $92,621 per annum in funding and the 2014/2015 cost to deliver is $148,548. The Council contribution in 2014/2015 is expected to be $55,936. The $55,936 deficit in funding is made up of an approximate $18,000 service delivery deficit and a $38,000 service contribution towards administration and coordination of FCLC. Total costs for FCLC administration and coordination are approximately $250,000 for 2014/2015 and are split across all program areas operating at FCLC. The predicted 2015/2016 cost to deliver the current full time financial counselling service including its FCLC contribution is $148,548, less the quarterly payment of $23,153 per annum, making a total cost to Council of $125,395. As well as the cessation of financial counselling, the distribution of emergency relief would cease through FCLC. St. Patrick’s Community Support Centre and Fremantle Multicultural Centre distribute emergency relief in Fremantle currently. There are a number of other Emergency Relief providers in Cockburn. Assistance for community members to apply for HUGS and WANILS loans would cease. There are a number of financial counselling services across the metropolitan area. The current financial counselling providers in Fremantle and surrounds are as follows:

Uniting Care West – Cantonment Street, Fremantle.

City of Melville – Willagee part time service (City of Melville utilise DCPFS family support funding and do not receive financial counselling funding).

City of Cockburn – Coolbellup and Success.

Red Cross – Kwinana.

St Vincents – Rockingham.

Anglicare – Rockingham, Byford.

Southcare – Manning.

Uniting Care West provided financial counselling to136 clients during the period of 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2014. A worker from United Care West comes to the Fremantle office on a Friday to distribute emergency relief and sees 8 – 10 clients on average. Uniting Care West currently sees people from the following suburbs: Beaconsfield, Fremantle, South Fremantle, East Fremantle , North Fremantle, Samson, Hilton, Hamilton Hill, White Gum Valley, Hilton, Mosman Park, O’Connor, Spearwood. Uniting Care West has been unable to provide a breakdown of client by suburb. It is understood that Uniting Care West and Anglicare are both ceasing their financial counselling services. City of Cockburn has indicated that unless there is a reversal of the funding decision, they will cease all financial counselling services as of 1 October 2015. DCPFS has indicated organisations can cease providing the service at any time prior to 1 October. A number of organisations have indicated they will cease their service by 30 June or 31 July 2015. The DCPFS has indicated that the only services people can be referred to after 1 October 2015 are the financial counselling helpline and limited Commonwealth financial counselling services.


24 June 2015

Page 226

There are some additional funding decisions currently affecting, or about to affect FCLC. Legal Aid WA closed their Fremantle office on 10 June 2015. FCLC is already receiving additional people walking in for appointments, telephone calls for appointments and/or information for referral elsewhere. Legal Aid WA funding has been cut and WA Community Legal Centres have been informed by the National Association for Community Legal Centres that there will be a cut to their funding in the 2015/2016 year. The annual funding amount will be communicated to City of Fremantle the week of 22 June 2015. Legal Aid WA currently funds the following FCLC services: Welfare Rights, Family Relationship Partnerships, Generalist (Evening Legal service and Community Education) and State and Commonwealth Domestic Violence Legal services. Any cut in funding to these services will increase Council contribution to FCLC. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial If the financial counselling service ceases the other FCLC program areas will have to absorb the $38,000 contribution currently made by the financial counselling service towards FCLC administration and coordination costs. If other FCLC program areas are unable to absorb these additional costs, it would become an added cost to the City. Current support service costs total $16,727. These would need to be redistributed across the City. If Council decides to continue the financial counselling service, it will cost approximately $148,548 for the 2015/2016 financial year inclusive of contribution to FCLC coordination and administration and less the quarterly DCPFS payment of $23,153. Total cost to Council to deliver the full time service for 2015/2016 will be $125,395. Legal Nil Operational If delivery of the service cease, an exit strategy will be approved by DCPFS and implemented by FCLC. Continuation of the delivery of financial counselling services will require an adjustment to the service delivery boundaries to suburbs within Fremantle only. Organisational Nil CONCLUSION The financial counselling service is currently a regional service that includes Fremantle as well as suburbs in surrounding areas. Uniting Care West currently services Fremantle and a few suburbs outside of Fremantle. Uniting Care West will cease its service in the next few months.


24 June 2015

Page 227

The delivery of the financial counselling service will cost approximately $118,000 in the 2014/2015 year plus a $38,000 contribution to the administration and coordination costs of FCLC. If the City continues to provide the service in 2015/2016, it will cost $125,395 as the City will receive a quarterly payment of $23,153. If Council decides to continue the service, it is envisaged that a full time service would be required to service the Fremantle area, given current client numbers. If the financial counselling service ceases, the other service areas at FCLC will need to absorb the $38,000 contribution to FCLC from financial counselling. It is unlikely that this would be possible therefore Council would need to absorb this cost. Besides the current impact of the closure of Legal Aid WA Fremantle, there is likely to be another funding decision that will impact FCLC. Legal Aid WA funding will decrease in 2015/2016. Any decrease in Legal Aid WA funding for the other FCLC services will need to be absorbed by the City or staff hours reduced. The amount of the decrease in funding will not be known until week commencing 22 June 2015. Staff consider that Council has two options as follows:

Cease to offer financial counselling services by 30 September 2015.

Fund the service in 2015/2016 for City of Fremantle residents only at a cost of approximately $125,395 (inclusive of financial contribution to FCLC and less the quarterly payment from DCPFS). Statistics received from Uniting Care West and FCLC indicate that a full time service would only be able to service residents of the City of Fremantle.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Majority


24 June 2015

Page 228


1. The City ceases to provide financial counselling services by 30 September 2015 with the budget amended as per the budget table below.

Or 2. The City funds financial counselling services for the 2015/2016 financial year for

City of Fremantle residents only, at a cost of $125,395 with a review of the service in March 2016 with the budget amended as per budget table below.

3. Council lobby political parties for the continuation of financial counselling services

across the metropolitan area.


24 June 2015

Page 229

Current Position for Full Year - Modified Grant with three months expenses for closedown

Column A Column B Column C

Budget Category/Sub Category

Existing Full Year Budget

30 September Close Down Budget

Continue CoF Funded Budget

Account String

Expenditure /(Revenue)



(Budget amount refers to this account))

Revenue

Grant State Operating ($92,612) ($23,153) ($23,153) 32.32500.4311.00.00.18003

Total Funding ($92,612) ($23,153) ($23,153)

Expenditure

Support Service Costs $16,727 $4,182 $16,727 **.32500.91**.**.**.18003

Printing $500 $125 $500 32.32500.63**.**.**.18003

Other Contracts $2,820 $705 $2,820 32.32500.68**.**.**.18003

Staff Establishment $90,501 $22,625 $90,501 32.32500.71**.**.**.18003

FCLC Management $38,000 $9,500 $38,000 Allocated Costing

Total Expenditure $148,548 $37,137 $148,548

Net Variation Cost to Council – Deficit/(Surplus)

$55,936 $13,984 $125,395


24 June 2015

Page 230

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED Part 2 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

1. The City funds financial counselling services for the 2015/2016 financial year for City of Fremantle residents only, at a cost of $125,395 with a review of the service in March 2016 with the budget amended as per budget table below.

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED Part 3 of the Officer's Recommendation as shown below:

2. Council lobby political parties for the continuation of financial counselling services across the metropolitan area.


24 June 2015

Page 231







Account String





Revenue


Total Funding ($92,612) ($23,153) ($23,153)

Expenditure


Printing $500 $125 $500 32.32500.63**.**.**.18003

Other Contracts $2,820 $705 $2,820 32.32500.68**.**.**.18003





$55,936 $13,984 $125,395


24 June 2015

Page 232


For Against



24 June 2015

Page 233

COUNCIL DECISION


1. The City funds financial counselling services for the 2015/2016 financial year for City of Fremantle residents only, at a cost of $125,395 with a review of the service in March 2016 with the budget amended as per budget table below.

2. Council lobby political parties for the continuation of financial counselling services across the metropolitan area.







Account String





Revenue


Total Funding ($92,612) ($23,153) ($23,153)

Expenditure


Printing $500 $125 $500 32.32500.63**.**.**.18003

Other Contracts $2,820 $705 $2,820 32.32500.68**.**.**.18003



24 June 2015

Page 234




$55,936 $13,984 $125,395

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 235

C1506-3 ADOPTION OF CITY OF FREMANTLE STATUTORY BUDGET 2015/16

DataWorks Reference: 091/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 2015/16 Statutory Budget (to be provided), Notes and Attachments to 2015/16 Budget. Fees and Charges List for 2015/16.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed budget is the culmination of several workshops with elected members and provides a general rate increase of 5.0 percent inclusive of rates and waste costs and minimum rates proposed at $1,103 for residential vacant and $1,222 for others. Separate differential rates have been continued for commercial and residential properties to manage the large disparity in valuation changes resulting from the revaluation undertaken by the Valuer Generals Office in 2014. This has ensured that the rate distribution is generalised amongst all properties and not a burden to one sector of the community. The focus of the budget has been to provide emphasis to the strategic initiatives from the Strategic Plan, and ensure service standards remain high. The total budget expenditure being adopted is $102,749,093 as follows; Operating $ 72,001,064 Capital $ 30,748,029 TOTAL $102,749,093 STRATEGIC OVERVIEW Council continues to drive the revitalisation program from its Strategic Plan 2010-2015. This 2015/16 budget is strongly aligned to the strategic direction the council has put in place over the last five years. Council is now in the final year of its current strategic plan and this has laid very strong foundations for the future economic growth and sustainability of the city. This includes the adoption of an economic development strategy, retail model plan, cultural development strategy, east end planning scheme amendment, scheme amendment 49, One Planet Strategy, and the community safety plan. The budget builds strongly on these foundations, allocating significant funding to implement important strategies. The budget papers provide further information on those projects and initiatives.


24 June 2015

Page 236

In preparing this budget, council has been keen to minimise rate increases whilst allocating funding for the very important initiatives that support the strategic plan, recognising that this is very much a balancing act. Continued operational efficiencies are included in the budget to assist with this endeavour. The proposed budget papers reflect the forward estimates being provided through the Long Term Financial Plan and is a strong indication of council’s commitment to deliver of the strategic imperatives from the Strategic Plan 2010-2015 and beyond.

BACKGROUND

Each year local governments are required to prepare and adopt an annual budget. Three workshops have been held to review the budget information leading up to the preparation of the attached document, these workshops have viewed the long term financial plan, recurrent/operational areas of the budget for each directorate, the capital and non-recurrent projects and new initiatives including detailed capital works programs, loan options and rating options.

COMMENT

General Grants The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission has notified the City that the Commonwealth Government is freezing indexation of this grant for the next two years. This year’s funding will therefore remain at $1,025,324. Rates Rates and Specified Area Rates (inclusive of waste costs) As mentioned above there is a general rate increase of 5.0% applied to this budget. Minimum rates are $1,103 for residential vacant land and $1,222. The rate increase is inclusive of operational and waste costs for the City as the City does not separate rates and waste charges. The differential rate for City Centre Commercial is applied to generate $339,000 above the commercial differential rate which will match the contribution to the Business Improvement District (BID).


24 June 2015

Page 237

The rate income for the budget is broken into the following categories;

Rate Category No of Properties

No of Min Rate

Min Rate

$

Rate in $ Rateable Value

$

Interim Rates

$

Total Rates

$

Residential Improved 12,634 4,162 1,222 0.063744 316,388,960 26,229 20,905,659

Commercial/Industrial 1,646 246 1,222 0.075223 149,793,111 11,371,833

City Centre Commercial

444 53 1,222 0.079439 82,651,989 6,584,497

Vacant Land Residential

401 183 1,103 0.105816 7,418,677 835,215

Vacant Commercial/Industrial

39 9 1,222 0.127484 1,109,830 146,211

Nightclubs 3 1,222 0.127486 2,206,331 281,276

TOTAL 15,168 4,653 559,568,898 26,229 40,124,691

Specified (CBD)

1,050

0.001018

98,271,657

100,035

Leighton Precinct Maintenance

118

0.004804

7,910,480

38,001

TOTAL SPECIFIED AREA RATE

94,938,394

138,036

Differential Rate Advertising In accordance with section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 the City advertised its intention to raise differential rates stating the purpose for each rate. This notice was advertised in the local newspapers from Tuesday 5th May, 2014. The rates advertised were for a general increase of up to 5.0%. Objects and Reasons for Differential Rates As the City applies differential rates it is required to describe the objects and reasons for its differential rates. The following objects and reasons are applied to the differential rates for 2015/16;

Following are the objects and reasons for each of the differential rates:-

1. Residential Improved Differential Rate The residential improved differential applies to all residential properties that are not specifically covered by the vacant residential differential rate. At the start of the new triennial valuation cycle on 1 July 2014 cycle the valuations provided by the Valuer Generals Office (VGO) varied greatly between different property categories to the previous valuations. Such large variations make it very difficult to manage the general rate and waste increase across various parts of the community. To alleviate a substantial rate burden being placed on residential properties the City adopted a differential rate structure that separated differential rates being applied to


24 June 2015

Page 238

commercial/industrial properties and residential properties. Therefore the rate for 2014/2015 was established by calculating the actual revenue from 2013/2014 for the affected properties and increasing it for the required percentage increase in revenue and then dividing by the new gross rental values (GRV) that were applicable from 1 July 2014. For 2015/2016 the rate in the dollar has been increased by the required percentage increase in revenue.

2. Commercial and Industrial Differential Rate

The commercial and industrial differential applies to all commercial and industrial properties that are not specifically covered by the city centre commercial differential rate, nightclubs differential rate, and vacant commercial and industrial differential rate. At the start of the new triennial valuation cycle on 1 July 2014 cycle the valuations provided by the Valuer Generals Office (VGO) varied greatly between different property categories to the previous valuations. Such large variations make it very difficult to manage the general rate and waste increase across various parts of the community. To alleviate a substantial rate burden being placed on residential properties the City adopted a differential rate structure that separated differential rates being applied to commercial/industrial properties and residential properties. Therefore the rate for 2014/2015 was established by calculating the actual revenue from 2013/2014 for the affected properties and increasing it for the required percentage increase in revenue and then dividing by the new gross rental values (GRV) that were applicable from 1 July 2014. In 2015/2016 the rate in the dollar has been increased by the required percentage increase in revenue.

3. City Centre Commercial Differential Rate

The City Centre Commercial Differential Rate is applicable to all commercial properties located within the boundaries of the City Centre zone and the abutting Metropolitan Regional reserves (refer map below) being areas bounded by Parry Street, Norfolk Street and including those properties located in Fremantle Fishing Boat and Challenger Harbours and on Victoria Quay. On 1 July 2008 the City took over management of the Fremantle First brand and introduced a differential rate to fund the management, administration and delivery of marketing activities aimed at enhancing the economic and social viability, and the general amenity, of the Fremantle Commercial Business District (CBD) and environs. In June 2010 council adopted the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-2015. The Plan included the preparation of a new Fremantle economic development strategy and the preparation of a Fremantle retail model plan. A recommendation in the Fremantle Retail Model Plan, the introduction of a Fremantle CBD business improvement district, was subsequently incorporated into the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2011-2015, adopted by council in April 2011.


24 June 2015

Page 239

In July 2011 a steering group comprising business people from within the Fremantle CBD, and representatives of the City of Fremantle, Fremantle Chamber of Commerce and Business Foundations, commenced planning the establishment of a Fremantle CBD business improvement district. On 24 April 2012 council, on the recommendation of the steering group, resolved to support the establishment of a Fremantle CBD business improvement project through a funding and performance agreement between the City of Fremantle and the business improvement district entity, a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. The funding of the business improvement district (BID) entity, as recommended to the council by the steering group, will be collected by the City of Fremantle from the City Centre Commercial Differential Rate above what the Commercial and Industrial General Differential would have raised. The base funding for the Fremantle BID is $315,000 indexed at 2.5% from 2012/13. In 2015/2016 it is estimated an additional $339,000 will be raised from this differential rate compared to what would have been raised from the commercial and industrial general rate. In 2015/2016 the rate in the dollar has been increased by the required percentage increase in revenue.

4. Nightclubs Differential Rate


24 June 2015

Page 240

Nightclubs that operate to the early hours of the morning present numerous challenges to the community and Council in the level of resources that are required to maintain the amenity of the area where the nightclubs are located and deal with the behaviour of the nightclub patrons both prior to arrival and on departure from the clubs. These issues cover: - noise complaints, vandalism, increased street sweeping and cleaning costs, unsociable behaviour, facilitating safe access to public transport and taxis for all visitors to the city including nightclub patrons and CCTV surveillance.

Due the increased costs directly and indirectly linked to the operation of these premises, Council is setting a differential rate that is double the general differential rate so that nightclubs that remain open after 2.00am make an additional contribution towards those costs that are incurred in maintaining the amenity in proximity to the nightclubs and the monitoring of peoples behaviours within the vicinity. In 2015/2016 the rate in the dollar has been increased by the required percentage increase in revenue.

5. Vacant Residential Land Differential Rate

Under the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (VLA) land for which an active rental market doesn’t exist is required to be valued on a prescribed percentage of capital value. Until recently only one prescribed percentage has been allowed and that was set at 5% in 1979. Land Valuation Services reports that owners of vacant residential land have increasingly expressed their concern about higher GRV’s on their land than those that applied to neighbouring improved properties. New regulations under the VLA applied from 1 July 2011 and applied a single rate of 3% to all residential vacant land while the existing 5% will continue to apply to all remaining vacant land (i.e. commercial and industrial). The City of Fremantle considers the development of vacant rateable land in the best interests of the community and the value of rates paid for vacant land should be consistent for all types of vacant land. Therefore as a consequence of the reduction in the prescribed rate for residential vacant land from 1 July 2011, a vacant residential land differential rate was introduced to produce rate assessment value for vacant residential land equivalent to what a prescribed percentage of 5% would have produced. In 2015/2016 the rate in the dollar has been increased by the required percentage increase in revenue.

6. Vacant Commercial and Industrial Land Differential Rate

The city considers the development of vacant commercial and industrial rateable land in the best interests of the community therefore has set a differential higher than that which applies to developed commercial and industrial properties. In 2015/2016 the rate in the dollar has been increased by the required percentage increase in revenue. Differential Rate Public Submissions


24 June 2015

Page 241

The Act requires local governments to consider any submissions prior to adopting the differential rate. Whilst several queries were received, no comments were received for the proposed 2015/16 proposed differential rates. Late Payment Interest Interest on late rate payments will be charged at 11.0% calculated on a daily basis. This is estimated to yield $100,000 in the financial year. Instalment Options The Instalment Options for Payment of Rates

(a) Due dates of instalments will be as follows: - 1st Instalment 2nd September, 2015 2nd Instalment 2nd November, 2015 3rd Instalment 14th January, 2016 4th Instalment 14th March, 2016

(b) Interest will be charged on the deferred amount of the rates at 5.5% per annum and calculated on a daily basis. This is estimated to yield $240,000 in the financial year.

(c) An administration fee of $36 per assessment will be charged to all ratepayers

electing to pay by instalments. The administration fee will be recovered over the four instalments and is in addition to the interest charge in (b) above. The administration fee is estimated to yield $226,800 in the financial year.

Service Charges Underground power connection service charges are not applicable to this financial year, the previous programs ceased at 30th June, 2012.


24 June 2015

Page 242

Operating Budget

City Management The contribution to the South West Group is $47,000 and with $19,000 for the Natural Resource Management (NRM) program. Council joined this group in 2006. The Group includes the Cities of Melville, Cockburn, Rockingham and Kwinana as well as the Town of East Fremantle. The total allocation including NRM is $74,000. Fees and allowances to elected members are provided in accordance with the Statutory Authority Tribunal (SAT) determination of 19 June, 2013. These fees were set at the ¾ mark of the band one allowance range provided in the SAT determination for sitting allowances and Mayoral/Deputy Mayoral allowance. The Mayoral and Deputy Mayor allowance are also set at the top of the range. This will equate to the following; The allocation provided for communication costs and travel for Elected Members has been continued within this budget in accordance with the current policy. An allocation has been included to provide a 100% electric vehicle for the Mayor, which will also be available for other elected members as a pool vehicle. City Business In accordance with Council resolution an allocation has been provided to contribute to the Fremantle Business Improvement District for the amount of $339,000. This is

Employees, $36,312,373 , 51%

Mats & Contracts, $22,178,854 , 31%

Interest, $806,768 , 1%

Utility Charges, $1,720,066 , 2%

Insurance, $1,554,926 , 2% Depreciation,

$7,457,066 , 10%

Other, $2,003,704 , 3%

2015/16 Operating Expenditure


24 June 2015

Page 243

provided through a differential rate drawn from commercial properties in the City Centre Zone, Fishing Boat Harbour and Victoria Quay. The majority of Information Technology requirements for the City are now managed through lease arrangements within the recurrent budget. The City is now leasing 95% of the equipment it uses for a general term of three to four years. The budget makes provision for additional short term resources to support the organisation in continuation of the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Plan (ERP). In March 2008 the City signed a contract to renew its local government software systems with the company Technology One. Technology One is an ASX listed company with an international profile. The agreement was accessed via contract provision negotiated by the Western Australian Local Government Association. Stage 1 of the new system went “live” in July 2009 with final stages completed in 2014. This project has delivered integration of many of our systems and procedures. Provision of $400,000 has been included for this year and will be largely used to cater for improvements to applications and strategic planning. Rates revenue for the year is proposed at $40 million. The ex-gratia payment from Notre Dame University is $75,000.The City will be providing approximately $270,000 in rate concessions for not for profit or community based organisations and the non nightclub use areas of the three nightclubs under the Nightclub differential rate. Interest earnings are expected to dip over the coming twelve months due to the low interest rates. In accordance with changes to the Local Government Act last year, the City no longer holds any non cash based investments and therefore can only rely on cash based term deposits for its interest earnings. Property revenue has decreased marginally this year by $400,000 to take into account the immanent sale of Queensgate Commercial Centre Street and the vacancy at 7 Quarry Street. In accordance with the City’s lease agreement an amount of $159,135 will be transferred to a reserve for the Fremantle Markets for consideration of the conservation plan works and repayment of any loan costs associated with conservation works. An amount of $113,113 will be drawn from this reserve to pay for loan repayments. A allocation of $100,000 has been included to further the consideration of the proposal to co-locate South and East Fremantle Football Clubs at Fremantle Oval. An allocation of $500,000 has been provided to undertake the design and development application for the new administration centre. These works will be undertaken by architectural firm Kerry Hill. Kerry Hill won the design competition in late 2013. Parking Revenue has reduced by net $600,000 in this budget due to the loss of the Victoria Quay car park management. All other parking, including on-street, off-street, and Queensgate remain steady. The corresponding expenditure provisions for carparks leased by the City have also been increased to allow for the sharing of revenue under the lease agreements. Parking enforcement revenues have also held steady compared to the previous year. The budget has provided for $2.04 million in enforcement revenue this year.


24 June 2015

Page 244

A $500,000 allocation is provided for in this budget for transfer of funds to the parking reserve. This allocation has not been provisioned for in the last two years but is included again this year. An allocation of $160,000 has also been included to provide for initiatives from the Community Safety Plan currently under review. Community Development Various grants are being accessed from Disability Services, Community Services, Lotteries, Community Development and other government agencies to provide or support the provision of community services or community development activities during the year. Warawee Womens Refuge will be handed back to the state for a not-for-profit entity to manage. The state grant does not provide full financial support to local government and a not-for-profit will be able to access greater funding, therefore the City has made a decision to hand it back in the best interests of the operations of the Centre. Allocation of $140,000 has been made for the Australia Day “Cracker Show” to be provided by the City. Allowance has been made to seek funding from private sponsors to offset this cost and the City of Cockburn will provide a contribution of $20,000 towards the 2016 event. Allocations have been made for the Fremantle, Wardanji, Street Arts, Heritage, and Music Festivals as well as the Children’s Fiesta. An additional allocation of $100,000 has been continued to the community arts program to provide for suburban art projects. This total budget for community art projects now totals $140,000. Fremantle Community Legal Centre continues to receive grant funds to support its operation. Services provided here are generally supported by several different grants. The grant for financial counselling has been removed by the state government and council will need to consider how to manage this situation over the coming months. The Fremantle Arts Centre is supported by a state grant of $698,000. The Centre has grown in the provision of events and adult education programs over the last few years and continues to do well in these areas. The provision in this area also includes the budget for Moores building activities. Fremantle Leisure Centre allocations have been adjusted to provide for twelve months of service, after the upgrade works were completed in April, 2014. Much of the budget revenue streams have been aligned to pre upgrade. The Library has an agreement with the Town of East Fremantle where they contribute $228,000 to its operations. The City of Fremantle provides free street parking, similar to the resident parking permits, for East Fremantle library members.


24 June 2015

Page 245

Planning Services Allocations which net $450,000 have been included to continue the work on the transit corridor, Freo 2029 program, heritage program, One Planet Strategy, Green Plan and Strategic Planning and provision of $30,000 is also included for payments to the members of the Design Advisory Panel. Legal expenses have settled somewhat in statutory planning as SAT appeals reduce. The legal budget for planning has been separated into planning and compliance to provide greater understanding of how the legal costs are being applied. Planning Heritage assessment advice has been growing exponentially in the past so this year the City is providing an option to employee a full time staff member to support this need. The One Planet Strategy initiatives are provided for in the proposed budget. The allocation of 1% of rates ($396,144) will be transferred into Reserve and then applied in accordance with the One Planet Strategy. This is in addition to the general $100,000 sustainability allocation. Technical Services The allocation for the Fremantle City Centre Transit (CAT) bus of $610,000 towards 50% of the total cost shared with state government has been continued. The allocation of $109,675 has been continued to the Parks allocation for two positions to support the provision of employment support for people living with various disabilities. Parks budgets have been increased to provide for maintenance of the popular Esplanade Youth Plaza. Provisions for Esplanade, Fremantle and Grigg parks have also been increased to trial new maintenance programs to improve the ascetics of these parks. The intention is to use this trial to modify parks maintenance across the City in future years. Domestic waste management costs have increased by approximately $250,000 from last year. This includes an increase in the gate fee for SMRC from $226.00 per tonne to $232.85 per tonne. An allocation has also been included to fund and maintain a public places recycling program. The City has also continued the provision for the bulk waste collection program to allow for greater opportunity for residents to take part in this program. Operating Grants The main change here has been a decrease in Legal Centre funding.


24 June 2015

Page 246

Staff Costs Staffing costs have increased by approximately $1, in the proposed budget. These increases can be attributed to the following; During the year the City undertook a re-structure and appointed new positions in the area of planning and project management. The net result of these changes is $1,005,986 to the establishment as below; Enterprise Agreement Increases $1,250,348 New Positions (8.6fte) $ 663,496 TOTAL $1,913,844 Interest Expense on Loans Loan interest has increased by $267,000 from last year. $164,000 of this is from the 0.6% interest increase in the State Government Guarantee Levy on Treasury provided loans. Utilities These costs continue to decrease over successive budgets. Utility costs remain lower than 2011 levels as a result of the carbon neutral initiatives being implemented by the City. In an era of significant cost increases in this energy costs, this is becoming a significant saving well over $400,000.

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Operating Grants and Subsidies Comparison

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16


24 June 2015

Page 247

Below is a graph of utility costs over the past six years;

Insurance These costs for 2015/16 have generally remained steady.

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

Electricity Gas Water Sewerage

Utility Charge Break-up

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Utility Charge Trend


24 June 2015

Page 248

Trend as below;

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

Property Liability WorkersComp

Motor Vehicle Other

Insurance Break-up

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

Insurance Trend


24 June 2015

Page 249

Operating Revenue In summary operating revenue, excluding rates, has increased by $0.85 million dollars. This change is lower than previous years as a consequence of the decline in revenues from Queensgate Centre, Victoria Quay Car park and Queensgate Centre. The break-up and trend analysis for revenue over the past four years is shown below;

Non-recurrent/Capital Budget The total capital and/or project budget is $30,748,029. Grants and contributions amount to around $4,161,531, there is a total of $7,613,517 coming from reserves, $8,909,000 coming from new loans with the balance coming from municipal and other sources. A copy of the Capital budget schedules is included with and attached to the budget. Roads & Streets This capital program provides a total expenditure of $3,668,942. Approximately $2,355,262 of this program is for the annual road and traffic management program. $885,000 is allocated for the Bike Plan. The annual street vision program allocation is $428,680. $347,815 grant from Main Roads for road programs, $68,833 for Bike Plan works and a loan of $845,000 make up the funding streams for these activities. Footpaths

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

35000000

40000000

45000000

Rates OperatingGrants

CapitalGrants

Fees &Charges

InterestEarnings

OtherRevenue

Profit onSale

Revenue Comparison

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16


24 June 2015

Page 250

The Footpath program for 2015/16 is $754,980. This includes $325,000 High Street Mall upgrade and $100,000 for public recycling bin upgrade. This year the City will introduce a new initiative to undertake footpath repair where appropriate, rather than replacement with insitu concrete. Drainage The annual drainage program is being maintained at previous year levels of $578,020. Project works are included within the budget paper attachments. Parks and Reserves An allocation of $4,460,339 has been provided for new works for 2015/16. Some of the new works include $200,000 for Green Plan initiatives, $1,407,000 for Cantonment Hill landscaping, $582,000 for landscaping works at Leighton Beach, $165,000 is included for a new full size basketball court at South Beach, $110,000 for the development of a playground area at Gold Park, $187,000 for Bruce Lee Reserve Playground equipment and $143,000 for playground equipment at Fremantle Primary School Park. Infrastructure Buildings An allocation of $5,372,656 is provided for in this area. The significant allocation to this area is for the new Leighton Beach Kiosk and changerooms of $1,222,000, the re-alignment of the public golf course and new community integrated facility and clubhouse for $1,100,000 and re-location of FERN $400,000. Conservation Works for Gil Fraser Pavilion for $188,000, improvements to Victoria Pavilion at $100,000. Stage 2 of the upgrade of the Old Fremantle Boys School for $705,000, and a new facility for Mens Shed in Hilton for $460,000. Freehold Land & Buildings There is a $11,861,010 allocation for the provision of several projects. The majority of the allocation is for the development of plans for the new administration building for $500,000 and commencement of upgrade works for the Town Hall for $1,622,000. Also provided for is the re-development of 2 Jones Street for the new Operations Centre for $7,900,000 and provision for upgrade to public toilets for $150,000. Investment Land & Buildings Provision has been made to continue the upgrade works on the Evan Davies building in South Terrace for $594,000 plus upgrade works to Union Stores for the amount of $272,000. New Loans


24 June 2015

Page 251

New loans proposed for 2015/16 are $8,909,000. This is made up as follows; Leighton Beach Kiosk $ 364,000 Works Program $ 845,000 New Depot $ 7,700,000 TOTAL $ 8,909,000 Reserve Transfers The following reserve fund transfers are proposed with the budget presented for adoption; Investment Reserve This budget includes the proposed sale of Queensgate Centre, Queensgate Car Park, Spicer site, the current council operations centre and 7 Quarry Street. Sale proceeds from the sale of these properties will be transferred into the Investment Reserve. An amount of $1,616,500 will also be transferred from the investment reserve to pay for upgrade works for the Evan Davies, Union Stores buildings, the Old Fire Station and Kings Square Project. Heritage Places Reserve The allocation of 1.25% of rates will see $495,180 transferred into this reserve. $520,312 will be used to support the proposed stage one and two works for the Old Fremantle Boys School on Princess May Park. The reserve will also be used to fund repairs to Victoria Pavilion. Renewable Energy Investment Reserve The Budget provides for the provision of 1.0% of rates being $396,144 into this reserve. Funds from this reserve will be used to support the One Planet Strategy. Leighton Precinct Reserve A Specified Area Rate has been introduced to cover maintenance costs which are additional to the norm for maintenance of the Leighton Beach residential development. Any funds that are not spent from this rate will be placed in reserve. Fremantle Markets Conservation Plan A further $159,135 will be transferred to this reserve this year, from the rent provided through the lease and $113,113 will be transferred back to municipal to cover loan repayments for previous works.


24 June 2015

Page 252

CONCLUSION

The budget has been produced with a surplus of $100,000. As per discussions at the elected members workshops capital items which do not provide an indication of where funds will be expended have been identified as being quarantined and will need to be brought before the Strategic & General Services Committee for approval prior to any work being undertaken.


The budget provides a balance of services and improvement projects in accordance with the City Plan. It demonstrates the allocation of limited resources in an efficient and effective manner to provide the outcomes expected by the community and considers the allocations under a five year budget. This year approximately $32,500,000 is directed to strategic outcomes. TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE IMPLICATIONS

Economic

The budget provides well maintained and developed infrastructure and services to support economic growth in the district.

Employees, $36,312,373

Mats & Contracts, $22,178,854

Interest, $806,768 Utility Charges,

$1,720,066

Insurance, $1,554,926

Depreciation, $7,457,066

Loss on Sale, $-

Other, $2,003,704

Capital Works, $28,276,703

Loan Repayments, $2,471,326

2015/16 Budget


24 June 2015

Page 253

Environmental

The budget strives to ensure sustainable use of natural and other resources and ensures an awareness of the value of the environment. Social

The budget provides a balance of projects and services to ensure a good quality of life for our community. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The proposed budget is presented to provide a surplus of $100,000 at the end of the financial year. The rates increase provides the minimum requirement from the community to fund all of the services provided within the document. LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to prepare an annual budget not later than 31st August in each financial year. Each local government is to prepare and adopt the budget in the form and manner prescribed and by absolute majority. The budget is to detail estimates for the current year of; 1. The expenditure by the local government, 2. The revenue and income, independent of general rates, and 3. The amount required to make up the deficiency, if any, shown by comparing the

estimated expenditure with the estimated revenue. The budget is to incorporate; 1. Particulars of the estimated expenditure to be incurred by the local government,

2. Detailed information relating to the rate and service charges which will apply to land within the district, including the estimated amount to be yielded by the rate and the rate of interest to be charged by the local government on unpaid rates and service charges,

3. The fees and charges proposed to be imposed, 4. The particulars of borrowings and other financial accommodation proposed,

5. Details of the amounts to be set aside in, or used from, reserve accounts and the purpose for which they are to be used,

6. Particulars of proposed land transactions and major trading undertakings, and 7. Such other matters as prescribed. Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires;

(1) A local government is to plan for the future of the district.

(2) A local government is to ensure that plans made under subsection (1) are in accordance with any regulations made about planning for the future of the district.


24 June 2015

Page 254

PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION The proposed differential rates schedule has been advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. No comments were received.


Absolute Majority Required


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. In accordance with sections 6.36 and 6.37 of the Local Government Act 1995

the following general and differential rates be imposed in the 2015/2016 statutory budget:

Rate Category Minimum Rate Rate in the Dollar

Residential Rate $1,222.00 6.3744 cents

Commercial/Industrial $1,222.00 7.5223 cents

City Centre Commercial $1,222.00 7.9439 cents

Residential Vacant Land $1,103.00 10.5816 cents

Undeveloped Vacant Commercial/Industrial

$1,222.00 12.7487 cents

Nightclubs $1,222.00 12.7486 cents

Specified Area Rate – CBD Security

0.1018 cents

Leighton Precinct Maintenance

0.4804 cents

2. In accordance with section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 Council

grants rate concessions of $215,406 to the properties identified and as prescribed in note 12 of the 2015/2016 statutory budget attached.

3. In accordance with section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 Council

adopts the fees and charges provided within the 2015/2016 statutory budget attached.

4. The due dates for rate instalment payments for the 2015/2016 statutory

budget be:

1st Instalment 2nd September, 2015 2nd Instalment 2nd November, 2015 3rd Instalment 14th January, 2016 4th Instalment 14th March, 2016


24 June 2015

Page 255

5. An administration charge of $36.00 per assessment and an interest charge of

5.5% per annum be applied to instalment payments. 6. Penalty interest of 11% per annum be applied to overdue rates and service

charges in the 2015/2016 statutory budget. 7. The fees, expenses and annual allowances paid to members of Council in the

2015/2016 statutory budget be as follows:

Meeting Allowance Elected Members $379,810 (100% of Band 1 for Mayor and Committee Chairs, 75% of Band 1 for Non-Chair Elected Members) Mayor Local Government Annual Allowance $ 87,500 Mayor Vehicle Lease $ 15,000 Deputy Mayor Local Government Annual Allowance $ 21,875 Elected Member Expense Reimbursements $ 86,500

8. The 2015/2016 Statutory Budget, as attached, is adopted. SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


Note: Council support to quarantine the Operation Centre Project iteml so that a report ve brought back to Council prior to project commencement.


24 June 2015

Page 256

C1506-4 PROPOSED SALE OF FREMANTLE PORT

DataWorks Reference: Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 24 June 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Discussion Paper

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is presented to provide council with a discussion paper on the proposed sale of Fremantle Port as announced by the state government last month as part of its 2015/16 state budget. The discussion paper identifies issues and questions that need to be considered by council as the potential impact of the sale of the port on Fremantle is enormous, especially when considered with the proposed Perth Freight Link. It is recommended that council develop a position on the matters raised in the paper through a workshop.

BACKGROUND

The Western Australian state government presented its 2015/16 budget on 14 May 2015. One of the proposals announced with the budget was that the government will sell the port of Fremantle as part of its strategy to raise funds aimed at reducing the state’s overall debt. COMMENT This announcement was not foreseen by the City. Indeed only earlier that same week the council had met with the Board of Fremantle Ports and had been told at that meeting that port would not be sold, suggesting that perhaps even Fremantle Ports were not aware this announcement was going to be made. As a consequence, the announcement lacked detail as to what the sale process would be and therefore there are many questions and issues that arise from this proposal. In the context of the proposed Perth Freight Link the sale of the port seems to consolidate an idea that Fremantle port will grow to well beyond its current trade levels resulting in significant impacts on the city. It also seems to defer the long held plans to develop an outer harbour. The Discussion paper attached identifies a range of issues and questions that have associated with this sale proposal.


Financial


24 June 2015

Page 257

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

This report is provided highlight the many issues that the proposal to sell the port of Fremantle presents to the community of Fremantle. Council is currently considering its response to the Perth Freight Link and needs to consider that matter in the context of this proposed sale of the port. It is suggested a workshop be held to discuss these issues in more detail.


The proposed sale of the port has potentially very significant and long term strategic implications for the future development of Fremantle. It, together with the PFL will undermine the Council’s strong desire to develop Fremantle as a major activity centre within the Perth metropolitan area. These two issues combined, if implemented badly, will have influence over the strategic direction of the city for decades.

PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION

Nil




24 June 2015

Page 258


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That a workshop be held with elected members and key staff to facilitate the preparation of a submission for government on agreed matters following adoption of the council’s position on the PFL at the June Council meeting. SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



24 June 2015

Page 259

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, BRAD PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.10 PM.


24 June 2015

Page 260

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


24 June 2015

Page 261


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.


24 June 2015

Page 262


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.


24 June 2015

Page 263

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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


24 June 2015

Page 264

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 24 June 2015, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

24 June 2015

Page 2

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE – MR MARK WOODCOCK


24 June 2015

Page 3

PETITION AND SUBMISSION – DOG EXERCISE AREA STEVENS RESERVE


24 June 2015

Page 4


24 June 2015

Page 5


24 June 2015

Page 6


24 June 2015

Page 7


24 June 2015

Page 8


24 June 2015

Page 9


24 June 2015

Page 10


24 June 2015

Page 11


24 June 2015

Page 12


24 June 2015

Page 13


24 June 2015

Page 14


24 June 2015

Page 15


24 June 2015

Page 16


24 June 2015

Page 17


24 June 2015

Page 18


24 June 2015

Page 19


24 June 2015

Page 20


24 June 2015

Page 21


24 June 2015

Page 22


24 June 2015

Page 23


24 June 2015

Page 24