minutes - home | city of fremantle

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 26 July 2017, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 3

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 3

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 4

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 4

TABLED DOCUMENTS 4

LATE ITEMS NOTED 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 12 JULY 2017 5

FPOL1707-7 TEMPORARY 12 MONTH CLOSURE - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) CLOSURE BETWEEN SWANBOURNE STREET AND KELLOW PLACE, FREMANTLE 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 JULY 2017 25

PC1707-1 DEFERRED ITEM - PROWSE STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 60), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDING - (BP DA0055/17) 25

PC1707-10 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.18 - BEACONSFIELD AND WHITE GUM VALLEY LOCAL CENTRE AREAS - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING 35

PC1707-11 CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO WALGA ON THIRD PARTY APPEAL RIGHTS IN PLANNING DISCUSSION PAPER 46

PC1707-2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 65 (LOT 12), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0108/10 (THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING MEDICAL CENTRE, HOSPITAL AND FOUR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (AD ET04/17) 55

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10 JULY 2017 62

SPD1707-1 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - PUBLIC REALM CONCEPT PLAN 62

SPD1707-2 GREENING FREMANTLE STRATEGY 2020 AND THE URBAN FOREST PLAN 66

SPD1707-4 THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE CITIES 70

SPD1707-5 ONE PLANET 2017 ACTION PLAN 82

SPD1707-6 INDICATIVE SPD COMMITTEE REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR FY 2017/18 85

SPD1707-7 INFORMATION REPORT - JULY 2017: STRATEGIC PROJECTS IN THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025 87

SPD1707-3 RELEASE DRAFT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - OUR COASTAL FUTURE PORT, LEIGHTON AND MOSMAN BEACHES COASTAL ADAPTATION PLAN 93

AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 JULY 2017 98

ARMC1707-1 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM - ASSET MANAGEMENT 98

ARMC1707-3 PROPOSAL TO REVIEW RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REQUIREMENTS 103

ARMC1707-2 PURCHASING POLICY 107

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 12 JULY 2017 123

FPOL1707-4 DISPOSAL OF LAND BY DEPARTMENT OF LANDS LOT 152 AT FORMER SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE 123

FPOL1707-5 AWARD OF TENDER FCC494/17 ELECTRICAL SERVICES 127

FPOL1707-6 PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD NAME 'SISKA LANE' - SHARED ACCESS WAY TO 74, 74A, 78 AND 80 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NORTH FREMANTLE 132

FPOL1707-9 COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - FUTURE DIRECTIONS 2036 136

FPOL1707-2 NEW LEASE - SIMON NABER T/A MOORE & MOORE FOOD & DRINK 146

FPOL1707-3 CHANGES TO LEASE AT 123 BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE 153

FPOL1707-8 NEW CONDITIONS FOR RESIDENTS FREE PARKING PERMIT EFFECTIVE 1 DECEMBER 2017 161

FPOL1707-10 PRINCIPLES FOR THE VERGE POLICY 172

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 184

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 184

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 184

COUNCIL ITEMS 185

C1707-1 HENRY STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 501), FREMANTLE PARTIAL DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE (5) STOREY WITH BASEMENT MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (126 DWELLINGS INCLUDING 2 HOME BUSINESSES) AND CONSERVATION WORKS (AD DAP001/17) 185

C1707-2 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS- JUNE 2017 - FINAL 216

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 225

CLOSURE OF MEETING 225

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

26 July 2017

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 26 July 2017 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

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

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Mayor / East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Beaconsfield Ward Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Fiona Hodges Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning and Projects Mr Graham Tattersall Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Mr Tom Griffiths Manager Economic Development & Marketing Ms Charlie Clarke Manager Governance Mr Gavin Giles Ms Julia Kingsbury Manager Development Approvals Mr Ryan Abbott Manager Parks and Landscape Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary


26 July 2017

Page 2

There were approximately 14 members of the public and 0 members of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Cr Doug Thompson North Ward

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr I Waltham declared an impartiality interest in item number FPOL1707-7. Cr H Fitzhardinge declared an impartiality interest in item number FPOL1707-7. Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared an impartiality interest in item number FPOL1707-7. Cr S Naber declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1707-2. Cr S Naber is the applicant.

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Questions taken on Notice at June Ordinary Meeting of Council for PC1706-1 Adelaide Street, Nos. 18-22 (Lots 1 and 2), Fremantle – Five Storey Tourist Accommodation and Shop. Q1: There is need for accurate perspectives drawings of the relationship between the Woodsons building and the proposed building and the effect of shadows over the whole year. This would allow the council to make an informed decision on the project. It is a simple task for an architect to do and has been done for other proposals in the district. Why has this not been done for this proposal? A1: Shadow diagrams were not provided as the impact of shadow from the development would fall onto the wall of the adjoining property located to the south-west along Adelaide Street and not to the Woodsons building which is located to the north-west of the subject site. Q2: The loss of direct sunlight will range from 40-100% over the year for units 12 and 30. This is clearly unacceptable to ask residents to endure this. Are there options to alleviate this issue? A2: The applicant has used Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes to guide the setback of the development from the rear boundary. If this development was a residential development the proposed 3.5m setback would comply with the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes which is considered to be an acceptable setback to allow adequate daylight and ventilation.


26 July 2017

Page 3

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member of the public spoke and presented a summary on a report titled Rocky Bay Reserve and Cypress Hill Bushfire Risk Management Report in relation to item that will be presented at the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee on 1 August 2017. Barry Carbon Mayor, Brad Pettitt vacated the chamber at 6.24 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr I Waltham vacated the chamber at 6.24 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr H Fitzhardinge vacated the chamber at 6.24 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 6.24pm the Chief Executive Officer called for nominations for Chair in the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor who had declared interest in item FPOL1707-7 and left the Chamber. At 6.25 pm only one nomination was received and accepted and Cr J Strachan assumed Chair. The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item FPOL1707-7: Penny Kirkland – Smith Brian Smith Kathryn Netherwood Robert White The following members of the public spoke in relation to item PC1707-2. Haniff Kassim

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt presented a petition titled Vehicle access from High Street to Amherst Street North from the Residents around Amherst Street (North of High Street). We the understand that part of the proposed upgrade to the Stirling Highway/High Street intersection includes plans for the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Amherst and High Streets to provide a vehicle access route into White Gum Valley. We are concerned that this will inadvertently increase traffic flow to Amherst Street (north of High Street) and will compromise safety around Horrie Long Oval, the walking routes to East Fremantle Primary School, John Curtin College of the Arts and the cycle route along Holland Street.


26 July 2017

Page 4

In order to mitigate the impacts of a new roundabout on our community we request that access to Amherst Street north from High Street be blocked, effectively making Amherst, from Holland Street to High Street, a cul-de-sac with no through road. This solution still enables access to White Gum Valley while at the same time preserving the safety of the many children and dog owners who use Horrie Long Oval. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Undersigned. Cr H Fitzhardinge presented a powerpoint presentation on her recent visit to Capo d’ Orlando, Italy.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 28 June 2017 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents – Various Amendments


26 July 2017

Page 5

Summary Report by Mr Barry Carbon – Rocky Bay Reserve and Cypress Hill Bushfire Risk Management Report.

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

COMMITTEE REPORTS

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 12 JULY 2017

Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared an impartiality interest and vacated the chamber at 6.24 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Mayor, Brad Pettitt has an association with the applicant. Cr I Waltham declared an impartiality interest and vacated the chamber at 6.24 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr I Waltham has an association with the applicant. Cr H Fitzhardinge declared an impartiality interest and vacated the chamber at 6.24 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr H Fitzhardinge has an association with the applicant. At 6.24pm the Chief Executive Officer called for nominations for Chair in the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor who had declared interest in item FPOL1707-7 and left the Chamber. At 6.25 pm only one nomination was received and accepted and Cr J Strachan assumed Chair.

FPOL1707-7 TEMPORARY 12 MONTH CLOSURE - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) CLOSURE BETWEEN SWANBOURNE STREET AND KELLOW PLACE, FREMANTLE

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Information Technology Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Infrastructure Projects – PAW Physical Assessment


26 July 2017

Page 6

Figure 1 - PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne Street - shown in red.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to submit to Council the results of a 12 month temporary trial closure of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) in order to assist Councils decision to re-open the public access way or to proceed with the PAW closure process. The original petition and application to close the PAW is based on the alleged criminal activities directly relating to the PAW. In particular, where criminals have gained access to properties directly from the PAW or engaged in illegal activities within the PAW. The Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) is described as Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle linking Kellow Place, Fremantle (see Figure 1). At the end of the trial closure on 27 April 2017, the City carried out a survey. The survey was made available on the City of Fremantle ‘Have My Say’ webpage together with hard copies sent by mail to all previous petition or survey participants. The survey resulted in 2 petitions, one in support of the PAW closure with nine (9) signatures and a second petition against the proposed PAW closure also with nine (9) signatures (not duplicated in separate submissions). In addition the City received in 11 non duplicated survey submissions in support and 14 against the proposed closure (see full table of submission included in this report). Based on the results of the survey conducted at the conclusion of a 12 month temporary closure of the PAW it is recommend that the PAW be re-opened to the public.


26 July 2017

Page 7

BACKGROUND

On 01 December 2014 the Applicants provided a formal submission to the City proposing the closure and amalgamation of the PAW together with a supporting petition signed by 17 out of 25 property owners with access to Kellow Place, Fremantle. The Applicants allege that the PAW is a major contributor to criminal incidents, endured by the residences over many years. On 23 September 2015 (PSC1509-9) the City resolved to;

1. “Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day public comment period in regard to the proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle linking Kellow Place – pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the West Australian Planning Commission PAW closure procedure (October 2009).

2. Following the completion of the advertising period, consider any submissions in a

report to Council for a final decision to either support or reject the proposal to permanently close the Pedestrian Access Way described in (1) above.”

On 24 February 2016 (PSC1604) the City resolved to;

1. NOTE the results of the public comment period from the 13 October 2015 to the 01 December 2015 in relation to the proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle – linking Kellow Place, Fremantle.

2. That Council; APPROVE the proposed pedestrian access way (PAW) closure and

amalgamation of Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle with the adjoining properties being No. 10 and No. 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle – subject to the following conditions:

a. The Water Corporation (WC) require the Applicant to install gates with locks at both ends of the PAW with keys supplied to the WC allowing full 24 hour a day, 7 days a week access.

b. The Applicant is to comply with any Western Power requirements in relation to their infrastructure located within the PAW.

c. The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the proposal as described in item 1.

d. Pedestrian Access Way be trialled for 12 months.

3. The City indemnifies the Department of Lands against any claim for compensation that may arise from the proposed closure and amalgamation of the PAW as described in item 1 in accordance with Section 58 (4) of the Land Administration Act 1997.


26 July 2017

Page 8

The City installed gates at either end of the PAW to close access to the public in April, 2016. The City erected signage for a period of time prior to and after the installation of gates in order to advise users of the PAW of Councils decision. The City conducted a survey in April, 2017 for the public (including all former participants) to comment indicating their support or opposition to the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation. The survey closed on 26 May 2017. On 27 April 2017 – the 12 month temporary PAW closure period ended.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

PAW – Street Lighting The options and budget requirements to provide street lighting at either end of the PAW are estimated in the dot points below.

The cost to install unmetered supply pits (UMS) approximately $13,000.00. Therefore based on previous Western Power charges to install a streetlight, the cost generally ranges between $12,000.00 and $15,000.00 per light.

An alternative option is the installation of solar powered lighting. Solar power street lights currently range in cost between $8,000.00 and $11,000.00 per light. The subject PAW does contain surrounding vegetation (trees) which may affect the suitability for solar powered lights.

Installation of gates in 2016 The cost to supply and install two galvanised square top gates including GST amounted to $4,872.00. Should Council resolve to re-open the PAW it is recommended that the gates are stored at City Works for future use.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The City is required to follow the "Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways" as set out in the October 2009 WAPC Planning Guidelines ("Guidelines"). The new, simplified procedure for dealing with the closure of pedestrian access way's is based on Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 which sets out a process by which an amalgamation of remnant Crown land may be achieved.

CONSULTATION

At the end of the 12 month temporary closure period the City conducted a ‘final survey’ open to public comment from the 12 April 2017 and closing on 26 May 2017. The survey was made available to the public via:

The City of Fremantle ‘Have My Say’ webpage.

Hard copies available at the Service and Information counter.

Survey forms sent out in the mail to owner/occupiers of Kellow Place including all previous submitters noted on report PC1604 (see attachment 1).


26 July 2017

Page 9

The survey asked the respondent’s to indicate by ticking a box as to whether they support the permanent closure of the PAW or do not support the permanent closure of the PAW. The survey offered a place for comments to be included. Submitters who have included two names and signatures are counted as 2 people in support or against in the final calculation.

SUBMITTER NAME

SUBMITTER ADDRESS

COMMENTS (IN POINT FORM) - Support the permanent closure or Do Not Support the permanent closure.

Petition - Support

Signed by 9 non duplicated petitioners

Support – petition stated;

We the undersigned support the permanent closure of the PAW between Swanbourne Street and Kellow Place by leaving the gates in place.

Signed by 11 owner/occupiers less 2 people who have already submitted a survey form.

Petition –Not support

Signed by 9 non duplicated petitioners

Do Not Support – petition stated;

We the undersigned call upon the City of Fremantle to re-open the Kellow Place/Swanbourne Street walkway. It is a much appreciated public facility that was closed on an unsound basis, for a trial period.

Signed by 12 owner/occupiers - less 3 people who have already submitted a survey form.

Submitter 1

Fremantle Support

Street has felt much safer.

Submitter 2 Fremantle Do Not Support

The PAW gives access to all the people who live in both Bolton and Kellow coming and going it has been used by all ages.

Submitter is 86 years old and has limited walking ability and notes, as are other folk who live here.


The PAW is used not only by people from Kellow Place. Included are people from surrounding areas – Bolton Pl. Watkins St.

Observed people walking dogs, children going to school both escorted and unescorted.

Does not believe there is any difference in crime rates with the walkway open or closed.

Extra lighting would be of benefit – although submitter has not personally felt unsafe using the


26 July 2017

Page 10

PAW and often uses the access way at night with their family.

Vegetation needs to be kept clear so that you can see the exit and entrance of the PAW.

The PAW is a convenient and safe public access route which should be kept open.

Submitter 4 Fremantle Support

No comments


Always opposed the PAW closure

Does not accept the argument that it increased the risk of burglary.

Has lived close to the pathway for many years and daughter, her friends and submitter used it almost daily, to walk to school, Fremantle or just to go for a walk.

Submitter misses being able to walk out front door and go for a quick walk.

Many people in the area used the pathway providing an opportunity to have a chat with neighbours or exchange greetings with others passing by.

Was valuable in terms of making people feel connected in the community.

Submitter 6 2 people

Fremantle Support

No comments


Fremantle Support

Since the trial closure of the PAW we have noticed a significant reduction in pedestrian traffic down Kellow Place.


White Gum Valley

Do Not Support

We used this PAW when walking into Fremantle – it is safer than walking on the road.

PAW – should not be closed off to public.


Why is this the only closed PAW in the


26 July 2017

Page 11

Fremantle, South Fremantle, White Gum Valley area?

If you select to live close to an airport then select noise. If you select to live next to a PAW then select public access.


Fremantle Support

There have been no burglaries or criminal behaviour in Kellow Place since the closure of the Alley.

Submitter 11 Fremantle Support

No comments


Fremantle

Do Not Support

No comments


Fremantle

Do not Support

Two page submissions – summarised here.

There is no evidence that the walkway encourages crime.

The walkway is a facility that belongs to the community and should not be removed at the instigation of a few.

Walkways are a feature of contemporary urban design and should remain on that basis. Fremantle is not a gated community.

Exercise is encouraged by the CoF and walkways are an integral part of the urban structure.

The Kellow Place walkway is appreciated and used by those who walk to the city, hospital, beach Stevens reserve and elsewhere. The walkway is of little interest to those seen mainly in vehicles. The walkway allows safe access to the pedestrian pathways of Steven Street and beyond. The temporary closure has created a danger - pedestrian pathways (footpaths) do not exist in Kellow or Bolton Place. Walkers and cyclists who would usually take the walkway have


26 July 2017

Page 12

to face vehicle traffic particularly on Bolton place between Kellow Place and Swanbourne Street, with inherent danger. Closure of the walkway may require construction of walking/cycling pathways. The City may face liability issues.

Summary by submitter 13

o The premise on which the walkway was closed –

crime – is not correct,

o Encouragement and persuasion to sign a petition

to close the walkway was based on concern on increased crime in the vicinity. It was incorrect and accordingly the signatures were improperly obtained.

o The facility belongs to the community.

o Urban design supports walkways.

o The walkway must remain available to the public,

particularly local residents. Officer Comment – foot paths The City’s Traffic and Design officer has indicated (in part here) that the need for a path on Bolton Place and Kellow Place is desirable however the priority of new foot path infrastructure would be determined independent of the proposed PAW closure. The complete comments are included under the ‘Infrastructure Projects” section of this report.

Submitter 14

Fremantle Do not support

Temporary closure of PAW has added 5 minutes to a journey by foot. E.g. 7 min to go to the park instead of 2min, and 15 min to walk to work (Fremantle Hospital) instead of 10 min.

Future plans to have a dog and walk twice a day at the park – having the PAW open would be far more convenient than closed.

Not convinced that there is a significant security benefit of having PAW closed as burgled at previous house located at same position at the top of a cul-de-sac (with no PAW).

Burglaries can happen regardless of PAW/cul-de-sac etc.

Submitter 15 Fremantle Do not support

Lives down the road from the PAW and is well connected with neighbours because of the


26 July 2017

Page 13

pathway.

Before the temporary closure, the submitter would use the PAW to walk down the road to the park, to walk the dog or go into Fremantle.

No longer talks to the people north of the submitter’s house - as there is no reason to go down there.

Submitter 16 Fremantle Do not support

Lives locally and always used the walkway to access the reserve and walk into Fremantle CBD.

Fire risk – if there were a fire down the southern end there would be no alternative route (to escape).

The temporary closure affects the entire community socially.

Submitter 17 Beaconsfield Do not Support

The walkway is used by the entire community and the temporary closure has been a massive burden on everybody.

It is also forcing us to walk on a busy road towards the park.

Also a safety risk, if a fire were to break out the PAW can be used as an emergency exit.


Fremantle Support

Identified as one of the original applicants to close the PAW.

Noted the extra distance for the residents living at the end of the cul-de-sac to walk to Fremantle Oval or the CBD of Fremantle is 140 metres – with no increase in the distance to public transport, other community amenities and all other destinations.

The applicants claims that the reason for the request to have the PAW closed was upon the advice received from the WA Police to reduce incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour experienced by the applicant. Referred to a Police document titled “A State Government Strategy in Action by Michael Coe principal Policy/Planning Officer Office of Crime Prevention West Australian Police”.

In the last 15 years the applicant claims to have been subjected to incidents of: drug preparation, drug use, drug dealings, arson, graffiti, tampering with vehicles, numerous burglaries including two


26 July 2017

Page 14

home invasions either in or via the PAW adjacent to our property. The last incident followed the removal of vegetation in the PAW. Stolen purses, wallets and bags found in the PAW by the applicant and neighbours have been returned. The applicant also commented that their neighbour has reported instances, pertaining to the PAW, which the Police deemed not requiring their attendance.

During the time that the gate has been in place, the applicant has not experienced any criminal or anti-social behaviour.

Neighbours have commented that there are fewer “strangers” on Kellow Place enhancing their own sense of security.

Summarised that the Police document noted and the W.A. Planning Commissions current Guidelines, PAW’s are identified as a major location for criminal behaviour. On balance the applicants stated that the increase in neighbourhood security as a result of the temporary closure offsets the need for some to walk the maximum extra distance of 140 metres.

Officer Comment – crime The Local Police district Intelligence Unity (DIU) has provided updated statics from a temporal and geographic analysis of ‘offence and tasking’ information over the past 4 years. The end summary noted that two incidents had a possible link to the PAW whereby the offence location was to have occurred between 8-14 Kellow Place and noted as:

o Graffiti November 2013 – Kellow Place

o Burglary March 2014 – Kellow Place

The full DIU details are included in this report.

OFFICER COMMENT

The petition in support of the proposed PAW permanent closure contained 9 signatures - with the petition against the proposed PAW permanent closure also noting 9 signatures. Any names duplicated on the petitions and the survey forms were included as part of the survey results and not counted in the petitions.

Surveys/submissions in support of the proposal totalled 20 (47%)

Surveys/submissions against the proposal totalled 23 (53%) The total responses to the City’s survey totalled 43 people.


26 July 2017

Page 15

Figure 2 - Graph above indicates the number of people in support and against the proposed PAW closure The number of submitters who live within Kellow Place, Fremantle totalled 25 people (58%) with 15 in support of the proposed PAW permanent closure and 10 against the proposal. In addition a total of 12 submitters live in Bolton Place and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle (28%) with 5 people in support of the proposal and 7 people against the proposal. A further 6 submitters, noted in the graph below as ‘Others’ (14%) were located within walking distance of Kellow Place with all 6 submitters against the proposed PAW closure.

Figure 3 - The graph above indicates the proximity of the submitters addresses to the PAW Should Council prefer to close the PAW – the following conditions should be applied:

The Water Corporation will require 24/7 access to the PAW as a condition of their previous consent to the proposal.

Western Power requires the relocation of their existing infrastructure. PAW Connectivity With reference to appendix 3 of the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods - the walkable catchments, sometimes referred to as ped-sheds, are maps showing the actual area in a


26 July 2017

Page 16

five minute walking distance from any centre, or ten minutes from any major transport stop such as a railway station. The centre could be a neighbourhood or town centre. The walkable catchment is simply a technique for comparative evaluation of how easy it is to move through an urban area in order to get to and from these centres or facilities. Walkable catchment calculations are expressed as the actual area in a five-minute walking distance as a percentage of the theoretical area in a five-minute walking distance. The theoretical five-minute walking distance is shown as a circle with a radius of approximately 400 metres drawn around any particular centre. This is an area of 50ha. When calculating a ten-minute walking distance, the radius used is about 800 metres, resulting in a circle area with an area of 200 hectares (see Figure 4). In relation to the subject PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne Street; the walking distance from the Fremantle Hospital (central point of hospital) to Kellow Place via the PAW is approximately 620-640 metres. The same walking route without access to the PAW increases to approximately 900 metres. The PAW currently serves as an east/west connector with public use noted as both within and outside Kellow Place. The detour required should the access way be closed is calculated at 194 metres to the same position if the access way were open (see Figure 5).

Figure 4 - Circles indicate walking distances of 400m and 800m radiuses from PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne St.


26 July 2017

Page 17

Figure 5 - Red arrows indicate an additional walking distance of 194m should the PAW be closed.

POLICE STATISTICS

In August 2016, the City submitted an additional request to the South Metropolitan Police

District Intelligence Unit (DIU) for any statistics of crime whereby the PAW linking Kellow

Place, was used as an access route.

As a result the Police DIU noted that the information provided to the City in 2015 was a

broad overview of criminal activity and antisocial behaviour in the surrounding area. The

information alone would not provide the level of assessment to determine the connection

between the PAW and criminal activity on Swanbourne Street and Kellow Place,

Fremantle.

In order to support the City’s request the Police DIU undertook a temporal and

geographic analysis of offence and tasking information over the past 4 years. This

identified 11 incident reports and/or tasking requests of interest that occurred within 100

metres of the PAW. Further assessment of these reports indicated that only 2 incidents

may have been linked to the PAW. This connection was made solely by the proximity of

the reported offence to the PAW as there was no specific mention of the alley within the

reports.

Offences within 100 metres of the PAW included; Stealing, Steal Motor Vehicle, Burglary,

Graffiti and Disturbances. The Police noted that unfortunately theses are typical

offences experienced in the Fremantle Sub-District. By comparison, a similar sized area

nearby containing approximately 20 residents reported a total of 21 offences and/or

tasking requests. This indicates that Kellow Place has a lower level of reported crime

compared to surrounding areas (see Figure 6).

The two reported incidents possible linked to the PAW whereby the offence location was

to have occurred between 8 – 14 Kellow Place, are noted below.


26 July 2017

Page 18

Date Offence Location

November 2013 Graffiti Kellow Place

March 2014 Burglary Kellow Place

Figure 6 - Police comparison of tasking incidents and offence totals.

INFRASTRUCTURE

In accordance with the WAPC legislative requirements, a Pedestrian Access Way Physical Assessment was carried out by the City’s Traffic and Design Officer (see Attachment 1). The Assessment noted that no lighting existed at either end of the PAW. The City has taken action in August 2015 to remove the ground level vegetation to allow clear sight of the entry points as well as a clear view through the PAW (see Attachment 1 - photos 7 and 8). The clearing of vegetation has increased the PAW design aspect from a medium vulnerability PAW with a score of 7, to a Low vulnerability PAW with a score of 11 (see Figure 7 table). Construction of footpaths Included in the table of survey results, were the comments relating public footpaths. The submitter (No.13 in the survey table) commented that the temporary closure had created a danger when walkers and cyclists have to face vehicle traffic, a situation created by making the PAW unavailable. In particular that the closure of the PAW may require the construction of walking/cycling pathways on Bolton Place between Kellow Place and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle. The City’s Traffic and Design Officer has responded with the following comments and design guidelines followed by the City.


26 July 2017

Page 19

With reference to ‘Austroads Guide to Road Design iv Part 6a (Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths) iv section 2.2.2 states: ‘The most common type of pedestrian path is a footpath for use by pedestrians and young cyclists (depending on local road rules). The general principles relating to provision of footpaths include: … In general, all roads should have some type of walking facility out of the vehicle path. An exception may be categories of road that have a very low volume and low operating speed (i.e. < 40km/h) such as minor access roads. … Footpath installation warrants based solely on pedestrian demand are not practical, except in the central business districts of cities and at event location.’ There is no traffic data available for Bolton Place and Kellow Place. Given the geometry and there is no through connection to other roads it could be assumed the volumes and speeds would be very low. Liveable Neighbourhoods DRAFT 2015 also describes the need for footpaths for pedestrian movement and puts forward the following requirement (referenced from page 35); ‘A footpath on at least one side of a local access street; and a footpath or shared path on both sides of integrator arterials and local access streets where pedestrian and cyclist activity is high (e.g. where the street forms part of a designated pedestrian or cycling network and connects to schools, centres and stations). Summary In light of the existing environment, the need for a path on Bolton Place and Kellow Place is desirable and should be programmed at a future date as appropriate. The priority of this new infrastructure would need to be determined independent of the proposed PAW closure. To mandate the installation of a footpath as a consequence of the PAW closure is not recommended or justified. The PAW connecting Swanbourne Street and Kellow Place is desirable to remain open given the existing lack of pedestrian facilities (due to the temporary closure) for residents of Kellow Place, Fremantle.


26 July 2017

Page 20

Figure 7 - Design and risk table notes the PAW Lot 55 Swanborne Street as having a low vulnerability with a high designing out crime rating of 11 out of 14. The design and risk criteria of the PAW may be further improved with the installation of lighting as noted in the table above (Point 3). The options and budget requirements to provide street lighting at either end of the PAW are estimated in the dot points below.

The cost to install unmetered supply pits (UMS) approximately $13,000.00. Therefore based on previous Western Power charges to install a streetlight, the cost generally ranges between $12,000.00 and $15,000.00 per light.

An alternative option is the installation of solar powered lighting. Solar power street lights currently range in cost between $8,000.00 and $11,000.00 per light.


26 July 2017

Page 21

The subject PAW does contain surrounding vegetation (trees) which may affect the suitability for solar powered lights.

City of Fremantle Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025 (‘City Plan’) The existence of pedestrian access ways and pathways form part of the City Plan. The Fremantle 2029 Community Visioning Themes (part of the City Plan) provide the Council’s long term strategic planning and priority projects with the following headings with sections relating to the subject PAW;

People - to provide a welcoming place for all.

Plan - to provide a liveable city that serves its residents needs and values heritage.

Under the headings of;

Environmental responsibility outcome – the City will have walkable access to green spaces for recreation.

Transport and connectivity outcome – Fremantle is recognised as a pedestrian and cycle friendly city. Two objectives include;

o Improve pedestrian connections throughout the city, waterfront and key

activity areas.

Health and happiness outcome – Fremantle is a welcoming, safe and caring community. The two objectives are;

o Create an environment where people feel safe.

o Fremantle’s public spaces encourage people to linger and interact (social

connectivity).

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Note the survey results after the 12 month temporary Pedestrian Access Way

(PAW) closure as 20 in support of the proposed permanent PAW closure and 23 against the closure asking for the PAW to be re-opened.

2. Re-open the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) located at Lot 55 Swanbourne Street,

Fremantle after consideration of the survey results presented at the conclusion of the 12 month temporary closure on 27 April 2017 – with the following measures to improve the PAW safety and security rating;

a) The future installation of lights at either end of the PAW b) Continuation of the schedule regular maintenance of the PAW to keep the sight

lines clear of vegetation.


26 July 2017

Page 22

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Note the survey results after the 12 month temporary Pedestrian Access Way


CARRIED: 5/0 MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 2. Re-open the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) located at Lot 55 Swanbourne

Street, Fremantle after consideration of the survey results presented at the conclusion of the 12 month temporary closure on 27 April 2017 – with the following measures to improve the PAW safety and security rating;

a) The future installation of lights at either end of the PAW b) Continuation of the schedule regular maintenance of the PAW to keep the

sight lines clear of vegetation. CARRIED: 3/2

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Committee Recommendation Part 1: 1. Note the survey results after the 12 month temporary Pedestrian Access Way


SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 8/0

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


26 July 2017

Page 23

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Committee Recommendation Part 2: 2. Re-open the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) located at Lot 55 Swanbourne Street,

Fremantle after consideration of the survey results presented at the conclusion of the 12 month temporary closure on 27 April 2017 – with the following measures to improve the PAW safety and security rating;

a) The future installation of lights at either end of the PAW b) Continuation of the schedule regular maintenance of the PAW to keep the sight

lines clear of vegetation. SECONDED: Cr D Hume LOST: 1/7

For Against

Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an alternative recommendation to Part 2 of the Committee’s Recommendation to include the following wording: 2. APPROVE permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access

Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle linking Kellow Place – pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the West Australian Planning Commission PAW closure procedure (October 2009).


For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Sam Wainwright


26 July 2017

Page 24

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Jeff McDonald

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan 1. Note the survey results after the 12 month temporary Pedestrian Access Way


2. APPROVE permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle linking Kellow Place – pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the West Australian Planning Commission PAW closure procedure (October 2009).


For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Sam Wainwright


26 July 2017

Page 25

Mayor, Brad Pettitt returned to the Chamber at 6.53 pm prior to consideration of the following item. At 6.53 pm the Mayor assumed the chair. Cr I Waltham returned to the Chamber at 6.53 pm prior to consideration of the following item. Cr H Fitzhardinge returned to the Chamber at 6.53 pm prior to consideration of the following item. Cr J Strachan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PC1707-1, PC1707-10, and PC1707-11. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 JULY 2017

The following item number PC1707-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PC1707-1 DEFERRED ITEM - PROWSE STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 60), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDING - (BP DA0055/17)

Meeting Date: 5 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Planning Committee Attachments: 1: Revised Development Plans 2. Additional Justification from Applicant

3. Site Visit Photos 4. Previous Planning Committee Report (3 May 2017)

SUMMARY Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing Single house and the

construction of a two storey Single house with an outbuilding.

A report with a recommendation for refusal was presented to Planning Committee

(PC) on 3 May 2017, where, at the meeting, PC resolved to defer the item to:


26 July 2017

Page 26

“…allow the applicant to revise the proposal to comply with the primary street

setback requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes

Policy.”

In response to the deferral, the applicant has submitted amended plans including

an increase in the primary street setback of the proposed upper floor from 8.5m to

9m. No change has been proposed to the setback of the ground floor level which

is proposed at 5m. Although the amended proposal brings the upper floor closer

into compliance with the primary street setback requirement of Local Planning

Policy 2.9, the primary street setback discretion is still not considered to be

supportable. Therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for demolition of the existing Single house and the construction of a

two storey Single house with an outbuilding, comprising the following:

double garage with access from Prowse Street

five bedrooms, three bathrooms and associated living, dining and kitchen areas.

The application has been amended to increase in the primary street setback of the

proposed upper floor from 8.5m to 9m by increasing the size of the upper floor balcony

as illustrated in figure 1. No change has been proposed to the setback of the ground floor

level which is proposed at 5m.

Figure 1: Comparison between original and revised upper floor primary street setback

Refer to Attachment 1 for the Revised Development Plans and Attachment 4 for a copy

of the previous Planning Committee report.

Site/application information

Date Received: Revised plans received 16 June 2017

Owner Name: A. and S. Rodriquez

Submitted by: JNT Homes

Scheme: Residential R20/25

Heritage Listing: Not listed

Existing Land use: Single storey Single house


26 July 2017

Page 27

Use Class: Single house

Use Permissibility: ‘P’

CONSULTATION External referrals

Nil required.

Community

The amended proposal was not required to be advertised again as there were no further

discretions being sought.

OFFICER COMMENT Background

The subject site is located north of O’Hara Street, south of Michael Street, west of York

Street and east of Prowse Street. The site has a land area of approximately 797m² and is

occupied by a Single house. The site is zoned Residential and has a coding of R20/R25.

The site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage list, nor is it located within a heritage

area.

At its meeting on 3 May 2017 Planning Committee resolved to “defer the application for

the demolition of the existing Single house and construction of a two storey Single house

and outbuilding at No. 14 (Lot 60), Prowse Street, Beaconsfield to the next appropriate

Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to revise the proposal to

comply with the primary street setback requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.9

Residential Streetscapes Policy”.


26 July 2017

Page 28

Statutory and policy assessment

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes

and local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the relevant Deemed-to-

comply requirements of the R-Codes or replacement criteria of an applicable local

planning policy, 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. The following elements seek Design principle assessments:

building height (external wall)

outbuilding (setback)

boundary wall (north)

primary street setback.

The building height, outbuilding, and boundary wall discretions are discussed in the

original officer’s report which is included as Attachment 4. The revised primary street

setback is discussed below.

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

As discussed the applicant has amended the proposal to increase the primary street

setback of the upper floor by increasing the depth of the proposed balcony. As per LPP

2.9 the balcony is not included in the setback. The revised setbacks are as follows:

Primary street setback

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

Ground Floor 7m 5m 2m

Upper Floor 10m 9m 1m

The applicant has also submitted written justification in support of the revised plans. The

justification includes the following:

While we are not subdividing, we are trying to build a multigenerational home,

so we would like to be afforded the same consideration as others should we

need to build a granny flat type structure for my husband’s elderly parents at the

back of our block in the future.

LPP2.9 cl 1.2 states that variations may be considered at Council’s discretion

subject to the proposed development meeting at least one criteria being i to v. It

is noted that iii and v do not apply to my development.

Although there is no definitive meaning of the word consistent in the Policy, it

was advised that the City generally forms the view that consistent means that

50% or more of the buildings in the prevailing streetscape must have a similar

primary streetscape. A precedent has been set from viewing developments in

Beaconsfield, South Fremantle and White Gum Valley where the intent of

consistent has been diluted down as a result of the approvals with reduced

setbacks.


26 July 2017

Page 29

In regard to a prevailing streetscape the statement ‘adjoining either side of the

subject site’ can be interpreted as one side or the other or both sides. As it is

unclear, an interpretation of one side or the other would result in my house

being consistent with the prevailing streetscape as two out of the three houses

to the left have a reduced setback.

Bedroom two is the only projecting element that within the 7m setback which

equates to 4.6% of the building area in front of the setback. Similarly the master

bedroom is only 1m into the upper level 10m setback. There is ultimately no

projecting element due to the established streetscape (including my existing

house). When you approach the house from the north and south the

established trees on both sides of my property block the view of my house

including the propped second storey.

The development passes six of the eight design principles of the R-Codes in

relation to Street Setback with the two points in relation to contribution and

consistency with an established streetscape being disputed due to the reasons

above.

LPP 2.9 outlines discretionary criteria where, in particular circumstances, a variation to the primary street setback can be considered. Under clause 1.2 variations may be considered subject to proposed development meeting one of the following:

(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of 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 facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP2.10 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.

Variation criteria (ii-v) in clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 are not considered to be applicable in

supporting a reduction to the primary street setback for the following reasons:

(ii) The proposed primary street setback of the building is considered to result in a

projecting element into an established streetscape. There is a pattern of

properties with a primary street setback in excess of the requirement prescribed in

LPP 2.9, particularly to the north of the subject site. There are no site

circumstances (topography, road or lot layout) which would influence the

projection of the building into the established streetscape.

(iii) The proposed setback of the building would not facilitate the retention of a mature,

significant tree deemed by Council to be worthy of retention.


26 July 2017

Page 30

(iv) There is a clearly defined prevailing streetscape, with the three properties either

side of the subject site facing the same street and situated on the same street

block.

(v) The subject site is not adjacent to a lot directly adjoining a corner lot.

Under clause 1.2 (i) of LPP 2.9, a variation to the primary street setback may be

supported by Council if the proposed setback of the building is consistent with the

setback of buildings of a comparable height within the prevailing streetscape. The

‘prevailing streetscape’ is defined as follows in LPP 2.9:

Prevailing streetscape means the characteristics (generally limited to the setback

and orientation of buildings including garages and carports from the primary or

secondary street, front walls and fencing, building height, building/roof form and

proportion) of the 3 properties, where appropriate, adjoining either side of the

subject site, fronting the same street and in the same street block.

In the case of a corner lot where the dwelling is orientated to the splay, the

characteristics of the adjoining three properties, where appropriate, facing both

streets shall be considered.

Greater weight may be given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining

properties on either side of the subject site fronting the same street(s). For the

purpose of this definition, properties separated by a street shall not be considered

‘adjoining’.

Figure 2 shows the prevailing streetscape surrounding 14 Prowse Street.

Figure 2: Prevailing streetscape of Prowse Street


26 July 2017

Page 31

There is only one building in the prevailing streetscape that has a comparable height and

primary street setback with the proposal at 14 Prowse Street, which is No. 20 Prowse

Street. No. 20 is a two storey dwelling with an approximate primary street setback of 7m

to both the ground and upper floors. One other building in the prevailing streetscape,

being 18 Prowse Street, has a primary street setback of approximately 5m. However it is

noted that this building is only single storey, and hence would be difficult to classify as a

building of ‘comparable height’ in relation to the application for 14 Prowse Street.

The City has generally formed the position that the intent of ‘consistent’ means that 50%

or more of the buildings in the prevailing streetscape must have a similar primary street

setback for a variation to be supported. In this instance, only one building or 16% is

considered to be comparable. Therefore the proposed development is not considered to

be consistent with the prevailing streetscape and the proposed primary street setback is

not supported under this clause.

Accordingly a Design principle assessment is sought against the R-Codes as the

proposal does not comply with the replacement Deemed-to-comply criteria of the LPP2.9

for the reasons outlined above. It is noted that all the Design principles are required to

be met due to the word ‘and’ in the R-Codes. In this instance the proposed primary street

setback is not supported as the setback does not positively contribute to nor is it

considered consistent with the existing Prowse Street streetscape pattern. A view of the

wider streetscape of the east side of Prowse Street illustrates that the streetscape

consists of dwellings with a large primary setback which is in excess of the requirement

of the LPP. In this regard the proposed setback is not consistent nor does it make a

positive contribution to the existing streetscape.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Green Plan 2020

No trees would be impacted by the proposal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1:


26 July 2017

Page 32

REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the

demolition of the existing Single House and construction of a two storey Single House

and outbuilding at No. 14 (Lot 60), Prowse Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans

dated 16 June 2017, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Residential Design Codes Design principle

5.1.2, the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes in

that the primary street setback proposed is inconsistent with the setbacks in the

prevailing streetscape, as per clause 67 (g) of the Deemed Provisions in the Planning

and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

LOST: 2/3

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jeff McDonald

CR Jones e MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the demolition of the existing Single House and construction of a two storey Single House and outbuilding at No. 14 (Lot 60), Prowse Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 16 June 2017. 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 occupation, the boundary walls located on the northern boundary shall

be of a clean finish in either:

coloured sand render

face brick


26 July 2017

Page 33

painted surface

other approved finish

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

4. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

Advice Notes:

i. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

ii. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on

the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

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

iii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or

modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iv. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of

Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.


26 July 2017

Page 34


For Against



26 July 2017

Page 35


PC1707-10 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.18 - BEACONSFIELD AND WHITE GUM VALLEY LOCAL CENTRE AREAS - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING

Meeting Date: 5 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

This report recommends council approve draft local planning policy 3.18 – Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centres (LPP3.18) for public comment. The policy covers the local centre areas of Beaconsfield (from Fifth Avenue and either side of Central Avenue) and White Gum Valley (the commercial area on South Street either side of Yalgoo Avenue). The policy area was the subject of a scheme amendment (No. 65) gazetted in January 2017. The scheme amendment increased the development potential of the area to up to R100 residential density and three or four storey height where specific criteria are met. The amendment also included a requirement for reduced heights (two storeys) where the development would adjoin existing residential zoned properties. The purpose of the proposed policy is to provide more detailed design controls to ensure that new development enhances the character of the area, respects the interface with residential properties, and provides high levels of public realm engagement.

BACKGROUND

South Street has been earmarked as a future rapid transit route within a number of state government strategic planning documents and in the City’s Integrated Transport Strategy. South Street connects important leisure, health and education services and passenger rail infrastructure located in the Fremantle and Murdoch activity centres. In 2014 the council focused on South Street as a corridor appropriate for more intensive mixed use redevelopment with an emphasis on the delivery of population growth along a key public transport route, a core principle of providing for Perth’s future population. Three nodes along South Street were identified as suitable locations for more intensive mixed-use redevelopment to help create vibrant, attractive and sustainable local communities. Scheme amendment processes were carried out on each of the three nodes (refer to figure 1). The nodes identified were:

Hilton Local Centre - Scheme Amendment No.64 – gazetted September 2016

White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre - Scheme Amendment No.65 - gazetted January 2017

South Street and Hampton Road intersection - Scheme Amendment No.66 – gazetted June 2017.


26 July 2017

Page 36

Figure 1 - South Street transit corridor scheme amendments 64, 65 and 66

Scheme amendment No. 65 and now LPP 3.18 covers the local centre areas of Beaconsfield (from Fifth Street to either side of Central Avenue) and White Gum Valley (the commercial area either side of Yalgoo Avenue) with the exception of 230 (lot 32) South Street, White Gum Valley – refer to figure 2 below.

Figure 2 - LPP3.18 area. Note: No. 230 (lot 32) South Street (eastern corner of Stokes & South Street) is in the local centre zone, however is excluded from the area that was subject to scheme amendment 65 and therefore is also excluded from this policy. Scheme amendment 65 increased the development potential of the policy area to R100 density and three to four storey height. The amendment also included a requirement for reduced heights (two storeys) where the development would adjoin existing residential zoned properties. Upon final adoption of scheme amendment No. 65 on 26 April 2016 council also resolved that design guidelines / policy should be prepared for use in assessing future development in the area. Proposed draft LPP3.18 is the result of this work. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of community engagement on the draft policy can be covered by the strategic planning operating budget. Therefore there are no financial implications associated with


26 July 2017

Page 37

adopting the policy for public comment. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local governments are authorised to prepare and / or amend local planning policies under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). There are no specific legal implications arising from the content of the draft policy. CONSULTATION Subject to approval by council, community consultation on the draft content of local planning policy 3.18 will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of clause 4 of Schedule 2 Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. Officers have also offered to attend local precinct group meetings as part of the community engagement on this policy. There are a number of community consultation processes either in progress or scheduled to proceed over the remainder of 2017 in the area surrounding the policy area. These include the Heart of Beaconsfield masterplan, and the scheme amendment to rezone the Davis Park area to development zone. Accordingly officers propose staging community engagement events to avoid confusion and engagement fatigue. This will have a bearing on the exact timing of community consultation of the draft policy. OFFICER COMMENT The purpose of the proposed draft local planning policy 3.18 – Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centres (LPP3.18) is to provide controls that will ensure that developments enhance the character of the area, respect the interface with residential properties, and provide high levels of public realm engagement. The draft policy sets out design objectives under seven different aspects of development. Proposed development is to demonstrate it meets the design objectives for each of the seven aspects. The seven aspects and design objectives are provided below.

Development context

Development should improve, acknowledge and be responsive to surrounding development, with appropriate consideration of adjacent site amenity where applicable.

Architectural expression, articulation and dwelling design

Development must convey a contemporary and high quality architectural response with active edges at ground level and articulated facades above including appropriate building form design to South Street frontages to achieve vibrant and stimulating pedestrian experiences.

Building design must positively respond to the surrounding urban context, streets, and neighbouring properties and be sensitive to the interface with properties in the Residential zone.

New development should encourage innovative and imaginative development that provides variety, articulation and building outcomes that will enhance the visual amenity of the area.


26 July 2017

Page 38

Site planning, orientation and setbacks

Building design must demonstrate satisfactory site planning, orientation and setbacks, with specific attention to the following areas:

the South Street road setback in terms of building setback and public realm interface

the interface with Residential zoned properties

the existing topography of the site.

Corner buildings

Development on lots with more than one street frontage shall address and activate both street frontages.

Landscape design and public domain interface

Building design must ensure retail areas facilitate the creation of street level activity and vitality of South Street. Developments must achieve a high quality public realm streetscape that is complimentary to the wider neighbourhood. Landscaped interfaces between development and South Street shall give expression and character to this location.

Building services

Services are to be well integrated and have minimal visual and acoustic impact on the public realm and adjacent buildings.

Vehicle parking and access

On-site vehicle parking and access is appropriately located to minimise adverse visual impact on the streetscape.

Additional design criteria are provided for each design objective. The design criteria provide specific points to consider when meeting each design objective. For example, the design criteria for the development context aspect are:

Site design must be responsive to neighbouring sites, the existing context and neighbouring public realm resulting in a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Development must be sensitive to the interface with residential lots.

The complete text of the policy is provided below in the officer’s recommendation. Once adopted the policy would be used by:

landowners / applicants to guide the design of their development

planning officers to assess developments in this area

the Design Advisory Committee to provide advice on applications in the area. Appendix 1 of the policy includes a one-page guide to the requirements in Local Planning Scheme No. 4 which apply to development in this area. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple majority required


26 July 2017

Page 39

COMMITTEE & OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr Jon Strachan Council: Approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 3.18 – Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centres for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.18 BEACONSFIELD AND WHITE GUM VALLEY LOCAL CENTRE AREAS

ADOPTION DATE: ##/##/20## AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Deemed Provisions contained in Schedule 2, Part 2, provide the requirements for making a local planning policy.

Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2, requires the Local Government to consider a broad range of matters when determining an application.

Clause 4.2.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes is to conform to the provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

Schedule 8 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 provides the additional development standards including height and density for the sub areas 5.3.1 and 6.3.1 the subject of this local planning policy (refer to appendix 1 for summary of these sub area requirements). APPLICATION

This policy applies to lots 214-228 South Street, White Gum Valley and lots 199-213 South Street, Beaconsfield.

In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the most specific policy provision shall prevail. DEFINITIONS

Active Edges: Street frontages where there is an active engagement between those in the street and those on the ground floors of buildings characteristically achieved through building design and land use activation via retail and commercial opportunities.


26 July 2017

Page 40

Deep Planting Zone (DPZ): means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall be a minimum length and width dimension of 4.5 metres and water permeable, unpaved and uncovered. The deep planting zone shall not be used for vehicle parking or access and contain no buildings, structures, or pergolas.

All other definitions are as defined in the State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes and the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to provide controls that will ensure that developments enhance the character of the area, preserve established development interfaces, and provide high levels of public realm engagement. The design objectives and criteria in this policy are intended to assist proponents in preparing their development applications. POLICY AREA

Note: 230 (lot 32) South Street, WGV (corner of Stokes & South Street) is in the Local centre zone, however is excluded from consideration under this policy. POLICY 1. Development is to demonstrate it meets the following design objectives. The

design criteria provide specific points to consider when meeting the design objective.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY DESIGN OBJECTIVES Site Specific Development controls

(in addition to LPS4 Schedule 8 Provisions – Appendix 1)

DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Design objectives:

Development should improve, acknowledge and be responsive to surrounding development, with appropriate consideration of adjacent site amenity where applicable.

Design criteria:

Site design shall be responsive to neighbouring sites, the existing context and neighbouring public realm resulting in a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.


26 July 2017

Page 41

Development must be sensitive to the interface with residential lots.

ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION, ARTICULATION AND DWELLING DESIGN

Design objectives:

Development must convey a contemporary and high quality architectural response with active edges at ground level and articulated facades above including appropriate building form design to South Street frontages to achieve vibrant and stimulating pedestrian experiences.

Building design must positively respond to the surrounding urban context, streets, and neighbouring properties and be sensitive to the interface with properties in the Residential zone.

New development should encourage innovative and imaginative development that provides variety, articulation and building outcomes that will enhance the visual amenity of the area.

Design criteria:

The South Street ground level building facades of retail and commercial tenancies shall be designed to address the street via entries and windows to create interest and a sense of activity within the building.

Development adjoining Residential zoned properties shall demonstrate a design response that is sensitive to this interface.

Internalised habitable rooms, including bedrooms, will not be permitted.

At least 60% of apartments shall be naturally cross ventilated.

SITE PLANNING, ORIENTATION AND SETBACKS

Design objectives:

Building design must demonstrate satisfactory site planning, orientation and setbacks, with specific attention to the following areas:

the South Street road setback in terms of building setback and public realm interface

the interface with Residential zoned properties

the existing topography of the site.

Design criteria:

Buildings shall be oriented to the street and neighbouring buildings so as to maximise amenity, including architectural form to the street, solar access and visual privacy.

Where level changes occur on sites development shall ensure floor levels and entrances to buildings appropriately interface with the ground plane and adjoining properties.

CORNERS (BUILDINGS)

Design objectives:

Development on lots with more than one street frontage shall address and activate both street frontages.

Design criteria:

Buildings on corners shall address both street frontages and include strong architectural expression to both facades. The ground floor shall provide surveillance and an active edge to the corner return.

Blank walls to corner frontages will not be permitted.


26 July 2017

Page 42

LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND PUBLIC DOMAIN INTERFACE

Design objectives:

Building design must ensure retail areas facilitate the creation of street level activity and vitality of South Street.

Developments must achieve a high quality public realm streetscape that is complimentary to the wider neighbourhood.

Landscaped interfaces between development and South Street shall give expression and character to this location.

Design criteria:

Footpaths, landscaping and awning shelters shall be included in new developments where considered acceptable by MRWA and the Department of Planning.

Consider the interim opportunities for land in the Metropolitan Regional Scheme Primary Regional Road reserve setback to benefit the areas’ building and streetscape responses. Where possible, a coordinated approach with adjoining properties should be achieved.

Development shall maximise opportunities to introduce deep planting zones for the protection of new trees.

BUILDING SERVICES

Design objectives:

Services are to be well integrated and have minimal visual and acoustic impact on the public realm and adjacent buildings.

Design criteria:

Waste management and storage designs shall minimise the impact on adjoining residences, and be screened from view.

Building mechanical services including plant and service equipment shall be integrated into the roof design and/or not be visible above the roof line of the building facade from the public realm.

VEHICLE PARKING AND ACCESS

Design objectives:

On-site vehicle parking and access is appropriately located to minimise adverse visual impact on the streetscape.

Design criteria:

Where possible, vehicle access shall be taken from the rear of the site.

Where car parking is provided underground or in a building, car park access shall be integrated with the building’s overall facade.

APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF LPS4 SCHEDULE 8 - SUB AREAS 5.3.1 & 6.3.1


26 July 2017

Page 43

Sub Area Map – Sub Area 5.3.1 and 6.3.1

SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE 8 PROVISIONS

(contained within Local Planning Scheme No. 4)

Within sub area 5.3.1 and 6.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply;

the following additional development standards apply.

SUB AREA 5.3.1 AND SUB AREA 6.3.1 ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

ACHIEVABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CODE

R100*1

LAND USE

South Street frontage Mandatory non-residential land uses for ground floor

BUILDING HEIGHT (minimum)

South Street frontage 7.0m*2

BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum)

Lots less than 1000m2 13.0m top of pitched roof*3

10.0m top of external wall*3

Lots equal or greater than 1000m2

as per R100 height requirements in Table 4 of the R-Codes*3

South Street frontage

New building development ground floors shall not be more than 600mm above the adjacent footpath

Floor to floor heights for new building development situated on the ground floor shall be a minimum of 4.0m above the adjacent footpath

BUILDING HEIGHT BUFFER

Development proposed within 5m of adjoining residential zoned lands

9.0m top of pitched roof

6.0m top of external wall

Development 12.0m top of pitched roof


26 July 2017

Page 44

proposed within 15m of adjoining residential zoned lands

9.0m top of external wall

BUILDING SETBACKS


10.0m minimum*5

12.0m maximum*5

Maximum building separation distance of 6.0m per lot (aggregated) *6

BOUNDARY WALLS

Lot boundary of adjoining residential zoned land outside of the sub area

3.5m maximum height and 3.0m average height

Maximum length restricted to two thirds of the length of the boundary

BUILDING FRONTAGES

South Street frontage Building facade to incorporate windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first level

CAR PARKING AND VEHICLE ACCESS


Primary vehicle access shall be located from side street for all corner lots

Traffic Impact Assessment shall be submitted to support any planning application for lots with frontage to South Street*4.

Vehicle parking is restricted to rear of buildings and/or below ground level

OPEN SPACE

Overall minimum open space

30% of site area*7

LANDSCAPING

All R100 development 10% minimum of site area shall be landscaped with planting and permeable surfaces

Notes: *1 All development to be in accordance with R100 Residential Design Code

provisions, except where otherwise specified in this policy. *2 A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building facade on the

South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies.

*3 The building height buffer must also be considered when applying these heights.

*4 The Traffic Impact Assessment (required as specified in Schedule 8 Provisions) is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

*5 Unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.


26 July 2017

Page 45

*6 Applies to ground floor level of development to South Street only. The 6.0m maximum aggregate width applies to spaces between the buildings and/or to the building side lot setbacks.

*7 Where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 46


PC1707-11 CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO WALGA ON THIRD PARTY APPEAL RIGHTS IN PLANNING DISCUSSION PAPER

Meeting Date: 5 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: WALGA discussion paper – ‘Third Party Appeal Rights in

Planning’

SUMMARY

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) has recently released a discussion paper on Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning. It was issued to local governments on 28 April 2017 with an invitation to provide comment by 31 May 2017. WALGA has since extended the comment period until 14 July 2017. Council resolved on 24 May 2017 to request City officers to prepare a report for planning committee on the discussion paper. A summary of findings from the discussion paper has been outlined in the officer comment section of this report. The debate over the introduction of third party appeal rights into the Western Australian planning system continues to present a range of arguments both for and against. This report recommends that the City of Fremantle’s submission to the WAPC should express qualified support for third party appeal rights in some circumstances being accommodated within the Western Australian planning system.

BACKGROUND

The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) is the peak industry body which provides representation and advocacy on behalf of WA local governments, including the City of Fremantle. On 28 April 2017 WALGA released a discussion paper for comment by local governments on a review of WALGA’s policy position on third party appeal rights in planning. A copy of the discussion paper is provided in attachment 1 to this item. A policy position was last formed by WALGA in 2008 which opposed the introduction of third party appeal rights. Third party appeal rights have been deliberated at various levels of government throughout Australia for the past few decades. Third party appeal rights vary by state, with no common ‘best practice’ approaches being adopted consistently. Third party appeal rights currently do not exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005 in Western Australia. The most recent resurgence to the third party appeal rights discussion has been triggered by changes to the Western Australian planning system, particularly surrounding decision making powers. Since 2009 a number of changes have been implemented to the planning framework, directly impacting on the decision-making powers of local government. The most notable of these has been the introduction of the Development


26 July 2017

Page 47

Assessment Panels (DAPs) and the changes to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The WALGA discussion paper takes into account these contextual changes for Western Australia and considers whether these changes now give greater precedence to third party appeals playing a role in the planning system. On 24 May 2017 council resolved to request officers to prepare a report on the matter for consideration by the planning committee. The resolution noted that should WALGA progress with a new policy position there will be additional opportunities for the City of Fremantle to provide input.


There are no financial implications should council adopt the officers recommendation.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications should council adopt the officers recommendation.

CONSULTATION

There has been no consultation on this item. The WALGA discussion paper is accessible to members and non-members of WALGA.

OFFICER COMMENT

In considering the potential introduction of third party appeal rights in Western Australia the parameters of involvement need to be clearly defined to ensure the overall planning framework is not undermined and the broader purposes of planning are not unreasonably challenged. The WALGA discussion paper (attachment 1), includes a table which provides an overview of the current interstate practices. Nationally, there are notable variances between each state and territory’s planning system and third party appeal rights are no exception to these variations. Presently there is no single ‘best practice’ approach to the inclusion of third party appeal rights in decision-making and differing outcomes are experienced throughout states. Ongoing debate exists throughout Australia on the role and level of involvement third parties should be given. Arguments for and against third party appeal rights Third party appeal rights in the decision-making process present a variety of moral, philosophical and practical challenges that can conflict and often compete with one another. There are well-reasoned arguments both for and against third party rights being introduced. WALGA’s discussion paper provides arguments for and against third party appeal rights as summarised in Table 1 and Table 2 below. More detail on these arguments can be found in attachment 1.


26 July 2017

Page 48

Table 1 ~ Arguments against third party appeal rights

Legitimate interest and third party appeals Third party appeal rights, if not clearly defined, may allow individuals to take part in planning decisions in which they have no direct interest. This can lead to opposition on non-planning grounds, rather than because of an issue with the merit or substance of the proposal.

Loss of representation Decision-making can be shifted away from the local government and therefore away from the locally elected representation. This shift may reduce accountability and transparency in the planning decisions process for the local community and potentially weaken the representative nature of local government decision-making.

Current planning processes provide opportunities to participate A strong argument against third party appeal rights is that proactive public engagement, participation and collaboration in policy formation and strategic planning is preferable as these processes focus on higher order engagement which leads to better policy and greater certainty in the process and outcome. Third party appeals tend to encourage argumentative rather than collaborative debate on planning issues. The potential impact of third party appeal rights may be that short-term decisions are promoted and could create planning outcomes that are not in the longer term interest of the community.

Not representative of the broader community The idea of equity of access to planning decisions is often cited in the literature as a justification for third party appeal rights, however some research reviewed found that the majority of people lodging third party appeals come from a well-organised, well-connected and well-resourced segment of the community, which raises the question of how representative these objections are of the wider community’s views.

Impact on the decision making process There are arguments that suggest the introduction of third party appeal rights will lead to increased cost and delays, and the possibility of appeals being lodged because of vexatious or commercial interests, not because of genuine planning matters. As a result, the planning approval processes will experience delays, further exacerbating issues of inefficiency, uncertainty, increased costs, and could ultimately act as a brake on investment and economic growth. Improving these deliverables has been central to the recent planning reform and introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and could potentially be undermined.

Failure to determine/deemed refusal Evidence from the Victorian example suggests that applications with higher numbers of objections are more likely to be appealed by a third party. Similarly, these applications are also most likely to be applications that Councils fail to determine. While failures to determine may be instances where the local authority is unable to process applications due to resource constraints, the results and anecdotal evidence suggest that often these cases involve the authority declining to make a decision where there is significant resident opposition.


26 July 2017

Page 49

Table 1 ~ Arguments against third party appeal rights

Turning planning into a ‘numbers game’ The existence of third party appeals may lead members of the community to believe that the number of objections in and of itself is a way of engaging in the planning process and prevent developments they do not support. However, in order to be considered by the responsible authority, an objection needs to be about a valid planning concern. As a result the community’s expectations about how it can influence the planning system may not be met.

Table 2 ~ Arguments for third party appeal rights

Legitimate interest A strong argument is made that neighbouring landowners, occupiers and members of the community often have a very legitimate interest in whether development occurs and the form of that development, as any new development has impacts on existing neighbourhood character, amenity, infrastructure, and property values. An important argument that a third party should have the same right of appeal as the applicant raises important equity issue to the development process. Essentially, without third party appeal rights the wider community is removed as a stakeholder.

Improved participation and decision making Third party appeals would have the potential to increase avenues for public engagement with planning, and may deliver better planning decisions as an empowered public, with increased opportunities for participation, can result in improved planning outcomes. Therefore, third party appeal rights affords the combination of a broader base of input, increased debate and the ability for ‘local knowledge’ to inform planning approvals which can lead to improved outcomes. Notably it is comparatively rare in Victoria for an objector to completely succeed in overturning a decision, but often their involvement is considered to lead to a better planning decision.

Improved consultation Third party appeal rights may encourage developers to deal with the local community in a more engaging, sincere manner and places pressure to concede or improve design elements where appropriate and reasonable to do so.

Improved transparency Applicant appeals are a means by which decision-making can be checked and provide property owners a recourse to an independent review body as a safeguard against inconsistent decisions. An argument for Third Party Appeal Rights is that they provide the same opportunity for third parties to scrutinise and challenge decision-making, thus keeping decision-makers accountable. Appeals relating to the merit of a decision A person’s first contact with the planning system is generally at the development application stage. The development approval process is itself only one component of the broader planning framework of legislation and strategic planning policy documents. The broader planning system involves the ongoing review and adjustment of the planning tools that set out development requirements, and this includes various avenues for


26 July 2017

Page 50

community input and participation. These planning tools have a direct impact on what can be proposed at the development application stage. Despite these opportunities for community involvement in the early stages of the planning process, the direct impact of redevelopment is generally not perceived or realised until the time of a development proposal. At this stage, third parties can present a legitimate interest. In appealing a planning approval, planning proposals that meet clearly set development requirements are not considered by City officers to be appropriate cases for review. Development proposals that meet standard planning requirements and do not seek a discretionary decision (for example residential development which fully complies with Deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes) provide an important level of certainty which is established at the time of setting the planning policy provisions that give clear outcomes. If these cases were to be open to review at the development application stages the certainty and transparency of the process would be compromised. On the other hand, planning decisions that involve the application of significant discretion or departure from normal planning scheme or policy requirements present a stronger case for additional consultation or review to ensure that the level of discretion being applied is reasonable. Discretionary decisions may enable more opportunity for innovation and problem solving in development design but can also challenge the community’s expectations. In these instances where significant discretion is being considered, third parties can offer valuable local insight and assist with mediating outcomes that balance landowner and community interests and ensure that the community expectations established in the planning scheme/policy adoption stage is carried through to development approval decisions. It should be made clear that avenues for administrative review, as opposed to merit-based decision reviews, already exist throughout all Australian jurisdictions. The administrative review of a decision considers the processes used in order to make a decision. Unlike the merit-based review that considers the content of a decision, a judicial or ombudsman review concentrates exclusively on the process through which the decision was made and whether it was lawfully done. As administrative review processes already exist within Australia, this type of review is not considered an appropriate inclusion in the current WALGA-led discussion of third party planning appeal rights. In enabling any level of merit-based reviews of planning decisions, it is essential that the criteria for seeking a review are clearly defined to avoid unrealistic expectations by third parties regarding the type of decision that can be reviewed and through what means. It is recommended that if some form of merit based review is considered appropriate, the appeal must relate exclusively to relevant planning matters and a significant element of discretion judgement has been involved in making the original decision. Criteria considerations (practical implementation and parameters for third party appeal rights) The strength of any appeal rights system is the clearly set limitations and criteria that need to be met before an appeal can be heard. The criteria recommended in the WALGA


26 July 2017

Page 51

paper, taken from interstate examples, generally include the following exclusions and criteria:

Excluding vexatious or commercial interest appeals and any appeals made on non-genuine planning matters.

Excluding appeals by parties who did not previously make a submission.

Excluding appeals where an application meets ‘deem-to-comply’ requirements and no discretion has been exercised.

Excluding appeals for some cases of minor development.

Having a short window in which to appeal (e.g. 14 days from the decision date). Officers consider these criteria would give a strong basis for the grounds on which an appeal can be requested. Consideration of a threshold test for the level of discretion being exercised would also ensure that planning decisions with minor discretionary decisions (e.g. minor variations to boundary setbacks in residential developments) are not open to third party appeal. Other options that do not involve traditional third party appeal rights, but still offer similar opportunities for review of decisions, could also be contemplated. In some interstate and international examples a ‘call-in’ method is used to either request that a review is carried out or to exempt a decision from review. In the English planning system, a call-in involves making a request to the equivalent of the Planning Minister to consider the need for review of a planning decision. Generally this applies only to proposals of particular significance or where significant departures from national or local planning policies are involved. For the Western Australia system the recent changes to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 introduced additional power for the Minister to intervene in certain planning matters. The same powers could also be applied, where the Minister considered it appropriate, for development decisions of particular significance. An alternative approach, used in Victoria, is to provide the opportunity to have certain development applications of local and state significance to apply to be exempt from a third party appeal. This could be employed for cases that have demonstrated their local or state contribution to long term planning objectives. Improving the early consultation on planning provisions can assist with clarity of requirements and improving community expectations of outcomes. These proactive approaches can be improved at a local government level. Council recently took this approach with scheme amendment 63 for small infill housing (also known as The Freo Alternative) with community input being sought prior to the formal scheme amendment process starting. This approach is one option that can be achieved at a local government level to help strengthen participation in planning. Should there be enthusiasm for introducing some third party appeal rights, a robust framework of criteria needs to be applied with the existing Western Australian planning system in mind. Implications for local governments Planning decision-making at local government level is, at times, a balancing act between representing the local community and exercising the planning powers delegated by the


26 July 2017

Page 52

WAPC in a manner consistent with state planning policies. A core responsibility of local governments is ensuring that state and city wide policy provisions are implemented at the local level, whilst still providing representation of community members’ interests. The planning reform changes introduced since 2009 have aimed to streamline planning practices throughout Western Australia to make the process more efficient and decisions more consistent. A significant risk associated with the introduction of third party appeal rights is that without the necessary resources, such a situation could lead to delays in making planning decisions, which in turn could create inefficiency, uncertainty, increased costs, and could ultimately act as a brake on investment and economic growth. The introduction of third party appeal rights could give the community the ability to

appeal decisions made by DAPs but it is more likely to result in the majority of appeals

being lodged against decisions made by local government. The decisions made by DAPs

do not make up the majority of planning decisions and therefore the impact from

decisions being reviewed are likely to be more substantial for local governments. Local

government staff would be impacted as officers would require additional time to prepare

for and attend third party appeals, which would likely have an effect on the ability of local

government officers to complete development application assessments within the

required statutory timeframes. This may then lead to a need for increased staff

resources.

Methods that improve the participation of third parties at various stages of the planning system should be an initial avenue considered if the introduction of third party reviews is appropriate in Western Australia. Despite the ability to impose limitations to the scope of third party appeal rights, it is likely that any system which allows third party appeals would have a direct impact on the workload and operating costs of local government planning services. CONCLUSION The arguments both for and against third party appeals are relatively finely balanced. Officers consider that if third party appeal rights were to be introduced in any form to the Western Australian planning system, a robust framework with suitable checks and balances would be necessary. The introduction of such appeal rights, whatever their scope, would be likely to have direct and indirect impacts on local governments at a monetary and efficiency level. Should council consider it appropriate to make a submission supporting the principle of introducing some form of third party appeal rights in Western Australia, officers recommend that the following issues should be addressed as part of developing such an appeals system:

measures to safeguard against vexatious or non-planning based appeals

limit appeal rights to people with genuine direct/local interest in decision

provide a threshold for what cases can be appealed mechanisms to minimise uncertainty/delay for developers after original approval

decision – i.e. short timeframe for lodging appeal.


26 July 2017

Page 53



COMMITTEE & OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr Jon Strachan Council: Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to submit comments to WALGA in response to its discussion paper on Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning, stating that the City of Fremantle would support provision being made for appeals by third parties within the Western Australian planning system, subject to appeal provisions addressing the following considerations:

1. The scope of a third party appeal rights system should be limited to review of decisions on development proposals that involve matters of substantial public interest to the local community and/or involve the exercise of significant discretionary assessment by the decision-maker under the relevant statutory and policy framework.

2. The right to appeal should be limited to third parties who are demonstrably

interested in and affected by a decision, e.g. parties who made a submission on an application prior to its determination and who reside or own property in the same local government district.

3. An appeal system should have safeguards to prevent appeals being lodged

for vexatious or other reasons not based on legitimate planning considerations, e.g. commercial competition interests.

4. Appeal procedures should avoid causing excessive delay or uncertainty

regarding development, e.g. by applying the same 28 day timeframe for lodging an appeal as currently applies to applications for review of decisions by the State Administrative Tribunal.

5. Appeal rights should apply irrespective of which decision-making body made

the decision to be reviewed, i.e. development approval decisions made by Development Assessment Panels and the WA Planning Commission as well as decisions by local governments should be open to appeal.


26 July 2017

Page 54


For Against



26 July 2017

Page 55

PC1707-2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 65 (LOT 12), FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0108/10 (THREE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING MEDICAL CENTRE, HOSPITAL AND FOUR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (AD ET04/17)

Meeting Date: 5 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Planning Committee Attachments: 1: Applicant’s Request for Extension to term of Planning

Approval 2: Planning Approval for DA0108/10 3: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought to extend the term of Planning Approval DA0108/10, which is for a three storey mixed use development including a Medical centre, Hospital and four Multiple dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle. The request has been assessed against the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies. The proposed request does not satisfy Clause 3.2(a) of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals as there have been material changes to LPS4 and Local Planning Policies since Planning Approval was granted on 8 June 2010. The request is recommended for refusal. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought to extend the term of Planning Approval DA0108/10 which is a three storey mixed use development including a Medical centre, Hospital and four Multiple dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle (refer ET02/14). The applicant is seeking a two year extension to the term of the planning approval to substantially commence before 8 June 2019. This is the fourth extension to the term of planning approval sought by the applicant for this development, with the current extension expiring on 8 June 2017. The applicant has advised that the development has been further delayed as a result of the changing market needs in Fremantle including the shutdown of the Fremantle Hospital, the relocation of the Fremantle Dockers to Cockburn and the unstable car park located next door to the site. The applicant states that the function and role of the development was always dependant on the future role of Fremantle. Having now defined the role of the development including its interactions with Fremantle Hospital, Fiona Stanley Hospital, St John of God Murdoch and the Fremantle Medicare Local and Division of General Practice the development is able to move forward.


26 July 2017

Page 56

A full copy of the applicant’s justification for the extension is set out in their covering letter (see Attachment 1) and a copy of the original planning approval (see Attachment 2) of this report. Site/application information Date received: 24 May 2017 Owner name: Auzcorp Medical Services of Australia Pty Ltd Submitted by: As above Scheme: Mixed Use (R35) Heritage listing: Yes (limestone features)

Not located within heritage area Existing land use: Vacant Use Class: ‘Medical centre’, ‘Hospital’, ‘Multiple dwellings’ Use Permissibility: ‘A’, ‘D’, ‘A’

CONSULTATION External referrals Nil required. Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and / or Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). OFFICER COMMENT Statutory and policy assessment Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Clause 77 of the Regulations relates to amending or cancelling development approvals and states that an applicant may seek an extension to the term of planning approval.


26 July 2017

Page 57

Background The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ with a density coding of R35 under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) – sub area 4.3.1 as prescribed in Schedule 8 of LPS4. The site is 1169m2 in area and

located in the street block bounded by Suffolk Street, Marine Terrace, Arundel Street and South Terrace. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage list; however, it is not located within a prescribed Heritage Area. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to this application:

At its meeting of 5 November 2008, the Council’s then Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to refuse an application for Planning Approval for a four storey mixed use development including a Hospital, Medical centre and Grouped dwellings on the subject site (refer DA143/08). This decision was ultimately appealed by the applicant at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) (refer matter no. DR 485 of 2008) and Council’s refusal was affirmed.

At its meeting of 2 June 2010, the PSC granted conditional Planning Approval for a three storey mixed use development including a Medical Centre, Hospital and four Multiple Dwellings at the subject site (refer DA0108/10).

On 8 March 2012, the City granted an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 (refer ET03/12). This extended the term of approval until 8 June 2014.

At its meeting of 2 April 2014, the PSC granted a further extension to the term of Planning Approval (Refer ET02/14) until 8 June 2016. Officers recommended that this request be refused, on the basis of non-compliance with Council’s LPP1.1.

At its meeting of 6 July 2016, Planning Committee (PC) granted a further extension to the term of Planning Approval (Refer ET01/16) until 8 June 2017. Officers recommended that this request be refused, on the basis of non-compliance with Council’s LPP1.1.

Although the existing term of approval expired on 8 June 2017 as this application for a further extension was received on 24 May 2017, the current term of Planning Approval will not expire until this application has been determined. Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (LPP1.1)

Clause 3.1 – 3.3 inclusive of LPP1.1 states:

“3.1 Where an extension is granted, a period of up to a further two years will be granted.

3.2 In considering a request for an extension to the term of a planning approval under clause 10.5.2 of the Scheme, Council may have regard to the following factors;

(a) whether the scheme or a relevant planning policy has changed in a material way since the planning approval was granted;

(b) whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in relation to the Scheme or policy requirements; and

(c) whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the planning approval relates or the surrounding locality since the planning approval was granted.


26 July 2017

Page 58

3.3 Where a request to extend the term of a planning approval is approved, a letter will be issued advising the applicant of this. No new approval will be issued and all other conditions of the approval will remain unchanged.”

In relation to 3.1 above, the current request for an extension will effectively extend the approval term of the original application an additional seven years since the original expiry date of 8 June 2012. In this regard the use of LPP1.1 to extend the term of approval for an additional two years is not considered to be consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the site and the locality as further discussed below. In relation to 3.2(a) above, there have been a number of material legislative changes since Planning Approval was granted for DA0108/10 on 8 June 2010. These are detailed below.

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

The Regulations are a major part of WA’s planning reform agenda and make changes to permitted development and other planning processes. These regulations sit separately to any applicable town / local planning schemes and have effect throughout Western Australia. It is not considered that the Regulations will materially affect how development on this property is considered in their current form. This being said, given the substantive changes to the planning framework as will be discussed below, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with clause 67 of the Regulations, by way of the following matters to be considered:

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

… (b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local

planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

… (g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area;”

It is important to note that orderly and proper planning should be viewed in the context of time, and in this case, the planning framework has been changed significantly and to the point where this development would likely be substantially improved if it were a new application being considered today. An example of this would be the requirement for the same building having to be reviewed by the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC). Granting a further extension of time may compromise the site from being developed for the best possible planning outcome that may otherwise be achievable under the current planning framework. The site is considered to be a prominent site along South Terrace, so its continued vacancy and lack of any physical development is considered to be detrimental to amenity of the locality. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Clause 78B of LPS4 was gazetted (known as Amendment 49 at the time) on 18 January 2013 which related to DA’s with a building height of 11m or greater having to go before the City’s DAC before determination. DA0108/10 proposed heights


26 July 2017

Page 59

greater than 11m and as such, and in accordance with Clause 78B(6)(b) of LPS4, the proposal would have to go before the City’s DAC prior to it being determined. Residential Design Codes

On 22 November 2010, amended ‘Multiple Dwelling’ provisions of R-Codes came into effect. It is generally considered that these amended ‘Multiple Dwelling’ provisions are more generous in their development requirements and as such this in and of itself is not likely to materially affect the previous discretions sought. The R-Codes were further amended on numerous occasions since 22 November 2010, with the latest edition gazetted on 23 October 2015. Council’s Local Planning Policies

The following Local Planning Policies have been adopted since the previous Planning Approval for DA0108/10 and would be relevant to any new development of comparable size and scale as approved:

LPP1.9 – Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design (adopted 27 July 2011)

LPP2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (adopted 11 June 2013).

Based on the above, it is considered that there have been a number of legislative material changes to the City’s LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies since Planning Approval for DA0108/10 was granted on 8 June 2010 and therefore an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA0108/10 should not be supported. Should the extension request be refused the owner / applicant will be required to lodge a new application for Planning Approval for the development. Orderly and proper planning In regard to orderly and proper planning there have been a number of decisions in the State Administrative Tribunal which have considered a request to extend the term of an approval. In these cases the tribunal has established a test for considering the orderly and proper planning of such a request, being:

that the framework has not changed substantially

that the development would likely receive approval today

that the applicant/owner has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued implementation of the development consent.

As discussed above, the planning framework has changed significantly since 2010. Although it is noted that the changes to legislation would not specifically prohibit a similar development on the subject site, relevant changes have occurred that may improve the design quality of the development. In addition to these changes, it is also noted that, to the City’s knowledge, the applicant has not actively or conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development consent. In this regard an application for a Building Permit has not been received, nor any enquiries made in regard to making an application. It is also noted that the applicant’s justification does not include any additional reasons or updates since the extension request in May 2016.


26 July 2017

Page 60

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the extension to the term of Planning Approval granted on 8 June 2010 for DA0108/10 for the three Storey Mixed use development including a Medical centre, Hospital and four Multiple dwellings) at No. 65 (Lot 12) South Terrace, Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 3.2(a) of the City of Fremantle’s Local

Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals, as there has been material changes to:

(a) the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4; and

(b) the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policies,

since the Planning Approval for DA0108/10 was granted on 8 June 2010, as per clause 67(a), (b) and (g) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


26 July 2017

Page 61

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 62

Cr R Pemberton MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SPD1707-1, SPD1707-2, SPD1707-4, SPD1707-5, SPD1707-6, and SPD1707-7 SECONDED: Cr H Fitzhardinge CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10 JULY 2017

The following item number SPD1707-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1707-1 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - PUBLIC REALM CONCEPT PLAN

Meeting Date: 10 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Kings Square Project Director Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: A presentation will be made by the civic building design

team, headed by Kerry Hill Architects, on various aspects of the Design Development Stage.

SUMMARY This report presents an update on the Kings Square Project to the Strategy and Project Development Committee, including:

New Civic Building Design Development A presentation from the architects on project progress and feedback from the committee.

Public Realm Masterplan Development A progress update on various issues raised in previous Strategic and Project Development committee meetings.

Communication An update on community engagement including Traders Forum #1.


26 July 2017

Page 63

BACKGROUND Designs for the new buildings in Kings Square are progressing. The private development on the Myer / Queensgate site has progressed past development approval stage and is being documented for construction purposes. It is anticipated that site fences will be erected in August 2017 and demolition of the Queensgate building commencing September 2017 onwards. The schematic building design for the new civic building was approved by council in March 2017. Planning matters associated with the new civic building have been concluded and reported through the Planning Committee to Council in June 2017. It is anticipated that the City’s administration will relocate offices in the last quarter of 2017 enabling demolition of the existing building to commence in advance of the construction of the new Civic Building in 2018. The public realm masterplan is progressing to ensure that the overall Kings Square redevelopment project remains integrated in terms of design and delivery. OFFICER COMMENT New Civic Building Design Development Kerry Hill Architects have commenced the next stage of Design Development and will present to the Committee the latest set of plans. The plans are in draft stage and will be refined and developed over the next few weeks. It is intended to finalise the Design Development set of plans by the end of August, to present to Committee and Council in September 2017. Public Realm Masterplan Development The Pubic Realm Masterplan has been further advanced, noting the following key activities: Elected Member Comments

Through the Strategy and Project Development Committee, elected members have provided a comprehensive list of issues to be considered, prior to finalising the plan to release to the community for feedback. Consideration of these issues is well progressed and will be presented to the next committee meeting.

Playscape Design Expressions of Interest (EOI) for the design have now been shortlisted. A request for tender (RFQ) has been submitted to the 7 shortlisted design teams and engagement expected to happen mid-August 2017.

Tree Relocation Two Canary Date Palms in Newman Court are ‘off alignment’ with all other trees. This presents major issues with the current services installation (gas and water) and will soon become a complication to site traffic management for Kings Square. It is therefore proposed to relocate these trees towards the end of July, ahead of the finalisation of the Masterplan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The overall project estimate for the new Civic Building, including fees and costs, is $50m. The budget for 2017/18 includes sufficient funds under the Public Realm Project to adjust the locations of the two palm trees in Newman Court.


26 July 2017

Page 64

CONSULTATION Overall Kings Square Project Following a presentation of the overall communication strategy to the previous committee meeting in June, the first Kings Square Renewal business forum was held on 29 June 2017 at the Federal Hotel, William Street. The event was aimed at traders on the immediate perimeter of Kings Square and included a joint presentation by Mayor Brad Pettitt and Sirona Managing Director Matthew McNeilly. Probuild Managing Director (WA) Sam Delmenico was also on hand to answer questions about construction logistics. In summary, the following observations were made:

There was a good turn-out with around 40 local traders and business representatives from the Fremantle Business Improvement District (BID) and Fremantle Chamber of Commerce attending.

There was strong general support for the project. Traders recognised the renewal of Kings Square will be a major improvement; however, the issue will be managing the construction disruption.

Closing Newman Court was not raised as a major issue.

Some traders expressed a desire to form a small reference group of key traders who could help with ideas and communications.

Some traders requested space to advertise their business to construction workers inside the construction site; this was agreed to in principle by Probuild.

There was support for the City to investigate options around offering free or reduced rates to general parking fees in the city centre.

A concern was raised on how the works may displace some people who are homeless.

Several traders commented on how disruptive the current situation is with the Atco Gas and Watercorp pipe replacement program in the city centre. The City has since raised these concerns with the contractor (Civcon) on behalf of local traders and some night works have now been scheduled.

The City will consider the feedback received to develop future communication/engagement actions as well as business support and marketing activities. Playscape Design Various activities around consultation and communication have occurred or are planned for the Playscape component of Kings Square project:

A three month consultation programme has been designed to elicit ideas and feedback from a broad range of stakeholders in the Kings Square play space: children and their carers to have a say in the design of the new play space.

The first round of engagement focussed on the needs of children aged 5+ years was held in June 2017. Five workshops, involving 190 children were held at Fremantle, Samson, Beaconsfield, Lance Holt and Hilton primary schools. The


26 July 2017

Page 65

children’s comments, drawings and models will be collated and analysed for themes.

In July, the engagement will focus on the needs of children aged 1 - 4 years. This will include a drop-in session held at the Buster celebration event on 27 June. The session will be an opportunity for families with young children to learn about the project and share their ideas and aspirations for the play space. Similar consultations will be scheduled mid-July onwards at other Buster play session’s and in the Children’s Library. An online survey will also be distributed to Playgroup WA, local playgroups, child care and early learning centres.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Strategy and Project Development Committee:

1. Receives this progress report on the Kings Square public realm concept plan

2. Receives a presentation from Kerry Hill Architects on progress with the

Design Development of the new civic building for information, comment and feedback.

SECONDED: Cr H Fitzhardinge CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 66


SPD1707-2 GREENING FREMANTLE STRATEGY 2020 AND THE URBAN FOREST PLAN

Meeting Date: 10 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager City Design and Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 (attached as

electronic document) 2. Urban Forest Plan (attached as electronic document)

SUMMARY

To align the City’s guiding documents, Green Plan 2020 is re-named as the Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 to reflect the strategic intent of the document and better align it to other strategies such as One Planet and the Water Conservation Strategy. The new name recognises the partnership with Vision 202020 for the provision of quality open spaces. Updates have been included in the new document, including canopy objective clarification and project updates. The Urban Forest Plan is a detailed plan building on baseline data from the 2001 Green Plan review. It includes analysis of thermal mapping, biophysical features, population / demographics, street tree health / location and tree canopy. Based on these factors, it provides a staged tree-planting plan for the city over ten years. The plan also provides cost estimates, preferred tree species (‘the right tree for the right space’) and communication tools to help educate and promote tree management and planting on public and private land. The report recommends that the Green Plan be re-named the Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 and the Urban Forest Plan be adopted.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted the Green Plan 2020 in December 2015. Further baseline mapping / data and analysis were required to guide future planting and tree management, including:

Undertake thermal mapping to identify areas within the city susceptible to the Urban Heat Island Effect to inform the Urban Forest Strategy.

Prepare and implement an Urban Forest Strategy for the City including best practice / effective options to retain vegetation and trees on private land.

Thermal mapping is complete and forms an important part in identifying priority planting to mitigate the Urban Heat Island Effect. This effect arises from higher ground and air temperatures due to large amounts of roofs, concrete and bitumen absorbing and radiating heat. Trees help reduce the heat in these areas by providing shade.


26 July 2017

Page 67


An estimated total cost of $2.5 million would be required for city tree planting and replacement over 10 years (including establishment watering), which reflects both the current annual budget of $130 000 p.a. as well as additional monies to achieve the Urban Forest Plan’s objectives. Costs per year vary from $162 000 to $307 000 (refer pg. 39 of the plan in Attachment 2), to be reflective of the ten year financial plan. These are broad cost estimates and will be refined as the tree planting and management implementation is progressed. $187,000 has been allocated for tree planting in the 2017 / 2018 budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

None

CONSULTATION

Significant community engagement occurred in developing the Green Plan 2020. Engagement methods included an overseeing working group (elected members, officers and community volunteers with professions in the open space design, development and environment fields), a workshop, walk in event and on line survey / forums. It was clear from the consultation that people see the planting of trees as important. The Urban Forest Plan is the operational plan to manage and plant trees. Focused community engagement is intended around tree planting and private land tree retention, including opportunities with stakeholders such as Main Roads WA, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Public Transport Authority. A variety of techniques is planned including:

statistics and information (‘info’) graphics for communication and education

targeted techniques for various stakeholders, e.g. state government, developers and private landholders.

OFFICER COMMENT

Greening Fremantle: 2020 Strategy To align the City’s guiding documents, Green Plan 2020 is re-named as the Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 to reflect the strategic intent of the document and better align it to other strategies such as One Planet and the Water Conservation Strategy. The new name recognises the partnership with Vision 202020 for the provision of quality open spaces. In re-naming the document, the following changes have been made:

1. The objective for the canopy cover target needs clarification as the current wording may suggest that the 20% canopy coverage would be in place by 2020. The intent is to work towards 20% coverage by 2020; clearly, tree canopies take time to mature and thus a five-year period from adoption of the Green Plan in late 2015 would not be sufficient to achieve the canopy coverage objective. With this in mind the objective now reads: “Progressively increase tree planting across the city to achieve a minimum 20% canopy coverage”.

2. The strategy resembles the layout and look of the Urban Forest Plan.


26 July 2017

Page 68

3. Updates to projects and programs that have progressed, or completed since

December 2015, are made.

4. Maps and graphics are upgraded to a higher quality and to match the Urban Forest Plan.

5. Appendix 1 (Green Link Function Map and Matrix) has been added to clarify the

main functions of the green links (e.g. pedestrian, biodiversity, linking green spaces etc.) to clarify and build on the original green link mapping.

Urban Forest Plan Currently there is no comprehensive planting and management plan for the City’s trees. In February 2016, during discussion on the Green Plan 2020, Council requested the following be included in the Urban Forest Plan:

identify partnership opportunities for planting trees, as a cost and possible staff resource saving measure

benchmark WA best practice for safeguarding trees on private land

establish a planting plan that identifies species and spacing of trees including indicative per tree cost to install in road / verge for budgeting purposes

identify options for managing the costs of planting new and replacing trees. The Urban Forest Plan identifies current City policies that encourage the retention of mature trees on private land, with a number of these identified for review (including Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites and Planning Applications Impacting on Verge Infrastructure and Verge Trees). The priority areas and green links for management and new tree planting are identified using expanded data including thermal mapping (‘hot spots’) topography, soil type, service location, population and demographics. This data defines the city into four areas that share similar biophysical, topographical and development features. One important recommendation in the Plan is to undertake a city tree survey to understand the type, health, location and maintenance required to ensure a healthy and sustainable urban forest. The last data was obtained in 2009 for some but not all street trees nor did it include other City trees in places such as parks and reserves. A survey of street trees in the city centre was completed in the 2016 / 2017 financial year. The Urban Forest Plan delivers the above as well as contributing to community well-being and environmental values. Implementation of the Plan is staged over time, with cost estimates for on-going budgets and operational and project coordination (e.g. operational annual street tree planting and project road, park and streetscape upgrades) provided. The City is already working with partners such as Coastcare and Perth NRM for natural area planting projects and has completed engagement with the community and ‘friends of’ groups to improve how the City and community partners work together. The first stage priority areas are Samson and O’Connor. Staged planting for areas and links are implemented by the Parks and Landscape team.




26 July 2017

Page 69

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council:

1. Endorses re-naming Green Plan 2020 to Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 in Attachment 1 of the July 2017 Strategy and Project Development Committee Agenda and incorporating the changes noted in this report into the Strategy.

2. Adopts the Urban Forest Plan 2017, as provided in Attachment 2 of

the July 2017 Strategy and Project Development Committee Agenda, to inform and guide projects, operations and budgets for the management and planting of trees throughout the city.


For Against



26 July 2017

Page 70


SPD1707-4 THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Meeting Date: 10 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: None

SUMMARY

This report recommends that Council make a submission to the House of Representatives enquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the development of sustainable cities and sets-out the basis of that submission in the recommendation below.

BACKGROUND

The House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities has commenced a new inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the development of cities. It will examine city planning and development to accommodate a growing Australian population with a dual focus on transitioning existing capital cities, and growing new and existing regional centres. Submissions are due by Monday 31 July 2017. The Inquiry Secretary is Bill Pinder ((02) 6277 4498) while further information is available at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/ITC/DevelopmentofCities. The Committee will undertake, concurrently, two sub-inquiries dealing with the above matters in relation to existing cities and new regional cities and towns respectively. Sub-inquiry one is relevant to the City and has the following terms of reference: 1) Sustainability transitions in existing cities

Identifying how the trajectories of existing cities can be directed towards a more sustainable urban form that enhances urban liveability and quality of life and reduces energy, water, and resource consumption.

Considering what regulation and barriers exist that the Commonwealth could influence, and opportunities to cut red tape.

Examining the national benefits of being a global 'best practice' leader in sustainable urban development.

OFFICER COMMENT

How existing cities can be directed towards a more sustainable urban form Some of the ingredients for a more liveable and sustainable urban form can be summarised as follows:

Greater urban density: is the absolutely necessary (but alone not sufficient) ingredient for more liveable and sustainable cities. Everything else depends on getting density right. A clear consensus needs to emerge on “density

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/ITC/DevelopmentofCities


26 July 2017

Page 71

done well”. Globally it is often mid-rise residential density that characterises the most liveable neighbourhoods, from three to four storey terraces and apartments up to six to eight storeys depending on the area and its land values. Taller residential buildings do have their place, but more as one-off landmark buildings like the Turning Torso in Malmo’s Western Harbour or in small defined pockets as a marker in the urban landscape.

This mid-rise urban form is often cited as the ideal density mixture that meets a wide range of community needs from families to aging member of the community. Best practice liveable and sustainable neighbourhoods are not commonly seen as single-lot, detached, residential housing. Large single houses are seen as not only expensive and energy inefficient but also result in too few people in an area to enable the other services from shops to childcare to be close to most people.

Cities of short distances: The heart of the future of liveable cities is in making them “cities of short distances”. A short trip to the shops, a short stroll to the local park, a short commute to work, a walk to drop the kids off to child care are all key ingredients for more liveable cities. Perth though is a city of long distances exacerbated by low suburban densities and a lack of mixed uses in our communities. Many people in Perth spend around an hour a day commuting as (according to the RAC) Perth is the city that has the lowest proportion of residents living within 10 km. of their workplace of any Australian city. With uneven public transport access, it means many depend on their cars, which is the antithesis of a liveable city. Having no choice but to drive children to school or the shops is not environmentally friendly but does present a ‘hook’ on which public mindsets can be changed. Design for people and place: This does not mean being ‘anti-car’. A key element is the need to provide for car use but not design suburbs around them. Some of the early suburbs in Stevenage New Town in the UK (e.g. Pin Green) exhibit this approach. Another approach is to keep cars to fringe of residential developments or design roads that that make them subservient to the surrounding urban form (think here of the small lanes and ways that have emerged from the pre-automobile urban form). Children playing safely in the street is without doubt the ultimate symbol that a liveable community-focused neighbourhood has been created. This means very low speeds and limited parking at the core of neighbourhoods with most of the parking designed on the fringe, underground or in multi-storey parking stations.

Invest in public transport up front: A sustainable urban form is largely dependent upon (or at least greatly assisted by) upfront investment in public transport and cycling infrastructure. Upfront should ideally mean before the first resident moves in. This ensures the best habits are embedded early on. In Australia it is often the reverse: wait for patronage numbers to rise to justify the public transport investment or cycling numbers to rise to justify bike lanes and infrastructure. The experience from Europe turns this thinking on its head; again in Stevenage New Town cycle ways are a separate system built from the very start of a new neighbourhood. Provide high quality green spaces: While density is an essential ingredient in creating sustainable and liveable cities, this comes with an important qualifier: density needs to be accompanied by a major provision of high quality green


26 July 2017

Page 72

spaces. Global best practice is that 20 - 30% of the total land size should be devoted to public open space, not the 10% that is standard in most new developments. While this is a lot of green space, it is important to keep these green spaces diverse. Some large open playing fields but also, and more often, intimate spaces like different rooms to a house. Another key element is to plant trees in parks and streets as early as possible as mature trees. Provide a range of diverse and affordable housing: Demonstrated again and again across Europe’s most liveable cities, is that new developments need to contain a range of diverse and affordable housing that brings together a community of differing ages and incomes. A standout example of this is in Vauban, Freidburg in which one floor of a residential development, one that looks like many of the others, is set aside for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The development was explicitly designed so that people could age in place, surrounded by a familiar environment. Waste and rubbish matter: Waste removal and storage needs to be well planned and designed into new developments. Waste is often an afterthought, hidden from the view of most, but its management is an important factor in determining the sustainable performance of cities. All across Europe new neighbourhoods are getting close to zero waste to landfill through smart recycling and the turning of food waste into energy sources such as biogas, but to succeed these initiatives have to be integrated from the kitchen sink to the recycling plant.

It is clear from many examples from around the world, and in particular Europe, what a sustainable urban form might look like. The urban regeneration agenda has been active for many years and has identified many tools and concepts which can assist in moving towards more sustainable urban forms. These tools include, for example, re-zoning land to higher densities, more permissive policy settings for urban infill, green belts, density bonuses and so forth. However, when such tools are applied it is often the case that local communities react negatively and seek to maintain the status quo. There are many examples of this, for example: the City of Joondalup is currently experiencing a backlash against increased densities in their Housing Improvement Area 1 with residents securing a commitment to seek a down-coding from R-60 to R-35. In the United Kingdom North Hertfordshire District Council is seeing a massive push back against the taking of green belt land for much needed housing around London. While in Perth the Network city objectives of 60% of new housing provided within activity corridors was scaled back to 47% in transit orientated development nodes upon a change of government a decade ago. Despite this lower target only around 30% of new housing is being built within existing urban areas. It is clear that planning targets alone are not leading to more sustainable cities; the objective should be to create a market demand for sustainable urban living which is then driven, and built, by the private sector. This then leads to the central proposition that the mechanisms for change (e.g. the “how”) are embedded in pro-active and positive community engagement, with all levels of government being the exemplars of practice. A good example of this approach is Dialogue with the city, which the then WA state government used to create Network city in 2004. This leads to the key lesson:

Leadership and collaboration are critical: There are clear roles for all levels of government including land assembly, master-planning, urban design and up-front


26 July 2017

Page 73

provision of transport and other sustainable infrastructure. Exercise of these roles needs to be within a clear community engagement framework which is used to educate, change mindsets and create a demand the private sector can respond to. Collaboration with universities and practitioners in researching and trialling new ideas and capturing evidence and applying it is essential. For new ideas to be tried the role of government in financing is also important. The private sector can partner but it needs to be governments that lead, innovate, integrate and pro-actively engage with their communities to make clear the benefits of a “city of short distances”.

Changing trajectory is thus about four fundamentals: 1. Creation of wide spread community demand for living in a sustainable urban form. 2. Through urban design, providing high quality urban areas that people want to live in. 3. Making sustainable outcomes mainstream. 4. Up-front investment in infrastructure that changes patterns of behaviour and demand. Regulation and barriers exist that the Commonwealth could influence Although town planning is a State function there is much the Commonwealth can do to shift the urban trajectory to a more sustainable future:

1. Identify workable sustainable urban form morphologies that might be used when states and local governments prepare planning strategies and associated planning schemes.

a. There is a need for greater clarity around what capital / major cities are. The State of Australian Cities Report 2014-15 identified Perth as the only major city in WA, out of 20 cities nation-wide. It only looked at the aggregate statistics across the entire Perth metropolitan area. No other city in WA was looked at. There is a need for a more sophisticated (spatial) understanding of cities and transport that recognises the inter-relationships between capital cities and surrounding major centres. The definition of major cities needs expanding.

b. A cascading suite of plan frameworks would be useful to show how

sustainability is to be embedded in every level of plan preparation. Particular attention should be paid at the statutory plan level to ensure that development assessments properly account for sustainable outcomes.

c. Fremantle in particular would benefit from a morphology that shows how

best to introduce higher density living alongside an existing, working port that the City of Fremantle wishes to see continue in that location in capped form.

d. In 1995 the University of the West of England published “Sustainable

Settlements: A Guide for Planners, Designers and Developers”. Something similar for Australian conditions could become a useful resource.

2. Identify basic planning principles to be applied in planning strategies and

associated schemes. Such principles should prioritise sustainable outcomes over green field ones and might include:


26 July 2017

Page 74

a. Active and intensive community and industry engagement is required at every stage of plan preparation to engender an understanding and acceptance of the need for changing urban morphologies.

b. Plan for local places to develop identity and pride, and to increase social

and cultural capital, by engaging the community in decision-making.

c. Projected household growth should be accommodated more within existing urban areas than on green fields.

d. Stage infrastructure spends to favour infill development and influence the

timing and location of growth.

e. First priority should be given to revitalising existing centres and suburbs by enhancing their amenity and attractiveness, their economic, social and cultural vitality, and their safety and security.

f. Improve the viability of the public transport system by encouraging

balanced ridership between activity centres, to reduce the extent of unused system capacity.

g. Use technological change to enhance service provision and capacity.

3. Commonwealth funding should favour state and local governments which actively

encourage and plan for increased densities, with particular preference given to projects that involve high quality urban design exemplars.

a. A key barrier to achieving more sustainable urban forms in existing cities is the inadequacy of services and other infrastructure required to support high quality, compact development forms as well as the cost and acceptance of responsibility for providing such infrastructure.

In Fremantle, and other parts of the greater Perth conurbation, there are large tracts of underutilised, degraded ‘brownfield’ land (the Knutsford Street area in Fremantle is an example) which have great potential for more intensive, higher value urban use in close proximity to established centres and transport networks. However these areas remain in predominantly light industrial / storage type uses because of the lack of adequate services to support alternative urban development forms and land uses (especially residential). These areas are not a priority for the established service agencies such as the Water Corporation, and the often fragmented land ownership patterns in such area makes funding infrastructure upgrades through mechanisms such as developer contribution schemes extremely difficult. A role for the Commonwealth could be to provide an alternative / additional funding stream for providing enabling infrastructure in such areas, and or to influence the expenditure policies and priorities of the state level infrastructure agencies to give a higher priority to investment in these areas over extensions to service networks on the urban fringe.


26 July 2017

Page 75

b. A strand of City Deal funding should specifically target these outcomes as well as projects that deliver high quality urban design outcomes.

4. Commonwealth funding and legislation should be directed towards support for

non-conventional servicing options. a. The energy market in particular is changing rapidly to the point where

‘smart’ grids linked to distributed energy sources are becoming possible. For example the City of Fremantle is looking at bundling together it's buildings into a single ‘virtual’ entity in order to generate and distribute its generated solar power amongst its various buildings and to gain access to cheaper network access costs.

b. Regulatory barriers exist at state level which obstruct the implementation of

such systems in established urban areas and preserve the vested interests of the service agencies / companies in operating costly large-scale service distribution networks.

5. Restore the Major Cites Unit.

a. The lack of a Major Cities Unit at federal level has created a major policy void, as well as a lack of national data at a fine grain level.

b. The national Urban Design Protocol was a comprehensive guiding

document that needs national promotion and ‘buy in’ from state and local governments. This should be reviewed and reactivated.

c. Promote new technologies and sustainable practices as part of national

infrastructure planning, replacement, and renewal within existing urban centres.

6. Provide a stronger and consistent national level policy approach to adaptation

planning in order to address risks from climate change induced coastal hazards. a. Bearing in mind that nearly all of Australia’s major cities are located on the

coast, it is critical to address planning for more sustainable and resilient development patterns as cities continue to grow through the 21st century. The Productivity Commission’s inquiry on Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation, published in 2014, found that: ‘adaptation first and foremost requires clear governance, and appropriate policy and legislation to implement change.’ Earlier this year the World Economic Forum listed “failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation” as one of the top five risks to the world, in terms of its potential impact.

b. Reinstate funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research

Facility (NCCARF) which was axed in the 2017 federal budget. NCCARF undertakes valuable research and provides useful information to local and state level decision-making bodies on how best to manage the risks of climate change and sea level rise.

7. Identify holistic sustainability frameworks around which local councils might focus

expenditure and draft plans and polices in order to drive a sustainable urban form outcome and to engage with communities on.

a. The City of Fremantle currently uses the One Planet framework.


26 July 2017

Page 76

b. Identify what current data needs collecting to monitor progress and

demonstrate how to change plan and policy settings to deliver on sustainable urban form and help change community perceptions.

c. Gather and monitor national data around the real cost at a household level

of suburban expansion vs densification.

Benefits of being a global 'best practice' leader in sustainable urban development As the industrial revolution showed, waves of change sweep through economies and have enormous changes on work, leisure and livelihood. The world is in a current disruptive cycle through the advent of computers, information technology and the emergence of artificial intelligence. Much of work in the future will likely be focussed around personal services and the creation of intellectual property which machines use to deliver goods and regulate society. This changing world of work will require innovative knowledge workers, often the younger element of the workforces who are already steeped in the need for society to respond to a changing climate. Being at the forefront of sustainable urban development, with quality urban design, can act as strong selling point to attract and retain footloose global knowledge. Local economies which are able to respond to changing technological change are likely to be able to refocus costly infrastructure spends onto the private (distributed) market and in doing so not only lower household costs but also reduce expensive infrastructure builds by government. As towns and cities move towards sustainable urban development a body of knowledge on how to do this will be built up in a myriad of places, firms and people. As the rest of the world moves in the same direction (note China’s move towards environmental responsibility) this embedded knowledge becomes a skill set that can be sold into the international market. A more sustainable urban form is likely to result in improved physical health outcomes through greater opportunity to walk and cycle and improved mental health outcomes through greater social interaction in the spaces and places created through quality urban design.


None

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

None

CONSULTATION

Not applicable


26 July 2017

Page 77





1. Request the Chief Executive Officer to make a submission to the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the development of cities.

2. Council’s submission to the inquiry is to be based on the material in this

report and to welcome a more active federal engagement in sustainable urban development.


For Against


ADDITIONAL OFFICER COMMENTS ~ JULY 2017 COUNCIL MEETING

Following the Strategy and Project Development Committee meeting of 10 July 2017 a

number of additional points have emerged that Council may wish to include in any

submission to the House Standing Committee inquiry. These additional comments set

out those matters and a revised officer recommendation that seeks to incorporate them

into the City’s response. The suggested changes follow the same headings as in the

SPD report, with the additional text in italics.

How existing cities can be directed towards a more sustainable urban form

Cities of short distances: Add the following paragraphs after the current:

"Cities of short distances" need to be socially sustainable, which means (among

other things) that governments (federal and state) have to play the lead role


26 July 2017

Page 78

guaranteeing housing affordability. People need to be able to afford to live near

their work or near a railway station.

Dignified and affordable housing has to be seen as a human right guaranteed by

government, no less than education or clean water. There is some activity in this

area but it is more directed towards second order measures to tackle housing

affordability. Without a substantial investment in new social housing stock (not just

recycling existing assets) there is simply no possibility of achieving housing

affordability within a “city of short distances”.

Add a new point after “cities of short distances”

Make explicit hidden subsidies for fringe development: In Perth it costs the

government $150 000 to provide infrastructure for every new lot in outer

developments, against $55 000 for infill development. By extension WA taxpayers

are paying $94.5 million for every 1 000 homes built on the fringe of Perth. A

return to a 60% density target (from the current 47% - the lowest in Australia)

would save WA $23 billion to 2050 which is enough for nine new Fiona Stanley

hospitals, or the entire MAX light rail project 12 times over. A 100% infill target,

focussing our entire growth in areas already earmarked for development, would

save $30 billion to 2050.

Invest in public transport up front: Add the following paragraphs at end:

The federal government invests in roads as a matter of course, but not public

transport. There is a role for federal government to support efforts to change

transport behaviour by providing better transport options (not just for private

vehicles). This should be capital investment in new services, but also improving

existing services and increasing capacity / frequency to meet demands in more

dense and sustainable cities.

Federal government can influence the issues of transit through targeting

infrastructure funding to encourage states in developing and implementing a

cohesive transit system and direct money away from road building at both state

and federal levels. It can also target community advertisements towards the

advantages of more sustainable housing densities and the adverse impacts of

motor vehicle uses.

Provide high quality green spaces: Include a new sentence:

While density is an essential ingredient in creating sustainable and liveable cities,

this comes with an important qualifier: density needs to be accompanied by a

major provision of high quality green spaces. Global best practice is that 20 - 30%

of the total land size should be devoted to public open space, not the 10% that is

standard in most new developments. While this is a lot of green space, it is

important to keep these green spaces diverse. Some large open playing fields but

also, and more often, intimate spaces like different rooms to a house. It is

important to keep / restore areas of natural bush, for people to connect with

nature, and also biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Another key element is to plant


26 July 2017

Page 79

trees in parks and streets as early as possible as mature trees.

Provide a range of diverse and affordable housing: Add the following paragraphs at

front of the section:

Successive Australian governments (federal and state, Labor and Coalition) have

failed to grow the affordable housing stock, transforming it from a mainstream

housing option into a dwindling pool of safety net or welfare housing. Compare

this to a country like France where 20% of the population live in some form of

social housing.

Government investment in social housing is needed to be the catalyst for well-

designed medium density housing partnered with private investment. Witness the

situation in inner city Fremantle where the City offers incentives for developers if

they include a minimum 15% "affordable housing" but with limited take-up.

High quality public transport and urban amenity puts upwards pressure on

housing costs. As cities become more dense, sustainable and liveable, they will

become more desirable and expensive. This in turn will price out of the market

many skills and trades that not only are needed to service these denser areas bit

are also essential to maintain a varied and diverse social mix. A range of

measures are needed to make housing more affordable.

The federal government is ideally placed to offer developments with a range of

dwelling types, sizes and styles, some for sale, some for rent, some for subsidized

rent and others for shared equity schemes. These could be developed by

government agencies or through a partnership with a developer or housing co-op

scheme. Their involvement could be 100% or as little as underwriting a co-op

scheme through the construction phase.

Waste and rubbish matter: Add the following paragraph:

There is a need to encourage a more consistent approach to household waste

disposal so that when people move (interstate or across a city) they do not need

to learn and adopt a whole new waste practice.

Regulation and barriers exist that the Commonwealth could influence

1. Identify workable sustainable urban form morphologies that might be used when states and local governments prepare planning strategies and associated planning schemes.

Add a new point (c) and re-letter subsequently to (e):

(c) The morphologies should include urban growth boundaries and a robust

methodology for a triple bottom line sustainability assessment. Such an

assessment is necessary to articulate the costs incurred by continued

urban sprawl which imposes additional time, social, health and financial

costs on those who live in the periphery and commute long distances to

work. In particular such assessments need to make explicit, and

incorporate, the hidden subsidies inherent in urban fringe development.


26 July 2017

Page 80

Any growth boundary may need to be part of a larger sub-regional

strategy which also seeks to move growth to towns further afield, which

can be planned for a sustainable urban form. In this context, think of

Garden Cities of Tomorrow and the new town movement around London.

3. Commonwealth funding should favour state and local governments which actively

encourage and plan for increased densities, with particular preference given to

projects that involve high quality urban design exemplars.

Add a new point (c):

(c) In order to create “cities of short distances” all walks of life need to be able

to live within the city rather than at the fringes. The Commonwealth should

look at the following measures:

changing funding via Infrastructure Australia to focus on integrated transit infrastructure, remove funding from roads, and prioritise funding for those cities where a triple bottom line sustainability assessment shows the benefit of instigating an urban growth boundary

re-instate affordable housing strategies similar to NRAS

use under-utilised federal land for affordable housing developments

create a finance mechanism to fund affordable housing (like CEFC)

consider a review of negative gearing and capital gains tax to see how

this might be directed towards increasing the stock of affordable

housing. For example CGT incentives could be given where affordable

housing is incorporated into a development

tax benefits should flow to those who use public transport rather than

private vehicles, in particular for journey to work trips

link tax concessions to property owners willing to rent at affordable

rates over an extended rental period (say, ten or twenty years)

fund targeted transit infrastructure that can then generate value

capture, consequently stimulating private investment in communities

and services

direct federal office uses to activity centres in order to spread the

distribution of jobs throughout a city. For example the tax office in

Perth could be relocated to Fremantle

federal grants could be set-up in a fashion that gives some degree of

precedence to applicants that are based in activity centres, well

serviced by public transport and with existing or planned higher

residential densities.

AMENDED OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council:

1. Request the Chief Executive Officer to make a submission to the House

Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities inquiry into the

Australian Government’s role in the development of cities.


26 July 2017

Page 81

2. Council’s submission to the inquiry is to be based on the material in this

report, and the Additional Officer Comments, and to welcome a more active

federal engagement in sustainable urban development.


26 July 2017

Page 82


SPD1707-5 ONE PLANET 2017 ACTION PLAN

Meeting Date: 10 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: One Planet Strategy – 2017 Action Plan

SUMMARY

The Fremantle One Planet Strategy achieved national One Planet certification in 2014 and international certification in 2015. The One Planet 2017 Action Plan reflects the commitments made as part of the One Planet Fremantle Strategy and includes corporate and community targets for each Principle in the One Planet framework, in line with our international certification. The 2017 Action Plan outlines our top priorities for the next year, and new and ongoing actions for each Principle. The Action Plan will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis, with any major additions or amendments subject to approval by the council. This report recommends that council receive the One Planet 2017 Action Plan.

BACKGROUND

The One Planet Council framework allows Australian councils to assess their sustainability programs against a simple yet holistic framework. The framework addresses all major aspects of environmental, social and economic sustainability and allows councils to set out a clear vision and shared goals for sustainability strategy, policy and operations. Council adopted the One Planet Fremantle Strategy in 2014. The strategy achieved national One Planet certification in 2014 and international certification in 2015. In accordance with the requirements of international certification, a One Planet Annual Report was produced for 2016 as the first review of the City’s progress under international certification. This 2016 annual report was received by Council for information on 22 February 2017.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Action Plan is intended as an internal operational document to outline priority actions under the One Planet Strategy for 2017 and to monitor progress towards targets. The list below provides a snapshot of our top ten priority projects for 2017, one for each principle, including both corporate and community targets. Our progress for each project is shown in brackets. The complete Action Plan document is provided in attachment 1 to this item.

Zero Carbon: Develop Corporate Energy Plan, outlining a strategy to reach 100% renewable energy use by 2025 (final plan expected in July 2017).

Zero Waste: Adopt the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law (process underway).


26 July 2017

Page 83

Travel and Transport: Undertake a staff travel to work survey (in the planning stages).

Materials and Products: Finalise the sustainable procurement policy and raise staff awareness about the new procurement toolkit (draft policy in place).

Local and Sustainable Food: Determine baseline data and indicators for community target (no progress as yet).

Sustainable Water: Achieve Waterwise Council status (achieved).

Land Use and Wildlife: Finalise the Urban Forest Plan (final plan expected in July 2017).

Culture and Community: Determine baseline data and indicators for corporate and community target (no progress as yet).

Equity and Local Economy: Commence Kings Square public realm redevelopment (process underway).

Health and Happiness: St Patrick’s Community Support Centre donation boxes installed - matched funding from the City for donations (donation boxes installed).

The One Planet Strategy is a key informing strategy for the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25. Several of the One Planet principles directly align with strategic focus areas in the Strategic Community Plan, for example environmental responsibility, transport and connectivity, and health and happiness.


Different projects and initiatives in the Action Plan have different financial implications. These are identified in the Action Plan based on the following categories:

Actions with direct financial costs which were expended in the adopted 2016/17 budget.

Actions with direct financial costs which are included in the adopted 2017/18 budget.

Actions which can be carried out as part of ongoing operational activities and service delivery, or otherwise have no direct financial costs, e.g. actions by the community where the City has an enabling or facilitation role involving only officer time.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

CONSULTATION

Nil


Simple Majority Required.


26 July 2017

Page 84


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council receive and endorse the One Planet 2017 Action Plan. SECONDED: Cr H Fitzhardinge CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 85


SPD1707-6 INDICATIVE SPD COMMITTEE REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR FY 2017/18

Meeting Date: 10 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: A. Indicative schedule of items for FY 2017-18 SUMMARY

An indicative schedule of items planned to be presented to the Strategy and

Project Development Committee over the course of FY 2017/8 is presented for

noting.

BACKGROUND The Strategy and Project Development Committee have requested an indicative

schedule of items planned for the Committee over the 2017/18 financial year.

OFFICER COMMENT The attached schedule shows twenty-three separate strategies or projects that are

reported on. For each of these items the schedule lists the expected substantive reports

on a quarterly basis, with the title being a guide to the nature of what can be expected.

Matters may of course arise each quarter which require additional reporting. The

Information Report will continue to be produced monthly but is not listed on the schedule,

which is broken up into three parts as follows:

Part A: Projects Under City Control: These are projects where the City largely has

control of the budget and human resources to deliver the project.

Part B: Projects Requiring External Collaboration: These are projects where planning

and delivery require the active cooperation of the City (and its resources) with an

external agency or partner (and their resources).

Part C: Advocacy Projects: These are projects largely outside the control of the

City, with the focus of work being on advocating for City interests.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS None

CONSULTATION Not applicable


26 July 2017

Page 86

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council note the report on indicative items to be presented to the Strategy and

Project Development Committee over the course of 2017/18.


For Against



26 July 2017

Page 87


SPD1707-7 INFORMATION REPORT - JULY 2017: STRATEGIC PROJECTS IN THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025

The following information report briefing sets-out where various projects listed in the Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025 are at. Given the time frame of the Plan, not all projects will be active at the same time.

PART A: URBAN DESIGN PROJECTS KINGS SQUARE DEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: King’s Square Project Director See separate item. FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Director City Business City officials are meeting with the Minister in early July. NORTHERN GATEWAY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects This precinct has a number of current activities / potential projects: river crossings, Cantonment Hill, access to the waterfront and rejuvenation of the northern end of Queen Victoria Street. Cantonment Hill is dealt with below; river crossing matters will emerge from what happens to the port while waterfront access is to be considered through the South Quay concept. Work on the northern end of Queen Victoria Street is not scheduled for this financial year. CANTONMENT HILL Responsible officer: Manager, Parks Construction remains on target for September 2017 completion. The bore logging showed saline water that was not suitable for irrigation of turf or planting. Desalination and alternate bore locations were explored but were considered high risk. The decision was made to convert to scheme water and the irrigation system is being redesigned to suit. Hydro-zoning of the park will allow water use to be tightly monitored and managed. PORT FUTURE Responsible officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects At the end of June the City wrote to the Premier noting how the new port, and in particular early development of the Multipurpose Terminal (and perhaps the General Cargo – Bulk Terminal) proposals in the Indian Ocean Gateway project are key to activating redevelopment of South and Victoria Quays. At the same time the City has flagged the opportunity to work with the state and the City of Kwinana on shaping and


26 July 2017

Page 88

forming a City Deal for federal consideration and participating in the expected taskforce which is anticipated to oversee the port work. At the time of writing a response had not been received. VICTORIA QUAY / SOUTH QUAY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects See the discussion on Port Future above. The SW Group is in the process of arranging a briefing of relevant state agency directors on how the state can assist in advancing development of activity centres. The City expects to be part of that briefing and will use the opportunity to begin lobbying for South Quay / Victoria Quay to move forward. At the time of writing a date in mid-July was being canvassed. STATION PRECINCT REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects It is anticipated that initial planning work to the station precinct will be linked with the Victoria Quay / South Quay project both in terms of urban integration and timing. POINT STREET REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Director City Business The City’s lawyers have drafted lease agreements for the existing Point Street car park and the undeveloped portion of the site. The first drafts have been sent to SKS, who are reviewing the documents and are expected to provide comments imminently. Officers expect that the City’s lease for the undeveloped portion of the site will commence in August. The City’s lease for the existing Point Street car park will commence in January 2018, when the current car park operator’s agreement with SKS ceases. FISHING BOAT HARBOUR REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The Italian Club has undertaken some preliminary feasibility work for their site and has requested an opportunity to brief elected members. The scheduled May 2017 briefing has been postponed at the Club’s request. No new date has yet been requested.

PART B: TRANSPORT PROJECTS FREIGHT LINK Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The “light touch” freight movement strategy is being prepared. LIGHT RAIL ~ CONNECTING FREO WITH REGIONAL GROWTH CENTRES Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Heavy rail Report on Metronet Implementation scheduled for third quarter of the financial year.


26 July 2017

Page 89

Light rail The South West Group has commissioned a high-level study to identify and prioritise rapid transit routes in the southern metropolitan region. The study report (dated 31 May 2017), Transit Route Options for South West Metropolitan Perth, has identified light rail transit (LRT) connecting Murdoch to Fremantle (via South Street) and a route connecting Rockingham City Centre to Rockingham Train Station as the highest priority routes in the region, and noted these warrant further investigation. The identification of a LRT route from Murdoch to Fremantle via South Street as a priority is consistent with the City’s adopted positions (Integrated Transport Strategy and Freo 2029) and recent scheme up-coding work along South Street. The study has identified a LRT connection between Cockburn Coast and Fremantle as a longer-term priority, particularly if it linked to the Murdoch to Fremantle LRT, with bus connection and appropriate bus priority measures connecting Cockburn Coast and Cockburn Central. The study highlights the complexities of route alignment choices connecting South Street to the Fremantle Train Station, particularly around the relationship to the existing freight rail line and to future possible Metronet alignments, and the ability to optimise the urban regeneration and city design potential. These matters will need further consideration before a route can be finalised for further examination (see below). At its mid-June 2017 meeting the SW Group Board noted part A of the report (the Executive Summary), and asked that five of the recommended short-term actions be completed, as follows:

1. Digitise preferred LRT and BRT route alignments for further investigation. 2. Update dwelling, population and employment forecasts along priority corridors. 3. Prepare patronage estimate modelling along priority corridors. 4. Refine potential uplift values and value capture opportunities for catchments along

high priority corridors. 5. Prepare a value creation and sharing assessment for the two preferred routes.

The report also sets-out six further recommended short-term actions which are primarily concerned with developing a cost-benefit analysis, engaging with land owners and key stakeholders and seeking funding for a preparation of a business case. The Board also agreed that the executive summary be made available to the media on request. (Officers can supply elected members a copy of this on request). Officers understand that the SW Group will be establishing a reference group of relevant councils to work through the above noted five points and refine the route alignment which will include through Fremantle’s CBD. This work, arranged through the SW Group, is scheduled to unfold over September to February 2018. An update report is expected for the August meeting of the Committee. GREATER FREMANTLE PARKING PLAN Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects A review of the cash-in-lieu of parking policy is being prepared. INTEGRATED ROAD HIERARCHY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects


26 July 2017

Page 90

Not scheduled until the last quarter of the 2017/18 financial year.

PART C: ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ONE PLANET Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Projects See separate item. Additional One Planet updates include:

Advertising of the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017 started on Saturday 8 July. Next milestone: Advertising finishes on Monday 28 August and submissions close on Tuesday, 29 August 2017.

Responsible Cafes campaign resulted in 43 cafes (from an original 10) signing up to the program in the City of Fremantle. No further milestones.

The City has signed up to be part of the Cities Power Partnership led by the Australian Climate Council. Next milestone: selecting five actions to report on. Actions must be selected by January 2018.

FREMANTLE ENERGY PLAN Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Projects Corporate Energy Plan: preparation in progress. Next milestone: draft completed report due mid-July 2017. Once the draft is ready this will be brought to council for review. Solar Farm South Fremantle landfill site On 28 June council agreed to an extension to the current exclusive working agreement to allow Epuron to continue to develop a power purchasing agreement (PPA) with Synergy (or other power retailers) and therefore progress the project. Council also resolved to give preference (subject to cost limits) to procuring green power in future contracts for the supply of electricity to the City. Next project milestone: prepare a revised/new exclusive working agreement between the City and Epuron. KNUTSFORD STREET REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Planning LandCorp has been considering conditions for a formal offer to purchase the depot site from the City. LandCorp still appears committed to acquiring the site and demonstrating leading edge sustainability initiatives in line with Council’s resolution dated 22 February 2017; however, it has deferred making a formal offer. LandCorp’s executive have asked its staff for further advice to provide a greater level of confidence that LandCorp can purchase the site at market value while balancing sustainability initiatives, appropriate built form and commercial imperatives. LandCorp advised this additional work would be concluded by the end of June but by the time of writing this report the City has not received any further advice. Changes to the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan are currently being advertised for comment (closing 7 July 2017). Next project milestone: consideration of LandCorp offer to purchase (when received).


26 July 2017

Page 91

URBAN FOREST PLAN Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects See separate item. GREEN SPACES Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The final concept design of the Hilton Pocket Park was approved by Council in April 2017. Indicative costs for FY 2017/2018 are $50,000. Hilton Pocket Park detailed design has been completed. The budget request of $15,000 for concept design for a pocket park in White Gum Valley has been allocated to Booyeembara Park. Landscaping (recycled benches from our depot and native planting) has been completed in O’Connor at the corner of Hines Road and Forsyth Road. BIODIVERSITY AND GREEN LINKAGES Responsible officer: Manager, Parks A report will be going to Council in July to adopt the principles for the Verge Policy. The principles for the Street and Reserve Tree Policy were adopted in June by Council. The adopted principles will be used to write the Verge Policy and the Street and Reserve Tree Policy which will be taken to Council in August. The Policy’s will help the City protect biodiversity, establish and maintain green linkages and simplify the development of verge gardens for residents. The winter tree planting program is almost complete with the planting of 500 trees throughout the City. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FRAMEWORK Responsible officer: Manager, Parks The Our Coastal Future Port Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan identifies risks to coastal assets and values from the coastal processes of sea level rise, coastal erosion and accretion, and inundation. It has a 100 year planning horizon with planning intervals at 2030, 2070 and 2110. Recommendations relating to land use planning matters will be considered for incorporation into relevant planning instruments through processes such as future MRS and Local Planning Scheme amendments. This plan is being presented as an item at the July 2017 SPD meeting. STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Responsible officer: Manager, Sustainable Services Not scheduled for the 2017/18 financial year.

PART D: OTHER PROJECTS NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE Responsible officer: Manager Assets On hold pending council direction.


26 July 2017

Page 92

BOUNDARY REVIEWS Responsible officer: Director City Business No report required. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton The Strategy and Project Development Committee information report for July 2017 be received. SECONDED: Cr H Fitzhardinge CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 93

Cr J McDonald vacated the chamber at 7.01 pm during the following item and returned at 7.03 pm prior to determination.

SPD1707-3 RELEASE DRAFT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - OUR COASTAL FUTURE PORT, LEIGHTON AND MOSMAN BEACHES COASTAL ADAPTATION PLAN

Meeting Date: SPD Committee 10 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Parks and Landscape Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman

Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan (including appendices A, B, C, E and F) Appendix D – Coastal Hazard Assessment Appendix G – Adaptations Options Compendium Appendix H – Adaptation Options Evaluation Report

SUMMARY

The Our Coastal Future Port Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan identifies risks to coastal assets and values from the coastal processes of sea level rise, coastal erosion and accretion, and inundation. It has a 100 year planning horizon with planning intervals at 2030, 2070 and 2110. Recommendations relating to land use planning matters will be considered for incorporation into relevant planning instruments through processes such as future MRS and Local Planning Scheme amendments. This report recommends that Council:

1. Release the draft Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan for a public comment period of not less twenty-eight (28) days, subject to minor amendments which will include more detail on contaminated site issues and implementation cost estimates.

2. Note that public comment received will be considered to produce a final Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan that will be submitted to Council for adoption.

BACKGROUND

The City engaged consultants to undertake a coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning process. The draft report Our Coastal Future Port Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan has been prepared. This report results from the project undertaken in partnership with the Town of Mosman Park and with grant funds made available through the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program. The report preparation was overseen by a steering committee with representation from the following organisations:


26 July 2017

Page 94

City of Fremantle

Town of Mosman Park

Department of Environment Regulation

Department of Planning

Department of Transport

Fremantle Ports

Town of Cottesloe

Perth NRM The City of Fremantle and Town of Mosman Park representatives were the responsible decision making authorities. The planning process has been implemented according the State Coastal Planning Policy SPP 2.6 (2013) and the Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan Guidelines (2014), which are based on AS 5334-20113 Australian Standard for climate change adaptation for settlements and infrastructure.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Our Coastal Future Port Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan has a 100 year planning horizon with planning intervals at 2030, 2070 and 2110. It identifies risks to coastal assets and values from the coastal processes of sea level rise, coastal erosion and accretion, and inundation. The risks are analysed to identify trigger points for decision-making and planning to implement appropriate adaptation options within recommended timeframes. Recommendations relating to land use planning matters will be considered for incorporation into relevant planning instruments through processes such as future MRS and Local Planning Scheme amendments. While the primary aspects of the draft document are suitable to be released for public comment, City officers recommend that minor amendments recommended by the steering committee be made prior to its release. These include more detail on contaminated site issues and implementation cost estimates. This work achieves the outcome ‘prepare for and adapt to the impact of climate change’ by contributing to the measure of success ‘impacts understood and measures to deal with climate change are incorporated into appropriate documents including the impacts of rising sea levels on the West End’. These were identified in the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25 under the strategic focus area of environmental responsibility. In addition, it achieves and contributes to the achievement of six (6) of seven (7) actions to address sea level rise identified in the Climate Change Adaptation Plan.


Further technical assessment of adaptation options for Port Beach is recommended in the short term. Grant funding to match City contributions will be applied for where available.


26 July 2017

Page 95

Monitoring of the coast to support future decision-making trigger points will continue within natural area operations. Additional operational budget may be required to implement the recommended specifications for monitoring. Additional funds for dune restoration and beach nourishment may be required in the short term and grant funding to match City contributions will be applied for where available.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

No specific legal implications.

CONSULTATION

Community consultation has been undertaken as detailed in the consultant’s community and stakeholder engagement strategy prepared in accordance with the City’s Community Engagement Policy and endorsed by the project steering committee. Details of the community consultation process and outcomes are detailed in Appendix A of the draft report. The release of the draft report for public comment forms part of this process.


Nil.



1. Release the draft Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan for a public comment period of not less twenty-eight (28) days, subject to minor amendments which will include more detail on contaminated site issues and implementation cost estimates.

2. Note that public comment received will be considered to produce a final Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan that will be submitted to Council for adoption.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include an additional part 3 as follows: 3. Acknowledge that in the current planning horizon there is an "Intolerable Risk

Level" identified for the Port Beach North coastal management unit (CMU) requiring an immediate planning response. The Mayor and the City of


26 July 2017

Page 96

Fremantle shall call upon the State Government and relevant planning authorities to immediately adopt a "Retreat" response, including a significant increase in the width of the foreshore reserve as part of any planning amendment and/or structure planning being proposed for the former railway reserve and current industrial zoned land in or near Port Beach North CMU, including lands between Tydeman Road and the existing Leighton urban development zone.

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Planning for the "Industrial" zoned land that forms part of the Port Beach North CMU is advancing with little or no regard for the need to significantly widen the foreshore reserve in that area. The draft report demonstrates an Intolerable Risk Level for this area in the short term and this requires an immediate planning response to secure the future of Port Beach as a quality regional beach node. Given that plans for the area are being advanced by the owners of the industrial land, the Council must act immediately to ensure the draft findings are acted upon at the highest levels of government and by the relevant planning authorities. As a minimum, any proposed Urban development in this area must be set back from the HSD by at least 200 metres to comply with the basic requirements of SPP2.6. All of the former railway reserve and a small portion of the industrial land associated with the oil industries must be ceded as foreshore reserve at the earliest planning opportunity.


26 July 2017

Page 97

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton 1. Release the draft Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches

Coastal Adaptation Plan for a public comment period of not less twenty-eight (28) days, subject to minor amendments which will include more detail on contaminated site issues and implementation cost estimates.

2. Note that public comment received will be considered to produce a final Our

Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan that will be submitted to Council for adoption.

3. Acknowledge that in the current planning horizon there is an "Intolerable Risk Level" identified for the Port Beach North coastal management unit (CMU) requiring an immediate planning response. The Mayor and the City of Fremantle shall call upon the State Government and relevant planning authorities to immediately adopt a "Retreat" response, including a significant increase in the width of the foreshore reserve as part of any planning amendment and/or structure planning being proposed for the former railway reserve and current industrial zoned land in or near Port Beach North CMU, including lands between Tydeman Road and the existing Leighton urban development zone.

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 98

Cr J McDonald MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered ARMC1707-1, and ARMC1707-3. SECONDED: Cr H Fitzhardinge CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 JULY 2017

The following item number ARMC1707-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

ARMC1707-1 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM - ASSET MANAGEMENT

Meeting Date: 18 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: City Assets: Asset Management Implementation Plan

v1.2 (July 2017)

SUMMARY

To update the Audit and Risk Committee on the City’s progress in addressing the issues highlighted in the independent audit report received in March 2017 regarding the City’s Corporate Asset Management Planning. A number of issues were noted in the report as requiring attention and / or improvement in the audit report. The enclosed Asset Management Implementation plan is being presented to Council to seek endorsement with respect to City’s progress, commitment and forecast timelines in relation to its Corporate Asset Management activities. This report recommends that Council receive this update in relation to the City’s current position and forecast timelines with its Strategic Asset Management activities, and endorses the actions and timeframes to address the City’s Strategic Asset Management responsibilities, as outlined in this report.


26 July 2017

Page 99

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on November 23 2016, Council approved the internal audit of the following business processes:

1. Asset Management 2. Purchasing Authorisation 3. Delegation of Authority 4. Information/records management.

Subsequently an audit of the City’s Asset Management provisions was undertaken by the appointed auditor (Paxon Group). The subsequent report (received in March 2017) highlighted a number of fundamental areas requiring substantial improvement. The key findings requiring attention and improvement were summarised as follows:

Asset Management Policy is out of date

Asset Management Strategy is out of date

Asset Management Plans do not exist for most asset classes

Strategic Business Process Manuals require updating and developed for all

asset classes

Asset registers are incomplete

Lack of inspection of some asset classes

Inspection reports provide incomplete management data

Not all data migration risks are documented

No contingency plans exist for COF

Long term financial plan requires updating with current financial data. The report listed the City of Fremantle as ‘Needing Improvement’. A High-level summary of findings were scored as follows:

Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Needs Improvement

Unsatisfactory

Rating

City of Fremantle Rating


The City will redirect internal resources to address some of the audit works. There is provision of $50 000 for Asset Audits and a consultancy provision in the 2017/18 budget which can be used to conduct the specialist audits. The City Assets team will reassess progress in September/October and report through the Councils mid-year budget review process with respect to available funding provision.


26 July 2017

Page 100

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Part 7 of the Local Government Act 1995 addresses the situation of audit in relation to the duties of the local government generally. Regulation 17 of the Local Government Act (Audit) Regulations 1996 requires the Chief Executive Officer to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local government’s systems and procedures in relation to —

risk management; and

internal control; and

legislative compliance.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

Following the findings as detailed in the report, City Assets officers have been working on improving the City’s position with respect to the aspects raised. Progress has been made in respect to:

Systems-

o Migration of data from FinanceOne (financial management system) to Assetic

(Corporate Asset Management system) is now complete and reconciled

o TechOne (financial management system) has been aligned to Assetic

This allows financial depreciation reporting through Assetic

Assetic has been positioned as a repository for all asset financial and technical information and is now being used as the primary centralised Asset Management database by the City

Assets have now been classified into categories which has streamlined reports for decision making purposes

A program of audits has been put into place to update asset condition data held by the city on a three year cycle

A Strategic Asset Management Working Group (SAMWG) is being developed with key stakeholders to coordinate the management of assets by the city

Governance structure – The City has now developed and adopted a Corporate Project Management Framework, this will now align with and facilitate the effectiveness of the new SAMWG.

These activities have been captured and incorporated with the actions in the City Assets Implementation Plan (see Attachment 1).


26 July 2017

Page 101

As per the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018, the City has developed a strategic response to the management of its assets, compliance with regulatory requirements, and the funding needed to provide the required level of service over a ten-year planning period. The City has escalated its program of asset audits and assessments to develop updated Asset Management and Service Plans for the following asset categories:

Parks and landscapes - to be completed by 1 February 2018

Fleet and plant - to be completed by 1 February 2018

Drainage systems - to be completed by 31 May 2018

Footpaths - to be completed by 15 March 2018

Buildings - to be completed by 24 November 2017

Roads - to be completed by 15 March 2018. The actions detailed in the enclosed report are anticipated to assist in providing a substantial improvement in the management of the City’s assets. The measures detailed in the enclosed implementation plan will not only allow the City to improve the depth and quality of its Asset Management information, it will facilitate a more forward looking strategic and informed approach to Capital works planning and programming. This will assist the City in meeting the long term needs of the community and allow the City to manage its assets in a cost effective and sustainable manner. An updated Corporate Asset management Policy to reflect the City’s approach has been submitted to the City’s Executive Leadership Team for review and approval. Subject to approval, the draft Asset Management (Administrative) Guidelines and Asset Management Strategy will be updated and submitted to the City’s Strategic Asset management Working Group for consideration and endorsement.




26 July 2017

Page 102


MOVED: Cr J McDonald Council:

1. Receive the internal audit report on Asset Management and note recommendations and agreed actions.

2. Note the update report in relation to the City’s current position and forecast

timelines with its Strategic Asset Management activities 3. Endorse the actions and timeframes to address the City’s Strategic Asset

Management responsibilities, as outlined in this report and request regular reporting back to the Audit and Risk Management Committee on progress.


For Against



26 July 2017

Page 103

The following item number ARMC1707-3 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

ARMC1707-3 PROPOSAL TO REVIEW RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REQUIREMENTS

Meeting Date: 18 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Director of City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

It is proposed a review of the key components supporting a City Risk Management Framework is undertaken. This report recommends that: The following key risk management framework components will be reviewed and amended or developed for consideration:

Risk Management Policy

Risk Appetite

Governance Framework and Committee Framework

Risk Management Strategy

Risk Management Framework

Risk Architecture and Reporting

Risk Culture

Stakeholder management and communication

Project Risk Management

BACKGROUND

A Risk Management Framework will assist the City in meeting strategic and operational objectives. The City has made several attempts at developing a Risk Management Framework, including a submission by LGIS in 2013. A revised draft version of Risk Management Framework was presented to the Committee in March 2017. Key elements were identified as not being incorporated in the framework, including a risk appetite statement. For the City to successfully implement a risk management framework the following attributes are required:

1. The City accepts accountability for risks and develops comprehensive controls and treatment strategies.

2. An emphasis on continuous improvement in risk management 3. Individuals are accountable for risk and risk as a discipline is resourced 4. Management decisions at all levels consider risk, including in key areas such as

procurement, community, project management, safety and planning. 5. Reporting of risk and risk performance in the governance process


26 July 2017

Page 104


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

CONSULTATION

Key internal stakeholders will be consulted, including the executive management, management team and Audit and Risk Committee members.

OFFICER COMMENT

A brief definition of the framework components are as follows: Risk Management Policy - is a statement of intent. It communicates to all stakeholders why and how the City manages risk Risk Appetite – the City determines the nature and extent of the significant risks it is willing to take in achieving strategic objectives Governance Framework and Committee Framework - Governance is the framework of rules and procedures by which the decisions in the City are made, and how the controllers are held accountable for them. Risk Management Strategy - a structured and coherent approach to identifying, assessing and managing risk. It builds in a process for regularly updating and reviewing the assessment based on new developments or actions taken Risk Management Framework - is a set of components that set out the City’s arrangements for the management of risk Risk Architecture and Reporting – is the development and implementation of risk management strategy and systems Risk Culture - the values, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and understanding about risk shared by the City and for a common purpose Stakeholder Management and Communication - the systematic identification, analysis, planning and implementation of actions designed to engage with stakeholders. Key developments and deliverables are regularly communicated to stakeholders Project Management – is the process of identifying and assessing the risks to projects and managing those risks to minimize the impact on the project


26 July 2017

Page 105

It is recommended this initiative commences immediately with an expectation the key components are completed within 9 to 12 months. The progress of the project to be reported to ELT and the Audit and Risk Committee as required.



In light of the attributes required for a successful risk management framework, it is now considered appropriate a broader review is required to support a City wide risk management framework. The following components are required for a successful integration of a risk management framework:

1. Review and update the City’s Risk Management Policy 2. Develop a Risk Appetite statement to determine the City’s appetite for risk and

opportunity. The City’s tolerance for risk to be incorporated in the risk matrices 3. Review the City’s organizational structure, including committee framework, as the

key elements of a governance framework, to ensure risk accountability as it pertains to the management of risk

4. Develop a risk strategy aligning with the City’s strategic and business planning process

5. Implement a Risk Management Framework incorporating the requirements of ISO 31000:2009 - Risk Management principles and guidelines.

6. Review the CAMMS capability and ongoing risk reporting system requirements 7. Incorporate risk management in decision making process building a culture of risk

and opportunity awareness 8. Communicate risk awareness and performance engaging all stakeholders 9. Integrate risk management and reporting for key projects

Cr D Thompson MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr J McDonald A review of the City of Fremantle’s Risk Management Policy be undertaken based on the following criteria;

Definition of Risk.

Risk Assessment Principles.

Application of the risk criteria to the City’s activities.

o Alignment with council plans

o Major Projects

o Service Delivery

o Other functions and activities.

Risk mitigation and acceptance.

Audit and Reporting of Risk.


26 July 2017

Page 106


For Against



26 July 2017

Page 107

ARMC1707-2 PURCHASING POLICY

Meeting Date: 11 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Purchasing Policy SG38

SUMMARY

This report sets out the amendments to the City’s current Purchasing Policy SG38 in order to increase oversight of expenditure, reduce financial risks and ensure ongoing compliance with s.3.57 of the Act and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations). This report recommends that Council approve the deletion of the current Purchasing Policy SG38; and adopt the new Purchasing Policy as set out in the officer's recommendation.

BACKGROUND

The policies of the City, determined by Council, as required by Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), guide and inform management and the public about key Council principles. The purpose of the Purchasing Policy is to maintain compliance with s.3.57 of the Act and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) in relation to the Councils purchasing strategy. The intent of the policy is to ensure the City of Fremantle achieves effective, efficient, economical and sustainable purchasing of all goods and services by:

Ensuring a high level of transparency, probity and accountability in purchasing decisions, whilst allowing for flexibility in the City’s operations;

Adopting a “best value” approach to purchasing;

Conducting competitive quotation and tendering processes in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

Incorporating the City’s sustainability goals in all purchasing activities. This policy was last reviewed by Council on 28 September 2016. The amendments proposed by the City include:

A summary of the legal requirements underpinning purchasing decisions;

Changes to the purchase thresholds to improve risk management whilst offering flexibility to the City’s operations;

Clarification of exemptions to the purchasing policy, when they apply and delegations to apply the exemptions;


26 July 2017

Page 108

A more streamlined approach to sustainability within purchasing decisions; and

Providing clear tender weighting criteria.


The revised purchasing policy is designed to reduce financial risk by introducing more narrowly defined purchasing thresholds and stating the required number of quotes to be obtained. The policy also ensures a best value for money approach by directing officers to justify expenditure when not accepting the lowest quotation and requiring management oversight of decision making.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The policy complies with the requirements of s.3.57 of the Act and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations).

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

The proposed policy outlines the City's position in relation to achieving the requirements of Regulation 11A of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. This allows the City to achieve effective, efficient, economical and sustainable purchasing of all goods and services. All officers of the City are expected to observe the highest standards of ethics and

integrity in undertaking purchasing activities and act in an honest and professional

manner.




26 July 2017

Page 109


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council:

1. Approve deletion of current Council Policy, SG38 Purchasing Policy; and 2. Adopt the reviewed Purchasing Policy, as set out below:

Purchasing Policy

Policy statement This policy has been adopted to achieve the requirements of Regulation 11A of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Intent The intent of the policy is to ensure the City of Fremantle achieves effective, efficient, economical and sustainable purchasing of all goods and services by:

Ensuring a high level of transparency, probity and accountability in purchasing decisions, whilst allowing for flexibility in the City’s operations;

Adopting a “best value” approach to purchasing;

Conducting competitive quotation and tendering processes in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

Incorporating the City’s sustainability goals in all purchasing activities.

1. Legislative Requirements (Summary only; refer to relevant legislation for further detail) This policy is to be read in conjunction with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations 11A - 24AJ of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. These statutory requirements cover the following items:

Section 3.57 of the Act requires the City to give state wide notice of public tenders;

Regulation 11A sets out the requirement for local governments to have a purchasing policy, the number and type of quotations to be obtained for all purchases up to $150 000 and the retention of written information relating to the quotations;

Regulations 11 to 21A outline the method of and requirements for calling public tenders. Areas covered includes when tenders have to be publically invited, any exemptions for the requirement to tender, how long tenders need to be advertised for, how and when tenders are to be opened and how a local government is to assess and respond to tenders;

Regulations 21 to 24 outline the procedure for limiting who may provide a tender. The regulations discuss Expressions of Interest (EOI) responding to EOI, shortlisting of respondents to EOI and informing respondents of the outcome of EOI; and


26 July 2017

Page 110

Regulations 24AA to 24AJ outline the methods and procedures for a local government to initiate and operate panels of pre-qualified suppliers of goods and services.

Statutory Exemptions from Tender Requirements

Regulation 11(2) specifies the criteria when public tenders do not have to be

invited. The following list outlines the circumstances where the City is exempted

from publically calling tenders:

When the purchase is made from expenditure authorised in an emergency (Chief Executive Officer approval required); or

When the purchase is made through a WALGA Preferred Supplier Program; or

When the City has (in the last 6 months) publically invited submissions to tender or canvassed for expressions of interest and no suitable supplier was identified through the process; or

When the contract is to be entered into by auction after being expressly authorised by a resolution of Council; or

When the goods or services are to be supplied by the Commonwealth Government (or its agencies) or the State Government (or its agencies) or from a Local or Regional Government; or

When the goods or services are believed to be unique in nature and it is unlikely there is another supplier (sole source – Chief Executive Officer and Director approval required); or

The goods to be supplied are petrol or oil or any liquid or gas used in internal combustion engines; or

the purchase is acquired from a person registered on the WA Aboriginal Business Directory, as published by the Small Business Development Corporation, where the consideration under contract is worth $250,000 or less and represents value for money; or

the purchase is acquired from an Australian Disability Enterprise and represents value for money; or

The Contract is a renewal or extension of the term of the original contract, where the original contract contained an option to extend; and

The goods or services are to be supplied by a pre-qualified supplier under Division 3 of the Regulations.

Note:

a) These exemptions to tender do not exempt the purchaser from gaining the

required number of quotations and from following the requirements of this

policy.

b) All and any use of the exemption options is to be reported to the Audit and

Risk Management Committee.

Anti-avoidance

Regulations 12(1) and 12(2) state the City will not enter into two or more contracts,

or create multiple purchase order transactions of a similar nature, to avoid the


26 July 2017

Page 111

requirement to go to public tender or to take the value of a purchase below a

purchasing threshold specified in the policy.

Other legislative requirements Retention of documents related to purchasing activities is to be in accordance with the requirements of the State Records Act 2000. In particular:

(i) Tender/quotation documentation. (ii) Internal documentation. (i) Evaluation documentation. (ii) Enquiry and response documentation. (iii) Notification, award and Contract documentation;

Is to retained and stored by the city for a period of 21 years. 1. Policy Purchase thresholds

Amount of purchase

Quotations Required Decision Making Process

Up to $499 None None

$500 to $4,999 Request 3 quotations and obtain at least one (1) quote. Can be verbal or written.

Lowest priced quote to be accepted or officer to document the best value offer

$5,000 to $19,999

Request 3 quotations and obtain at least two (2) written quotations

Lowest priced quote to be accepted or officer to document the best value offer

$20,000 to $149,999

Obtain at least three (3) formal written quotations (RFQ) in consultation with the procurement team.

A written evaluation is to be made of the offers by the requesting officer.

$150 000 and above

Conduct a full public tender process in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996.

Full written evaluation by an evaluation panel, approval from the Major Procurement Approval (MPA) panel and Chief Executive Officer. In some cases approval from Council will be required.

Delegation Delegation limit to the Chief Executive Officer is provided in the Delegated Authority Register

Limit $500,000

Exemptions from Purchasing Policy Thresholds

The following purchasing decisions are exempt from the purchasing thresholds of

this policy:

Purchases where costs are:


26 July 2017

Page 112

o Fixed; (e.g. state wide advertising, memberships and subscriptions,

taxis / cab charges and some industry based training) or

o Available only through a sole source of supply (e.g. some utilities);

and

o From Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) where warranty

provisions may be void (e.g. plant and equipment supplies);

Acts / Entertainers / Artists for festivals and events where it can be demonstrated that the act has appropriate artistic merit and the decision is consistent with the purpose and intent of the event and have no conflicts of interest, up to a value of $9,999. The decision is to be approved by the relevant Director;

Purchasing of specialist Legal services or specialist Consultancy services , as required and determined by a Director or the Chief Executive Officer, provided their approval is in writing, prior to the purchase, and the details are reported to the Audit and Risk Committee;

Purchases made from a ‘Panel of Pre-qualified Suppliers’ (must follow the City of Fremantle panel purchasing conditions);

Exemptions exercised by the Chief Executive Officer are to be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee; and

In the circumstances of Sole Source providers, for purchases up to $149 999:

(a) The procurement of goods and/or services available from only one

private sector source of supply, (that is the manufacturer, supplier or agency) is permitted without the need to call competitive quotations provided that there is reasonable evidence that there is genuinely only one source of supply. Every endeavour to find alternative sources must be made.

(b) Written confirmation of this must be kept on file for later audit. (c) The application of provision ‘sole source of supply’ must only occur

in limited cases and procurement experience indicates that generally more than one supplier is able to provide the requirements.

(d) The decision to purchase goods or services from a sole supplier must be approved, in writing, by a Director or the Chief Executive Officer

(e) The decision to procure goods or services from a sole source provider must be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee

For purchases over $150 000:

(a) The decision to purchase goods or services from a sole supplier for a value exceeding $150 000 must be approved, in writing, by the Chief Executive Officer;

(b) The decision to purchase from a sole source must be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee for probity and transparency.

1. Panels of Pre-qualified suppliers In accordance with Regulation 24AC of the Local Government (Functions and

General) Regulations 1996, a Panel of Pre-qualified Suppliers (“Panel”) may be

created where most of the following factors apply:


26 July 2017

Page 113

(i) The Chief Executive Officer determines that a range of similar goods and services are required to be purchased on a continuing and regular basis.

(ii) There are numerous potential suppliers in the local and regional procurement-related market sector(s) that satisfy the test of ‘value for money’.

(iii)The purchasing activity under the intended Panel is assessed as being of a low to medium risk.

(iv) The Panel will streamline and will improve service delivery and procurement processes.

(v) The Chief Executive Officer has the capability to establish, manage the risks and achieve the benefits expected of the proposed Panel.

The Chief Executive Officer will endeavour to ensure that panels will not be

created unless most of the above factors are firmly and quantifiably established.

A separate policy will outline the operation of Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers.

1. Ethics and Integrity All officers and employees of the City of Fremantle are to observe the highest standards of ethics and integrity in undertaking purchasing activities and act in an honest and professional manner that supports the standing of the City. Further detail regarding the City’s expectations can be found in the City’s Code of Conduct.

2. Probity and Value for Money The two key principles when evaluating quotations and tenders are probity and value for money governing the purchasing of goods and services for the City. For purchases $5 000 and above, where a higher priced conforming offer is

recommended for purchase, there should be clear and demonstrable benefits to

the City over and above the lowest priced, conforming offer. A written evaluation

outlining the clear and demonstrable benefits should be approved by a Manager,

before the purchase is made.

3. Sustainable Procurement

A preference will be provided to suppliers that demonstrate sustainable business

practices and high levels of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Where it is

appropriate and practicable, an advantage will be provided to suppliers

demonstrating that they minimise environmental and negative social impacts and

embrace CSR. Sustainable and CSR considerations will be balanced against value

for money outcomes in accordance with the City’s sustainability objectives.

All Requests for Tender (RFT) will have a minimum weighted score of 10% for

sustainable criteria.


26 July 2017

Page 114

Tender specifications will include a requirement for organisations to comply with

the principles of No Business in Abuse and include sustainable specifications

within the request.

Appendix A – Tender Evaluation Criteria

Construction Works

Definition: All infrastructure projects such as building, demolition, roads, car parks, footpaths, drainage, park and bridge construction.

Description of Criteria Weighting

Compliance Criteria

Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation

Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, OSH questionnaire, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information

Mandatory criteria must be addressed, no weighting applied. Failure to meet mandatory criteria will remove responses from consideration

Qualitative Selection Criteria

Default Range

Relevant Experience / Service Delivery Plan

Demonstrated relevant experience of the Company in providing the same or similar services to local government or private sectors for the last 5 years.

Include the following

Project

Client

Duration

Value

Deliverables

Results

10%

10% – 15%

Key Personnel, Skills and Resources Capacity to deliver the services including:

Key personnel / Professional skills Name Qualifications Years in

industry Roles and Responsibility

Experience

Organisational / Project Team Structure Contingency Current utilisation Support facilities Plant & Equipment Financial Capacity (credit reference check may be applied)

15%

10% - 20%

Demonstrated Understanding

Tenders should provide a detailed methodology detailing the process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification for this project. Include a detailed Risk / Environmental


26 July 2017

Page 115

Management Plan to protect the environment which is appropriate to the size and nature of the project Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe

20% 10% - 30%

Sustainability

Tenderers should outline the source of materials of construction and their environmental performance / impact Tenderers should provide methods for reducing the amount of construction material waste sent to landfill Tenderers should provide information on the environmental performance of their building/construction activities during project delivery.

10%

10%-20%

Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10% 10%

Price 35% 25% - 50%

Total 100% 100%

Appendix B – Tender Evaluation Criteria

Professional and Consultant Services

Definition: Delivery of legal, accounting, auditing, governance or similar services. The services may be delivered as a one-off or on an ongoing basis.


Compliance Criteria





Default Range




Project

Client Duration

Value Deliverables

Results

10%

10% – 20%

Key Personnel, Skills and Resources


26 July 2017

Page 116

Capacity to deliver the services including:



Experience


20%

10% - 30%


Tenders should provide a detailed methodology detailing the process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification for this project. Include a detailed Risk / Environmental Management Plan to protect the environment which is appropriate to the size and nature of the project Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe

25%

20% - 30%


Price 35% 25% - 50%

Total 100% 100%

Note: Weightings may only be amended outside of these parameters by written consent of the relevant Director or CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Weightings are to be established before going to tender.

Appendix C – Tender Evaluation Criteria

Architectural Services

Definition: Delivery of architectural design, heritage, planning or similar services. The services may be delivered as a one-off or on an ongoing basis.


Compliance Criteria





Default Range


26 July 2017

Page 117




Project

Client

Duration

Value

Deliverables

Results

10%

10% – 20%




Experience


15%

10% - 20%


Tenders should provide a detailed methodology detailing the process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification for this project. Include a detailed Risk / Environmental Management Plan to protect the environment which is appropriate to the size and nature of the project Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe

20%

10% - 30%

Sustainability

Tenderers should outline the source of materials of construction and their environmental performance / impact Tenderers should provide methods for reducing the amount of construction material waste sent to landfill Tenderers should provide information on the environmental performance of their building/construction activities during project delivery.

10%

10%-15%


Price 35% 25% - 50%

Total 100% 100%

Appendix D – Tender Evaluation Criteria


26 July 2017

Page 118

Professional and Consultant Services

Definition: All services with the exception of Professional Services (see Appendix A) and Architectural Services (see Appendix C). For example traffic impact reports, environmental reports etc. The services may be delivered as a one-off or on an ongoing basis.


Compliance Criteria





Default Range




Project

Client Duration

Value Deliverables

Results

15%

10% – 20%




Experience


20%

10% - 30%


Tenders should provide a detailed methodology detailing the process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification for this project. Include a detailed Risk / Environmental Management Plan to protect the environment which is appropriate to the size and nature of the project

25%

15% - 25%


26 July 2017

Page 119

Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe


Price 35% 25% - 55%

Total 100% 100%


Appendix E – Tender Evaluation Criteria

Plant and Equipment

Definition: All light vehicles, fleet vehicles, heavy vehicles, earthmoving and ground care machinery plus ancillary equipment such as mechanical saws and static pumps.


Compliance Criteria


Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information



Meets Technical Specification

Tenderer to provide evidence that the piece of plant or equipment meets or exceeds the technical specification and functional requirements of the City.

40%

Meets the City’s Delivery Timeframes Tenderer to provide a timeframe for delivery to the City, from Contract award

5%

Sustainability

Tenders should provide alternative energy sourced plant or equipment to reduce emissions Tenderer to provide information regarding noise levels of plant and equipment when in use Tenderer to provide information regarding the amount of sustainably sourced

10%


26 July 2017

Page 120

components in the piece of plant or equipment

Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10%

Price 35%

Total 100%


Appendix F – Tender Evaluation Criteria

General Goods and Merchandise

Definition: All other goods, stores and merchandise, not otherwise covered in previous appendices.


Compliance Criteria


Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information






Project Client Duration Value Deliverables Results

10%


Key personnel / Professional skills

Name Qualifications Years in Industry

Roles and Responsibility

Experience

Organisational / Project Team Structure Contingency Current utilisation Support facilities Financial Capacity (credit reference check may be applied)

10%



26 July 2017

Page 121

Tenders should provide a detailed process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification Tenderers should provide a process that will deliver the sustainable goals of the City Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe

10%

Sustainability

Tenders should provide alternative energy sourced plant or equipment to reduce emissions Tenderer to provide information regarding noise levels of plant and equipment when in use Tenderer to provide information regarding the amount of sustainably sourced components in the piece of plant or equipment

10%

Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10%

Price 50%

Total 100%

Note: Weightings may only be amended outside of these parameters by written consent of the relevant Director or CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Weightings are to be established before going to tender. CARRIED: 4/0 Note: The committee chair accepted minor amendments to the following:

Statutory exemptions: reporting back to the Audit and Risk Management Committee when an exemption is applied.

Value for money: Inclusion of probity to the key principles.

Additional note of the Chief Executive Officer delegation for expenditure into the purchased threshold table.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume

COUNCIL DECISION

Cr J Strachan MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Audit Risk Management Committee and consider the following: 1. The Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider an amendment to

Appendix F-Tender Evaluation Criteria for General Goods and Merchandise, section Sustainability. Found on page 158 of the printed agenda. The ARMC consider an amended version to read (two additional lines in italics):


26 July 2017

Page 122

Sustainability

Tenders should provide alternative energy sourced plant and equipment to reduce emissions,

Tenders to provide information regarding noise levels of plant and equipment when in use,

Tenders to provide information regarding the amount of sustainability sourced components in the piece of plant and equipment,

Tenders to provide evidence of no single-use plastic in the product, or its packaging,

Re-engineered/recycled plastic products will be given priority over other materials.

2. The Audit and Risk Management Committee to recommend to Council the

appropriate change to the policy to account for these changes. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION As a One-Planet-Council we are committed to removing linear plastic use (make-use-throw away) from our organisation and supporting circular plastic use (recycle-re engineer). This amendment is also consistent with the Australian Packaging Covenant Action Plan 2010-2015. A Federal Government initiative also signed by the Western Australian Government. SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 123

Cr J McDonald left the meeting at 7.18 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return. Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered FPOL1707-4, FPOL1707-5, FPOL1707-6, and FPOL1707-9. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 12 JULY 2017

The following item number FPOL1707-4 was moved and carried en bloc.

FPOL1707-4 DISPOSAL OF LAND BY DEPARTMENT OF LANDS LOT 152 AT FORMER SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Plan of South Fremantle landfill site Correspondence from Department of Lands

SUMMARY

The Department of Lands has identified a parcel of land which forms part of the former South Fremantle landfill site for potential divestment through the government’s Land Asset Sales Program. The land in question is lot 152, which is approximately 4600 sq m in area and adjoins a much larger lot owned by the City of Fremantle. The two lots together form the southern portion of the former landfill site, commonly referred to as Sandown Park. The Department of Lands has written to the City, inquiring whether the City has an interest in acquiring lot 152 for amalgamation with the larger adjoining freehold lot already owned by the City. The letter states that the City of Cockburn will also be given the opportunity to purchase a portion of the lot which adjoins a smaller lot


26 July 2017

Page 124

already owned by the City of Cockburn adjacent to the Cockburn Road/Hampton Road/Rockingham Road intersection. Lot 152 has the same characteristics as the adjoining City of Fremantle-owned land. Due to previous landfill activity the land is significantly contaminated and is included on the Contaminated Sites Register. This places obligations on the land owner to manage it to minimise risks to the public. If the City acquired lot 152 it would become responsible for meeting these obligations over a larger area of land. If acquisition of lot 152 was to give the City ownership of the entire landfill site there might be benefits in terms of coordinating long term planning for future use of the site. However the current proposal would not achieve this as there are other lots owned by the Commissioner for Main Roads which are not currently being considered for disposal. This report recommends that Council requires the Chief Executive Officer to inform the Department of Lands that the City does not wish to purchase lot 152.

BACKGROUND

Lot 152 is a parcel of land approximately 4600 sq m in area which forms part of a much larger area of undeveloped land comprising the former South Fremantle landfill site. Lot 152 directly adjoins a larger lot (6.48 hectares in area) owned by the City of Fremantle. These two lots together form the southern portion of the former landfill site, commonly referred to as Sandown Park. The plan in Attachment 1 shows the location of the land in question and the ownership of various lots which together make up the South Fremantle landfill site. Lot 152 is a freehold title and the current registered proprietor is the Commissioner of Main Roads. The Department of Lands has recently written to the City, stating that it has identified lot 152 for potential divestment through the state government’s Land Asset Sales Program. The letter asks whether the City has an interest in acquiring the lot for amalgamation with the larger adjoining freehold lot already owned by the City. The letter states that the City of Cockburn will also be given the opportunity to purchase a portion of the lot which adjoins a smaller lot already owned by the City of Cockburn adjacent to the Cockburn Road/Hampton Road/Rockingham Road intersection. A copy of the Department of Land’s letter is provided in Attachment 2. The letter does not give any indication of the likely financial terms of sale. Due to its use during much of the 20th century as a waste disposal landfill site, most of the land shown on Attachment 1 is significantly contaminated. It also presents challenging geotechnical issues due to the settlement of waste over time which can cause subsidence and fractures in any covering material. All of the lots comprising the landfill site, including lot 152, are classified as contaminated under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (the CS Act). This restricts any occupation or use of the site until measures have been taken to remove risks to human health. The registered proprietor of land classified under the CS Act is responsible for monitoring, management and remediation actions as required by the state Department of Environment Regulation (DER).


26 July 2017

Page 125

As the majority of the lots comprising the landfill site are owned by the City of Fremantle, the City has since 2006 (when the site was first classified under the CS Act) undertaken significant investigation, monitoring and management work to meet its legal obligations.


Should council decide to support acquisition of the land by the City, budget provision would need to be made to cover its purchase on whatever terms might be agreed with the Department of Lands. Currently no budget allocation has been approved for this purpose. Operating expenditure commitments the City currently has in relation to managing the parts of the landfill site already owned by the City might increase if lot 152 was acquired by the City, but officers have not yet assessed this matter in detail.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

If the City became the registered proprietor of lot 152 it would take on responsibilities under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 in respect of the land as described in the background section of this report.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

The City already owns the majority of land parcels which make up the South Fremantle landfill site (see Attachment 1). Consolidating the entire site into a single ownership would offer some merits, particularly in terms of coordinating long term planning for potential future use and development of the site. However, extensive site investigations and development feasibility studies carried out by the City and other agencies including LandCorp over the past 10-15 years have concluded that the cost and technical difficulties of remediating the land to a standard that would enable its use for development or public recreational purposes mean that these outcomes will not be viable in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the current proposal by Department of Lands is only to dispose of lot 152, not all of the land parcels currently owned by the Commissioner of Main Roads (these are identified in Attachment 1). Consequently if the City did acquire this lot it would not by itself consolidate the entire landfill site into the City’s ownership. Having regard to the additional land management risks and liabilities the City would assume if it became owner of this lot, balanced against the limited benefit acquiring this single lot in terms of rationalising ownership of the entire site, officers recommend that the Department of Lands should be advised that the City does not wish to purchase lot 152.




26 July 2017

Page 126


Cr A Sullivan MOVED Council requires the Chief Executive Officer to inform the Department of Lands that the City of Fremantle does have an interest in purchasing all or any part of Lot 152 on Deposited Plan 7217 subject to being done through further discussions with the Department of Lands regarding the possible transfer of ownership of a more comprehensive package of land titles owned by the Commissioner of Main Roads which are in the same vicinity, because this would enable a more coordinated approach to management and future use of land in the area to be achieved. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 127


FPOL1707-5 AWARD OF TENDER FCC494/17 ELECTRICAL SERVICES

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager City Assets Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Tender evaluation matrix

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to consider tender number FCC494/17 for Electrical Services. This report recommends that council accepts the tenders submitted for three of the Electrical Services scopes of work. The tender evaluation was undertaken using the selection criteria provided in the tender document.

BACKGROUND

The City manages its Electrical Services activities (electrical infrastructure) through the appointment of specialist contractors. This arrangement is typically set against hourly rates for works over a fixed contract term. The contract is managed by the City Assets team; the contract is now due for renewal. Tender FCC494/17 for Electrical Services was advertised on Wednesday 5 April 2017 and closed on Friday 28 April 2017. Tenders were received against the following scopes of work:

1. Scope A – Street Lighting 2. Scope B – Buildings 3. Scope C – Irrigation and Pump Works 4. Scope D – Barbecue Equipment

A total of 15 Tender responses were received across the various scopes for the City’s consideration, a number of contractors submitted a Tender for more than one scope of work.


The table below summarises the proposed budget provision and the forecast expenditure against the maintenance services listed:

Description Expenditure Budget

Budget

Budget for 17 / 18 Financial Year $2 300 000

Expenditure

Expenditure incurred to date: $0

Activities


26 July 2017

Page 128

Tender number FCC494/17 (forecast expenditure for 2017 / 2018 financial year) – excludes Building Maintenance and Plumbing services

$1 400 000

Total expenditure (forecasted) $1 400 000

Balance $900 000

Note: Remaining $900 000 will be required for Building Maintenance Services and Plumbing Services which did not form part of this tender. Sufficient funding provision has been allocated in the 2017 / 2018 budget proposal to manage the anticipated level of services within budget. A budget of approximately $1 400 000 plus provision for CPI, will be required for the second contracted year in 2018 / 2019.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Tenders were invited in accordance with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the tendering procedures and evaluation complied with part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

Detail Tender FCC494/17 for Electrical Services was advertised on Wednesday 5 April 2017 and closed on Friday 28 April 2017. Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

Contract type Schedule of Rates

Contract duration Two Years

Commencement date On or about 30 July 2017

Completion date 30 June 2019

Tender evaluation

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors and evaluated by the tender evaluation panel:

Citylight Holdings Pty Ltd T/A AES

David Holden Pty Ltd

Elexacom

Gilmour & Jooste Electrical


26 July 2017

Page 129

KP Electrics Australia Pty Ltd

Northlake Electrical Pty Ltd

Paramount Electrical Services

Paro Australia Pty Ltd

Pearmans Electrical & Mechanical Services

Port Royal Electrical Pty Ltd

Powerlux WA

Tasman Power

Australian Railway Signalling and Electrical

Greenstar Mechanical Services

SJ Electrics

The Tender evaluation panel establishes whether the tender submissions conform to the conditions for tendering and selects a suitably qualified and experienced contractor. The tender evaluation panel comprised:

Purchasing Officer

Senior Contracts and Procurement Officer

Asset Technical Officer

Engineering Projects Officer

Parks Coordinator. Tenderers were required to disclose information that might be relevant to an actual or potential conflict of interest and disclose if they had any relationship with City of Fremantle employees involved in the tender process. Members of the tender evaluation panel are required to disclose any actual or perceived interest with any of the tenderers. No disclosures were made. To obtain the broadest possible comparison base, each of the Tenders was evaluated against the following tender selection criteria and was in turn graded in the tender evaluation matrix.

Item No Description Weighting

1 Relevant Experiance 20%

2 Skills & Key Personnel 20%

3 Demonstrated Understanding 20%

4 Sustainability 10%

4 Price 30%

All Tender submissions, except the submission from SJ Electrics, received were conforming to the Tender requirements.

The submission from SJ Electrics was noted as an alternative tender by the tenderer. All alternative tenders are required to be submitted with a fully conforming tender as per clause 2.12 of the conditions of tender. The submission from SJ Electrics was not evaluated any further due to its non-compliance.


26 July 2017

Page 130

The Tender submitted by Citylights Holdings Pty Ltd T/As Auriemma Electrical Services (AES) scored the highest rating for Scope of Work A – Street Lighting with 83.0 points. The Tender submitted by Pearmans Electrical and Mechanical Services scored the highest rating for Scope of Work B – Buildings with 85.0 points. The Tender submitted by North Lake Electrical scored the highest rating for Scope of Work C – Irrigation and Pump Works with 84.9 points. The Tender submitted by Elaxacom scored the highest rating for Scope of Work D – Barbecues with 62.0 points. However, due to a clear lack of demonstrated skills and resources in this area and the lower than anticipated value of this scope of works the City has withdrawn scope of works D from this tender. This was discussed with Elaxacom and they agreed to withdraw. The City will review a new method to deliver this area of service. The remaining Tender submissions received lower scores. Each of the recommended Tenderers were assessed as having the experience, resources and demonstrated understanding and management processes to safely undertake the works and deliver a high level of service as described in the specification, in accordance with the terms of the Tender document. The evaluation process determined that the Tenders from Citylights Holdings Pty Ltd T/As Auriemma Electrical Services (AES), Pearmans Electrical and Mechanical Services and North Lake Electrical provided a conforming tender. A number of the recommended providers have previously worked with the City on various related projects and have provided a good level of service that met the City’s requirement. Reference checks indicate that the recommended tenderers have provided satisfactory service delivery to their customers on similar services and projects, and will be suitable suppliers to the City of Fremantle. Environmental considerations All respondents and recommended Tenderers declared compliance with the four principles of No Business in Abuse (NBIA) and do not have contracts with suppliers profiting from offshore detention. Risk consideration

An assessment undertaken by Dun and Bradstreet indicates that all the recommended Tenderers have the financial capacity to undertake the contract.

There are no strategic or corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report. Specific risk assessments have been developed for the services requested in the Tender and will be used on the safe delivery of these services. Comment


26 July 2017

Page 131

All the recommended Tenderers scored well against the qualitative and quantitative criteria required to safely deliver each scope of work. The Tenderers provide the City with the ability to deliver good value for money outcomes for the services provided during the contracted period. Subject to acceptance of the Tender, the proposed implementation program is scheduled below:

Award contract: 30 July 2017 Commence services: On (or about) 30 July 2017 Completion: 30 June 2019




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council award the Tender for FCC494/17 for Electrical Services to Citylights Holdings Pty Ltd T/As Auriemma Electrical Services (AES) for Scope of Work A – Street Lighting, Pearmans Electrical and Mechanical Services for Scope of Work B – Buildings, and North Lake Electrical for Scope of Work C – Irrigation and Pump Works at the Tendered rates for the period 30 July 2017 to 30 June 2019. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


26 July 2017

Page 132


FPOL1707-6 PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD NAME 'SISKA LANE' - SHARED ACCESS WAY TO 74, 74A, 78 AND 80 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NORTH FREMANTLE

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager of Information Technology Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Application from owner of 74A Stirling Highway

Submission from owner of 74 Stirling Highway

Figure 8 - shared access way shown outlined in black subject of a proposed private road name.

SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle (‘City’) has received an application from the owner of 74A Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (‘Applicant’) to name the private road (‘shared access way’) to 78, 80 and 74 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The naming will improve street addressing and provide separation from the private road on the northern boundary of No. 80 Stirling Highway. The application is supported by the strata management body for (Strata Plan 51329) being the former Rose Hotel site at 78 and 80 Stirling Highway together with the owners of 74, 74A Stirling Highway and 1A White Street, North Fremantle (Strata Plan 60487). The proposed name of ‘Siska Lane’ was selected from the City of Fremantle approved road naming schedule. The name has received preliminary approval


26 July 2017

Page 133

from the Geographic Names Committee (GNC) Landgate with the suffix of ‘Lane’ being the appropriate description accepted by the GNC. It is recommended the Geographic Names Committee is advised that Council has selected ‘Siska Lane’ as listed on the City of Fremantle Reserved Road Names Register to be applied to the private road as described (subject to the Ministers approval). BACKGROUND In 2005 the City approved (DA733/04) being the mixed use commercial/residential development and refurbishment of No. 80 (former Rose Hotel) North Fremantle. The report required that a reciprocal right of access arrangements were required for both the southern access/exit onto Stirling Highway including access to the northern link from Alfred Road, North Fremantle. Right of carriageway easements (shared access way) are formalised on Survey Strata Plan No’s 60487 (Nos. 74 and 74A) Stirling Highway and Survey Strata Plan 51329 (Nos. 80 and 78) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The City has received written support for the proposed private road name from the Strata Management body for 78 and 80 Stirling Highway together with the owners of 74 Stirling Highway and 1A White Street, North Fremantle. The Applicant has selected the name of ‘Siska’ from the City’s reserve road name register with back-up names of ‘Sail’ and ‘Mast’ as required by the GNC. The applicant also suggested the name ‘Rose’ however the name failed the GNC requirements. The owner of 74 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle has provided a submission in support of the proposal including the proposed name of ‘Siska Lane’ (see Attachment 2). Historical information - Siska The proposed name ‘Siska’ is the name given to all five of Roland (Rolly) Tasker’s yachts which dominated ocean racing in Western Australia form 1969 to 1985, winning numerous events. The name has a connection to North Fremantle as the place where Rolly Tasker operated a sail making business from the site for forty years.


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

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. There is no GNC requirement to advertise public road naming. The following publications are referred to by the GNC when assessing road naming and street addressing compliance;


26 July 2017

Page 134

The Geographic Names Committee - Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia (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).

A copy of the publications is available upon request. The use of Aboriginal names for the purpose of road naming requires the approval of the Whadjuk Working Party (WWP) of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

In addition to the formal private road name application (attachment 1) the City has received a submission from the owner of 74 Stirling Highway in support of the proposed name of ‘Siska Lane’ (attachment 2). The proposal has the written support from all owners who abut the shared access way including the Strata Management body for 78 and 80 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The naming of the share access way (private road) is supported as noted in the points below:

The naming of the shared access way will assist in current and future street addressing with improved identification for visitors

The creation of a private access way with reciprocal access rights formed part of the planning requirements for both adjoining properties.

In relation to No. 78 and 80 Stirling Highway (former Rose Hotel site), the naming would provide separation from the private road on the northern boundary to the subject shared access way on the southern boundary.

The naming of the access way will assist emergency/delivery and service vehicles locate the shared access way.

Legibility and identity for the lane owners and users. Dimensions – shared access way (private road) The shared access way - total area is calculated as 141.7m2. The calculations are based on the details provided on Survey Strata Plan No’s 60487 (Nos. 74 and 74A) Stirling Highway and Survey Strata Plan 51329 (Nos. 80 and 78) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle as detailed below. Common property (CP5) on Strata Plan 60487 is noted with an area of 58m2. The right of carriageway easement (marked A) on Strata plan 51329 shows a length of 31m and a width of 2.7m with the area calculated as 83.7m2. The addition of both areas (58m2 and 83.7m2) totals 141m2.


26 July 2017

Page 135

Figure 9 – map measurements are taken from the Common Property details on Strata Plan 60487




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council advise the Geographic Names Committee that it has selected ‘Siska Lane’ as listed on the City of Fremantle Reserved Road Parks Names Register to be applied to the private road being a shared access/right of carriageway easements located over No. 74 (Lots 2, 3, and 4 on Strata Plan No.60487) and Nos. 78 and 80 (Lots on Strata Plan No.51329) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (subject to the Ministers approval). SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 136


FPOL1707-9 COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - FUTURE DIRECTIONS 2036

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Community Facilities Plan Future Directions 2036 Community Facility Standards

SUMMARY

The purpose of the City’s community facilities plan future directions 2036 is to obtain a detailed understanding of the current and future needs of the City. The plan is intended to provide strategic guidance and direction in the provision of community facilities over the course of the next twenty years and will inform the City’s Asset Management Strategy along with the City’s Long Term Financial Plan. Past and future increases in population will continue to place pressure on the City’s community, sport and recreation facilities and highlights the importance in taking a forward planning and strategic approach in the provision of facilities across the City. In the last five years, the City’s population has increased by almost 5,000 people and is expected to grow by a further 11,556 people by 2036. With much of the population growth expected to occur via urban infill, increasing densities and decreasing lot sizes will lead to increasing demand on active and passive public open spaces and a greater need for physical recreation opportunities. The plan has uncovered a number of key strategic issues, trends and challenges for the City to address to effectively meet the current and future community facility needs of the population. A high proportion of community facilities are old, outdated and have limited capacity to meet current needs, this will only be magnified as the City’s population continues to grow. Further details can be located in the background section of this report. The recommendations from the City’s Community Facilities Plan Future Directions 2036 address these key strategic issues and challenges and focus on moving the City from an ad hoc approach to a strategic and sustainable way of providing community facilities over the next 20 years. A briefing session was held with Elected Members on the 3 July 2017, on the key outcomes of the plan. This report recommends that council accepts the Community Facilities Plan, Future Directions 2036 as a key strategic document that will provide input to the City’s Asset Management Strategy and inform the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.


26 July 2017

Page 137

BACKGROUND

In 2011 a strategic needs assessment was conducted, the aim of the asseasment was to provide short, medium and long term recommendations which addressed the key issues impacting on sport and recreation provision within the City of Fremantle. The assessment identified priorities which related to maintaining physical infrastructure and expanding trails, enhancing open space areas and assisting clubs to address viability and sustainability issues. Since this time, the City has completed a number of the key recommendations, in particular:

Fremantle Leisure Centre upgrade

Leighton Beach new kiosk, toilet and change rooms

Signal Station renewal

Dick Lawrence building upgrade

Men’s Shed

Gil Fraser Pavilion renewal

Town Hall renewal

Bruce Lee play space and hydro-zoning irrigation upgrade The City’s strategic recreation policy endorsed by council in 2011 recognises that local governments play an important role in facilitating and supporting participation in recreation and physical activity through its planning and development of activities and the provision and management of facilities and services. This policy is relevant to the City’s Community Facilities Plan Future Directions 2036, as it provides the definitions and a set of principles around accessibility, diversity, flexibility and sustainability to plan effectively, as well as a set of criteria for establishing funding priorities. In February 2017, the City engaged Community Perspectives to provide a detailed understanding of the current and future community facility needs and to develop a clear direction that will guide the provision of community facilities over the next twenty years. The process undertaken in the development of the plan involved an extensive period of research, community and stakeholder engagement, strategic analysis and planning, with five key stages of work. Stage 1

demographic analysis

current and forecast population

identified the implications for community facilities

Stage 2

community facility planning framework

community facility hierarchy

planning standards for community facility provision

guiding principles


26 July 2017

Page 138

Stage 3

community needs assessment

review of existing studies, plans and strategies

collate existing needs, issues and priorities

community and stakeholder engagement Stage 4

supply and demand Analysis

underpins development of the plan and recommendations

implications of CAN and demographic analysis

key trends and drivers

community facility planning standards Stage 5

prepare community facilities plan

key outcomes of supply demand analysis

identify short, medium and long term priorities The need to upgrade and improve the capacity of existing community facilities is a common theme, together with the need to maximise the use, sharing of facilities and multi-use of facilities. A reasonably high proportion of the community facilities were built well over thirty years ago to meet the needs of that era and the demographic profile and the needs of community have changed considerably since this time. There are a number of older facilities that do not cater well for current needs, trends or standards. This highlights the need for a sound rationale and strong evidence base in determining priorities and allocating financial resources. While the public library and arts spaces are not within the scope of the plan, the redevelopment of the City’s library provides opportunity to review the community space such as activity spaces, meeting rooms and training rooms at a regional level. The plan has developed a hierarchy of recreation and sports facilities which includes all types of recreation, sport facilities and open space areas within our catchment area. The City can use the hierarchy to assist in determining the level of service and resources required for each facility to meet its operational needs. Feedback from the community forums identified that sports grounds attracted a high level of community use and a sense of community, however many identified possible development opportunities and favoured creating multiuse facilities and sporting hubs in North Fremantle, Fremantle Park, Stevens Reserve, Hilton Park, Ken Allen Fields, Dick Lawrence Oval and Bruce Lee Reserve. Community facility needs change as the population grows and changes and the City is not keeping up. With the age, standard and capacity of most community facilities to


26 July 2017

Page 139

meet current needs, there appears to be a substantial under investment in community facilities to meet current and future needs. The Fremantle Leisure Centre is classed as a regional level aquatic and leisure centre.

Whilst the community identified the Fremantle Leisure Centre as the most highly used

and rated the highest level of satisfaction of all community facilities across the City, the

need to redevelop and expand was widely acknowledged as a high priority

The trends in community facility design, provision and participation have changed

considerably in the last 20 years and the City’s community facility provision has largely

not kept pace with this. The City’s approach to planning and providing community

facilities has been largely ad hoc in nature, responding to demands, rather than looking

at the overall needs and priorities.

The current standard and limited size of facilities was also identified as a key issue impacting the growth and viability of sports clubs, in particular the lack of female change rooms to cater for the increasing participation of females in traditional male sports such as AFL, soccer, rugby and cricket. The plan recommends development of an improvement plan for Fremantle Park sports ground in conjunction with a master plan for the overall site encompassing the Fremantle Leisure Centre, lawn bowls, tennis active sporting reserve. The community engagement process highlighted the importance for the City to understand the current usage and demand to improve public facilities at the City’s beaches. South Beach was identified as the priority for development of public facilities followed closely by Port Beach, Bathers Beach and Leighton Beach. The public facilities were to include change rooms, toilets, drinking fountains, walking paths, play spaces and dog facilities as well as other opportunities for physical, recreation and relaxation. The other key factor achieving a more viable and cost effective provision of community

facilities is the rationalisation of facilities that are surplus to current and future needs.

With an oversupply of three lawn bowls facilities and three to four greens, the plan

recommends rationalisation of lawn bowls facilities is essential.

The plan outlines an oversupply of seven tennis courts for the current population and an

oversupply of five tennis courts for the future. On this basis there should be no further

expansion of courts in the City. Tennis West the state sporting association for tennis are

also recommending where possible clubs and LGA’s should be transitioning grass courts

to hard courts to minimise maintenance costs and make the sport more accessible for

the community.

The City is recognised as one of seven strategic metropolitan centres in the Perth

metropolitan area in the State Government’s vision for the future growth of the

metropolitan Perth and Peel region, Directions 2013. There is a demand on the City to

cater for an estimated current regional catchment of 90,000 people and a future regional

catchment of 140,000 people; this involves a radius of six kilometres. The City has a

relatively small ratepayer base of 31,284 in relation to the regional population.


26 July 2017

Page 140

The trend is for convenience sport and physical activity, such as walking, cycling, swimming and fitness programs which are also non-competitive and that can easily be undertaken by all sections of the community. Current trends would indicate that there will be an increasing demand for:

Higher standard and larger scale facilities with more and better amenities and a wider range of opportunities.

Health and fitness facilities and activities that are quick and convenient and that can involve children to seniors.

Learning opportunities and education programs that offer new experiences and develop new skills.

A larger mix of activities and programs with more people inclined to try many different things, rather than sign on for a term, or to a large group.

Activities and facilities that can cater for the whole family and community and are accessible and affordable.

Activities, facilities and programs which are available beyond ‘standard hours’ with increasing ‘shift work’ and deregulation of retail trade hours.

Adventure, lifestyle, extreme and alternative sports. The participation in non-organised activities is almost twice that of organised activities with five most popular physical activities usually undertaken in a casual or informal setting being:

walking

aerobic/fitness

swimming

cycling

running


Any financial implications would need to be considered as part of the asset management strategy along with the ten year financial plan.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

CONSULTATION

As part of the overall planning process in developing the plan, a comprehensive community engagement process was conducted by Community Perspectives in conjunction with the City. The engagement process included three community forums at the following locations:

Hilton Bowling Club focussing on the local needs in the suburbs of Beaconsfield, Hilton, O’Connor and Samson on the 20 March 2017 attended by 15 people, with 283 comments put forward by residents.


26 July 2017

Page 141

North Fremantle Community Centre focussing on the local needs in North Fremantle on the 23 March 2017 attended by 23 people, with 265 comments put forward by residents.

Sullivan Hall focussing on the local needs in the suburbs of Fremantle, White Gum Valley and South Fremantle on the 28 March 2017 attended by 15 people, with 274 comments put forward by residents.

Individual and organisational key stakeholders were interviewed for their input and the City’s online engagement platform My Say Freo provided an opportunity for those unable to attend a forum to provide valuable feedback. The online forum attracted a total of 86 people completing the community survey, with 28% of respondents living in the suburb of Fremantle, 15% in Beaconsfield, 9% in South Fremantle, 7% in North Fremantle and White Gum Valley, 6% in Hilton/O’Connor and 2% in Samson. One in four respondents were outside the City of Fremantle boundaries.

OFFICER COMMENT

The demand for facilities, activities and programs typically provided by sport and recreation facilities and community centres and spaces has changed over time and depends on the needs and interest of the community at that time. The City aims to provide community facilities and spaces that are responsive to community needs. There is a commitment to providing community spaces that allow for social, cultural, recreation and civic activities to take place in a way that is accessible and equitable. The City’s community facilities create opportunities for residents and workers to access services and come together in social, educational, artistic, sporting, religious and recreational activities that enhances the quality of life, creates social capital and encourages community engagement along with voluntary activity. The City provides a range of facilities for community benefit and use, including buildings which support the provision of a diverse range of services, ranging from large halls, tennis facilities, bowls facilities, leisure centre, community centres, sporting grounds and skate parks. The facilities have to respond to increasingly diverse and complex social needs. Buildings built for a single purpose have been found to lack the flexibility to respond to the changing needs or to accommodate more than one type of service or activity at a time. To make best use of limited resources and ensure higher rates of utilisation across the week and at weekends, community facilities need to provide for multiple uses and target groups, and be capable of adapting as needs change over time. It is projected that the population will increase from the current statistics of 31,284 to 42,840 residents; this represents an increase of 11,556 residents or 27% by 2036. This will place growing pressure on existing community facilities and will generate the need to upgrade some facilities and to build new community facilities, which will place increasing pressure on the council’s financial resources and available grant funds.


26 July 2017

Page 142

A project to redevelop the Fremantle Tennis and Fremantle Bowls clubs in conjunction with the Fremantle Workers and Social Club has commenced at Fremantle Park. Whilst this is consistent with the plan for future facilities to be multi use, it is acknowledged that this project has commenced in advance of any master plan for the precinct as outlined in the plan. City officers suggest that the bowls and tennis provision may warrant consideration in the future in regards to reported oversupply. Council’s role is essential in the planning and provision of community facilities, including analysing need, facilitating provision of services, advocacy, maintaining and operating community buildings. The plan aims to position the council’s portfolio of community facilities to better serve the community into the future. This recognises that community facilities make an increasingly essential contribution to the ‘quality of life’ experienced by residents, workers and visitors to the City. One of the benefits of the plan is that it will support future consideration of emerging adventure, lifestyle, extreme and alternative sports to identify potential locations. Community facilities not only play a vital role in addressing the sporting, recreational, physical activity and lifestyle needs and aspirations of residents, but also in promoting community wellbeing and connectivity.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council accepts the Community Facilities Plan Future Directions 2036 as shown in the finance policy operations and legislation committee agenda attachments dated the 12 July 2017.

to obtain a detailed understanding of the current and future facility needs of the City of Fremantle.

to provide input into the City’s Asset Management Strategy and inform the provision of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording as shown below in italics: Council accepts the Community Facilities Plan Future Directions 2036 as shown in the finance policy operations and legislation committee agenda attachments dated the 12 July 2017, as a document for consideration in current and future facility needs of the City of Fremantle subject to:


26 July 2017

Page 143

examination of the detailed financial implications with respect to each of the recommendations in Section 7.6 of the Community Facilities Plan - Future Directions 2036

examination of asset management implications in the development of the City's Asset Management Strategy in respect of each of the recommendations in Section 7.6 of the Community Facilities Plan - Future Directions 2036

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

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

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Councillors requested further information around examination of detailed financial implications and asset management implications. ALTERNATE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

To defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council Officers have reviewed the document further following FPOL and seek more time to amend the plan prior to repressing at an appropriate meeting in the future.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council accepts the Community Facilities Plan Future Directions 2036 as shown in the finance policy operations and legislation committee agenda attachments dated the 12 July 2017, as a document for consideration in current and future facility needs of the City of Fremantle subject to:

examination of the detailed financial implications with respect to each of the recommendations in Section 7.6 of the Community Facilities Plan - Future Directions 2036

examination of asset management implications in the development of the City's Asset Management Strategy in respect of each of the recommendations in Section 7.6 of the Community Facilities Plan - Future Directions 2036


26 July 2017

Page 144


26 July 2017

Page 145

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 146

At 7.18 pm Cr S Naber declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1707-2 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

FPOL1707-2 NEW LEASE - SIMON NABER T/A MOORE & MOORE FOOD & DRINK

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Decision Making Authority: Committee Agenda Attachments: Lease Terms Sheet

SUMMARY

The Moore & Moore café lease and associated licence are due to expire on 19 February 2018. The lease is for exclusive use of the kitchen, and the licence is for non-exclusive use of the courtyard, toilets, alleyway and front room at the Moore’s gallery. The license agreement is in place to ensure that public access to the gallery, rear studios, toilets and artist’s residence are maintained. The tenant has requested a new lease and licence for a term of fifteen years (three five-year terms) at market current rate on the basis that they wish to continue operating the café and intend to invest funds to improve the appeal of the café to customers. The City’s policy ‘Leasing of City Property in a competitive manner (SG62)’ outlines a process for leasing City property in a competitive manner as the default course of action when a lease approaches the end of its term (between 6-12 months prior to expiry of lease). However, the policy also allows council to make exceptions to the default process, if it considers it appropriate. Officers recommend that the Moore & Moore café qualifies as an exception to the ‘competitive process’ default, due to its unique nature and the significant value it offers Fremantle’s overall tenancy mix and the activation of the west end. However, officers recommend that council offer the tenant a lease and associated license term of ten years, not fifteen as requested by the tenant. The recommended ten year lease term is considered long enough for the tenant to recoup the level of proposed investment by an already established business. Also, it is considered to be a more appropriate duration of lease for an existing tenant (i.e. without significant establishment costs). This report recommends that the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee acting under delegation 1.1:

1. Determines that Moore and Moore café qualifies for an exception under clauses 1.a (i) and 1.a (ii) of the policy Leasing of City Property in a competitive manner (SG62) and supports the granting of a new lease for 46 Henry Street, Fremantle.

http://cofsp01/sites/cdms/PublishedLibrary/Leasing%20of%20City%20Property%20in%20a%20competitive%20manner-C-000574.pdf




26 July 2017

Page 147

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to execute documents in order to finalise the lease and licence between the City and Simon Naber for portion of the Moore’s Gallery, 46 Henry Street, Fremantle in accordance with the Terms Sheet attached to this Item.

BACKGROUND

City officers were approached by Mr Simon Naber and Mr David Osborne in mid-2007 with a concept to open a café in the Moore’s Gallery. City officers were supportive of the idea in a bid to enhance the gallery and activate the west end. The City entered into a lease for the exclusive use of the kitchen and a non-exclusive licence for the courtyard, toilets, alleyway and front room at the Moore’s Gallery, 46 Henry Street, Fremantle, with Simon Naber and David Osborne, for a term of five years commencing 20 February 2008 expiring 19 February 2013. Mr Osborne assigned the lease and licence to Mr Naber 22 February 2009. The City entered into a second five year lease and licence with Mr Naber effective from 20 February 2013 expiring 19 February 2018. The lease area was extended at this time to include two store rooms at the rear of the Moore’s building. Mr Naber has maintained the financial obligations under the lease and licence with no rent arrears or overdue council rates during the ten year period he has been a tenant. There have been some historical issues relating to noise complaints when events, managed by Moore & Moore Café, were conducted at the Gallery. However, through the tenant conducting acoustic reports, making changes to event management and upgrading stakeholder engagement the City has not received any formal complaints since November 2012.


Current rent is $32,090 per annum + GST. As per the Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, a market valuation no older than six months will be required to determine the commencing rent of a new lease. Should committee approve the new lease, officers will commission an independent market valuation prior to the lease commencement date of 20 February 2018.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The Lease must comply with the requirements of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Commercial (Retail) Tenancy Act 1985.

CONSULTATION

Should Council approve the lease, details of the agreement will be advertised in a state newspaper in line with the Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 giving the members of the community 14 days to submit any reasonable objections in the writing to


26 July 2017

Page 148

the City. This is because the City will be entering into a new lease and not an extension of an existing lease.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City’s policy, Leasing of City Property in a competitive manner (SG62), states that, when the City is disposing of land by sale or lease, the City will undertake an open and competitive process. The policy provides for council to determine exceptions to this position if it chooses. These exceptions are stated in the policy as being (see underlined): 1. Investment property:

1. Approaching the conclusion of lease terms (between 6-12 months prior to expiry of lease), interested parties will be given an opportunity to compete in an open and competitive manner to lease investment properties, except for the following circumstances:

a) A property is leased to a tenant that: i. is paying full commercial market rate or above, and ii. adds significant value to Fremantle’s overall tenancy mix and

appeal for visitors (e.g. Gino’s). Or b) A property is to be leased for six months or less. Or c) A property is not logistically accessible to any other party except for the

current lease holder (e.g. Esplanade Hotel’s use of Essex Street Laneway).

This report recommends that committee assess that the circumstances for this property qualify as an exception under clause 1.a (i) and (ii) of the policy. There were no commercial operations within the Moore’s Gallery prior to the commencement of the Moore & Moore Café and the business has been complementary to the gallery by activating the building through café operations and events. For this reason officers assess that the tenant adds significant value to Fremantle’s overall tenancy mix. If committee do not agree with the officer’s assessment that the circumstances qualify as an exception under the policy, officers will undertake an open and competitive process to determine the most suitable future use of the property. Duration of lease The tenant has requested a fifteen year lease and license. The tenant’s rationale for the requested duration of the lease is to allow him a greater duration of time to recover a return on the capital investment (kitchen refurbishment). The tenant reports that some minor upgrades have been made to the kitchen by the tenant over the past ten years, but as it was not originally built or designed for commercial purposes, a complete redevelopment would increase productiveness and usability. The City’s policy, Leasing of City Property in a competitive manner (SG62), does not provide any guiding principles for the duration of a lease extension (where a tenant qualifies as an exception) as each leasing arrangement is unique. Officers consider that a ten year total term is a long enough term for an established tenant to recoup the proposed financial investment.




26 July 2017

Page 149

Previously officers have recommended that five years be an appropriate duration for a lease extension (or new lease for the same tenant). That recommendation has been made when the existing tenant is simply continuing business-as-usual and does not intend to make a significant capital investment in the business. Officers are supportive of the ten year term due to the tenant’s proposed financial investment into the kitchen. As the capital investment by the tenant is the rationale for officers recommending a ten year lease term (in total), the lease includes a clause whereby the second five-year term is conditional on completion of the kitchen redevelopment within the first five years of the lease. New lease compared with lease extension The City could add an extension to the current lease (as opposed to a new lease), however a new lease is an opportunity to review standard lease clauses to ensure that they are up-to-date with any changes in state legislation or the City’s leasing policies. Future sale of café and assignment of lease Given that the café is located within a City facility, and the café operations are often run in conjunction with City art gallery programs, the new lease and licence will include a clause that requires City approval before the lease can be assigned to another party. This enables the City to ensure that any future assignee of the lease (and therefore future operator of the café) is of suitable standing and experience. The tenant has advised officers that he has no interest in selling the business and has accepted the inclusion of the clause. Development application The tenant will be required to submit a development application (DA) for the proposed kitchen redevelopment. The Moore’s Building is a state registered heritage building so the State Heritage Office will be required to approve the DA. Building permits and health approvals will also apply. No major change to current lease conditions The lease terms sheet attached to this item are reflective of the existing terms and conditions of the café’s lease and licence with the additional clause are bolded for easy reference.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan The Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee acting under delegation 1.1:


26 July 2017

Page 150


2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute documents in order to finalise the lease and licence between the City and Simon Naber for portion of the Moore’s Gallery, 46 Henry Street, Fremantle in accordance with the Terms Sheet attached to this Item.

COMMITTEE DECISION

Cr A Sullivan MOVED to refer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to ensure transparency. CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council:


2. Makes the following change to special condition 5 of the terms sheet shown as an attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee agenda of 12 July 2017:

“The Lessee will grant the Lessor access to kitchen facilities dish

wash room and preparation space in the Premises for functions

conducted within the Centre. Such access is to be outside of the core

hours of the Lessee’s business operations and to be for the purpose

of food preparation for exhibition openings and other functions

conducted at the Centre. Both parties acknowledge the need for

cooperation between parties in regard to terms of such access and

use. Nevertheless, the Lessee acknowledges and agree that this

access and use of the kitchen facilities dish wash room and

preparation space by the Lessor is a fundamental condition of the

grant of the Lease.




26 July 2017

Page 151

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute documents in order to finalise the lease and licence between the City and Simon Naber for portion of the Moore’s Gallery, 46 Henry Street, Fremantle in accordance with the Terms Sheet attached to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee agenda of 12 July 2017.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION /COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:


2. Makes the following change to special condition 5 of the terms sheet shown as an attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee agenda of 12 July 2017:

“The Lessee will grant the Lessor access to kitchen facilities dish

wash room and preparation space in the Premises for functions

conducted within the Centre. Such access is to be outside of the core

hours of the Lessee’s business operations and to be for the purpose

of food preparation for exhibition openings and other functions

conducted at the Centre. Both parties acknowledge the need for

cooperation between parties in regard to terms of such access and

use. Nevertheless, the Lessee acknowledges and agree that this

access and use of the kitchen facilities dish wash room and

preparation space by the Lessor is a fundamental condition of the

grant of the Lease.

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute documents in order to

finalise the lease and licence between the City and Simon Naber for portion of the Moore’s Gallery, 46 Henry Street, Fremantle in accordance with the Terms Sheet attached to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee agenda of 12 July 2017.


26 July 2017

Page 152


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


26 July 2017

Page 153

Cr S Naber returned to the meeting at 7.22 pm.

FPOL1707-3 CHANGES TO LEASE AT 123 BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Proposed lease area Proposal – Canford Hospitality Consultants on behalf

Albarossa Pty Ltd Letter of Support – Guy Bailey, Director Spanky’s

SUMMARY

Albarossa Pty Ltd trading as ‘the Kiosk’ has a lease with the City of Fremantle for 123 Beach Street, Fremantle that expires 16 March 2028. Albarossa has requested that council consider the following changes to the lease:

1. change of the lease permitted use from ‘café’ to ‘tavern’ 2. a variation of the current lease area by approximately 178 square metres

(sqm) from 240 sqm to 418 sqm (subject to surveying) 3. extension of the current lease term from 2028 to 2038.

The permitted use change from ‘café’ to ‘tavern’ will allow the lessee to apply for a change in liquor licence from ‘restaurant’ to ‘restricted tavern’. This will enable the lessee to expand their business, extend trading hours and accommodate small groups and functions that are currently restricted by the table service requirement of the restaurant liquor licence. Take-away packaged liquor will not be offered. However, it is not within the City’s power to grant the first request due to the nature of the management order. The property is located on a Crown Land Reserve 4720 vested to the City by a management order with the permitted use of ‘Parks and Recreation’. The City is entitled to lease or licence any portion of the reserve for a term not exceeding 21 years subject to the approval of the Department of Lands (DoL). However, DoL will not approve the change in permitted use to ‘tavern’ as it is not within the permitted use of the reserve management order. DoL will allow approval if the leased land is excised from the reserve and leased directly to the City – if this were to happen, the City could then sub-lease to Albarossa with the permitted use of ‘tavern’. If that were to happen, any fee that the City is required to pay to DoL would be passed on to the tenant. This report recommends that council, in regards to property at 123 Beach Street, Fremantle (Portion of Lot 1941 on Plan 123981 Volume LR30307 Folio 561), request that officers apply to the Department of Lands to excise the portion of Reserve 4720 shown in the agenda attachments to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017, approximately 418 sqm in size.


26 July 2017

Page 154

It also recommends that council request that officers negotiate with DoL on the terms of the City’s lease for the portion of land excised, and with Albarossa on the terms of their sub-lease with the City. Should the excision be provisionally granted, officers will prepare a further report for council to consider the lease and sub-lease terms.

BACKGROUND

Property particulars

Land title Crown land - Reserve 4720

Conditions Management order: ‘Parks and Recreation’

Land size 240 sqm

Permitted use Café

Tenant history Albarossa, trading as the Kiosk, has maintained a good payment history since becoming a City tenant in 2013, with no arrears ever exceeding 30 days for lease charges or Council Rates. According to environmental health reports, the Kiosk has had some minor cleaning and maintenance issues in the last year of inspections and the lessee has neglected to follow up on complaints about patrons allowing dogs in the enclosed dining area at the front of the Kiosk. If a restricted tavern licence is granted at a future date, the lessee will need to improve overall management of the current restaurant to demonstrate they can manage a larger venue. Albarossa operates two other licensed properties, the Bassendean Hotel and the Floreat Beach Kiosk. The Town of Cambridge, lessor of the Floreat Beach Kiosk have advised City officers that Albarossa has maintained a good tenancy in all aspects over the last nine years of operation at the Kiosk. Minister for Lands The lease permitted use is ‘café’ which the Department of Lands (DoL) interpret as complementary to the reserve’s permitted use ‘Parks and Recreation’. The change of lease permitted use to ‘tavern’ is interpreted by DoL as a commercial operation outside of the reserve management order and will not be approved by the Minister for Lands. However, DoL’s policy for the leasing of reserves by Local Government is that, if a portion of the reserve is used for commercial operations outside of the permitted use of the management order, that section of land is excised from the reserve and leased directly to the City by the State of WA (under section 79 of the Land Administration Act). This is typically done at a portion of market rate - generally 25% of the market rate determined by a Landgate market valuation. All costs associated with excising the land, including but not limited to Landgate registration and survey preparation will be at the cost of the City. In turn, all costs will be recovered from Albarossa. As the City would be incurring an annual rental cost from DoL of 25% market rate, Albarossa would be required to reimburse the City for this cost in addition to the normal annual market rental amount that it pays the City.


26 July 2017

Page 155


The current rent for 123 Beach Street, Fremantle is $13 177 + GST with the rent subject to annual reviews based on Consumer Price Index and market valuations in 2018 and 2023. If the City proceeds with excising the land, the City will be charged a rent of 25% market rate as determined by a Landgate valuation. It is proposed that any rent charged to the City from DoL be recovered from Albarossa as part of the sub lease conditions. The sub lease rent will be based on an independent market valuation for an area of approximately 418 sqm (subject to site survey). Under the Local Government Act 1995 the valuation adopted can be no older than six months so has not yet been commissioned. All costs associated with the leasing and management order process, including but not limited, legal, survey fees, stamp duty, document preparation, lodgement and legal fees, will be the financial responsibility of Albarossa.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

If the recommendations of this report are approved, the process will be as follows:

1. The City will be required to follow the Department of Lands process to excise the leased area from the reserve. Before the excision is formalised:

2. The City will then enter into a lease directly with the Department of Lands for the excised area with the permitted use of ‘tavern’ and at the same time,

3. The City will finalise a sub-lease with the Albarossa (subject to council support of a future development application).

The timing of all activities will need to coincide. If the recommendations of this report are approved, a report will be brought to council to consider the terms of the City’s lease with the Minister for Lands, and the sub-lease with Albarossa. The lease and sub lease will comply with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Commercial (Retail) Tenancy Act 1985.

CONSULTATION

Should Council approve the sub lease, details of the updated agreement will be advertised in a state newspaper in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995. This will provide members of the community with 14 days to submit any objections in the writing to the City. Guy Bailey, Director of Spanky’s and Perth Water Transport (T/A Rottnest Express) holds the lease at 124 Beach Street (East Street Jetty). Mr Bailey has provided a letter of support of Albarossa’s application for a restricted tavern licence which is attached to this item.


26 July 2017

Page 156

Community consultation regarding development and liquor licensing will occur separately once these applications are submitted with the relevant authorities.

OFFICER COMMENT

Lease The application from Albarossa is outside of the City’s property management policies as the current lease with Albarossa does not expire until 2028. However, as the lessee’s request aims to add visitors to the area by further activation and redevelopment of the premises, Officers consider the application worth pursuing, particularly as it will not result to an extension to the duration of the current lease. Albarossa has commissioned the services of Canford Hospitality Consultants to develop its proposal. A copy of their proposal has been included as an attachment. Currently the Kiosk operates between 7.00 am and 3.00 pm on weekdays and 7.00 am and 4.30 pm on weekends serving breakfast and lunch. A change of the liquor licence from restaurant to restricted tavern will allow an expansion of the Kiosk’s operating hours with the option to cater for small groups and functions providing a tapas style dinner menu. The restricted tavern licence permits the sale of alcohol for consumption without the requirement it be served with food and without the requirement for the patron to be seated. Special conditions have been included in the terms sheet to reasonably restrict the approval of a tavern licence in line with the lessee’s proposal. The lessee is proposing a development of approximately $500 000 in value and in support of that financial investment is requesting a sub-lease of twenty one years in total (to 2038). The current lease term, including options, is due to expire 16 March 2028. As the lessee will be surrendering the current lease agreement, Officers recommend that a total sub lease term of the current duration to 2028 is a sufficient term for the lessee to recoup the their investment into an existing established business. Therefore, officers are not supportive of the twenty one year lease term that has been requested. Parks and wildlife considerations The concept presents a good opportunity to activate the park. Officers will make detailed comments when Albarossa submit its development application. Attention will be made to how the development will integrate the alfresco into the surrounds. The development application will be determined by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (former Swan River Trust) as the site is located within the Development Control Area of the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act. Officers consider that approval will be subject to whether it is determined as a consistent land use with the parks and recreation vesting of the reserve. Council will have the opportunity to make comment on the development application prior to its submission to the Department of Parks and Wildlife. If council do not support the development application, officers will withdraw from lease negotiations. Precinct


26 July 2017

Page 157

While Perth Water Transport/Spanky’s (PWT) are finalising their plans for the East Street Jetty this area remains vacant and under activated. PWT have approval for a lease directly with the Minister for Lands to allow for the development of a small bar and restaurant and plan to reinstate the jetty for use by Rottnest Express. It is expected that the lease will be completed within the next six months allowing for the development application to proceed. Once activated, PWT’s development and the Kiosk would be complementary to each other. Car park 18 is in the vicinity of this site and has ninety-nine bays available. The City collects approximately $42 000 in revenue from this car park annually.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Support in principle, the intention of Albarossa Pty Ltd to apply for a change from a ‘restaurant’ liquor licence to ‘restricted tavern’ liquor licence at 123 Beach Street, Fremantle, as long as it does not include the sale of take-away packaged liquor.

2. In regards to property 123 Beach Street, Fremantle (Portion of Lot 1941 on Plan

123981 Volume LR30307 Folio 561), request that officers apply to the Department of Lands to excise the portion of Reserve 4720 shown in the agenda attachments to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017.

3. Request that officers negotiate with Department of Lands on the terms of the

City’s lease for the excised portion of land.

4. Request that officers negotiate with Albarossa Pty Ltd on the terms of their sub-lease with the City for the excised portion of land.

5. Request that officers present at the next appropriate council meeting, the

proposed lease terms with Department of Lands and the proposed sub-lease terms with Albarossa Pty Ltd.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording as shown below in italics: Council:

1. Support the concept put forward for the lease area by Albarossa Pty Ltd in the agenda report to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017.


26 July 2017

Page 158

2. Support the intention of Albarossa Pty Ltd to apply for a change from a ‘restaurant’ liquor licence to ‘restricted tavern’ liquor licence at 123 Beach Street, Fremantle, as long as it does not include the sale of take-away packaged liquor, and includes a requirement for the venue to operate as a ‘best practice’ venue where alcohol is served as an accompaniment to food/entertainment.

3. In regards to property 123 Beach Street, Fremantle (Portion of Lot 1941 on Plan

123981 Volume LR30307 Folio 561), request that officers apply to the Department of Lands to excise the portion of Reserve 4720 shown in the agenda attachments to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017.

4. Request that officers negotiate with Department of Lands on the terms of the

City’s lease for the excised portion of land.

5. Request that officers negotiate with Albarossa Pty Ltd on the terms of their sub-lease with the City for the excised portion of land.

6. Request that officers present at the next appropriate council meeting, the

proposed lease terms with Department of Lands and the proposed sub-lease terms with Albarossa Pty Ltd.

CARRIED: 7/0 REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

To clarify that the Council support the concept that has been put forward in the report.

The committee felt that it was also necessary to include that a requirement for the venue to operate as a ‘best practice’ venue where alcohol is served as an accompaniment to food/entertainment.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council: 1. Support in-principle the concept put forward for the lease area by Albarossa Pty Ltd in the agenda attachment to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017. 2. Support the intention of Albarossa Pty Ltd to apply for a development application and for a change from a ‘restaurant’ liquor licence to ‘restricted tavern’ liquor licence at 123 Beach Street, Fremantle, as long as it:

i. does not include the sale of take-away packaged liquor ii. includes a requirement for the venue to operate as a ‘best practice’

venue where alcohol is served as an accompaniment to food/entertainment.

3. Seek in-principle support from the Department of Lands to excise the portion of Reserve 4720 shown in the agenda attachment to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017.


26 July 2017

Page 159

4. Invite Albarossa Pty Ltd to submit a development application for 123 Beach Street. 5. Subject to support of a future development application by Council, and in accordance with the City policy Leasing of City Property in a competitive manner (SG62), will give consideration to negotiating new lease terms with Albarossa Pty Ltd.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Support in-principle the concept put forward for the lease area by Albarossa Pty Ltd in the agenda attachment to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017. 2. Support the intention of Albarossa Pty Ltd to apply for a development application and for a change from a ‘restaurant’ liquor licence to ‘restricted tavern’ liquor licence at 123 Beach Street, Fremantle, as long as it:

i. does not include the sale of take-away packaged liquor ii. includes a requirement for the venue to operate as a ‘best practice’

venue where alcohol is served as an accompaniment to food/entertainment.

3. Seek in-principle support from the Department of Lands to excise the portion of Reserve 4720 shown in the agenda attachment to the Finance, Policy, Legislation and Operations Committee dated 12 July 2017. 4. Invite Albarossa Pty Ltd to submit a development application for 123 Beach Street. 5. Subject to support of a future development application by Council, and in accordance with the City policy Leasing of City Property in a competitive manner (SG62), will give consideration to negotiating new lease terms with Albarossa Pty Ltd. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber


26 July 2017

Page 160

Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


26 July 2017

Page 161

FPOL1707-8 NEW CONDITIONS FOR RESIDENTS FREE PARKING PERMIT EFFECTIVE 1 DECEMBER 2017

Meeting Date: 12 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development & Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: On-street and off-street average occupancy

Fremantle CBD car park locations Summary of council resolutions Summary of permit conditions Communication plan residents free parking permit Residents Free Parking Permit Conditions of use

SUMMARY

The City provides residents with a free parking permit that allows them to park without charge in Fremantle’s city centre, in certain locations and at certain times. Currently there are 6 761 permits issued by the City, which is approximately one permit for every second household. Officers have reviewed the current permit conditions and consider them to be overly complicated and difficult to communicate to residents (see attachment). This report recommends adjusting the permits for the purpose of:

simplifying them so that they are easier to understand

providing a greater number of hours of free parking for residents

aligning more closely with the City’s Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS). This report recommends that council approve the new conditions for the residents’ free parking permits, to take effect from 1 December 2017.

BACKGROUND

The resident and ratepayers free parking permits (permits) were introduced in 1999. The permits were originally introduced as a means of encouraging residents to conduct business in the city centre at times when business activity was low: 9.00-11.00 am, 7 days per week. They were also introduced as an interim measure until access to the city centre by non-car modes was improved. Since 1999, council resolved to continue the permits on a permanent basis and has amended the permit conditions on numerous occasions (see attachments). Permits now allow access to free parking for all standard on-street car bays with the following conditions:

mornings, between 9.00-11.00 am, time restrictions of the parking bays apply, Monday-Friday only

afternoons, between 3.00-5.00 pm, time restrictions of the parking bays apply, Monday-Friday only

evenings, between 5.00 pm-1.00 am, time restrictions of the parking bays do not apply, Monday-Sunday


26 July 2017

Page 162

off-street parking between 8.00 am-5.00 pm in car park 12B (Beach Street) only, Saturday-Sunday.

In addition to the resolutions outlined in attachment, council adopted the ITS in 2015, setting out Fremantle’s transition toward a connected city as outlined in Directions 2031. The ITS says that ‘while allowing that some car use is necessary, the strategy aims to support a shift in passenger transport behaviour from car use to more efficient, sustainable transport modes’. The strategy also outlines using price and time controls to influence behaviour, encouraging people seeking long stay parking to utilises off-street parking spaces, enabling on street parking to serve a short term function. No specific reference of the residents’ free parking permit is made. Residents are also eligible for paid parking permits to assist them parking near their place of residence, issued under the City’s Parking Local Law 2006. Those permits sit outside the scope of this report. The recommendations of this report does not impact the local law or any council policy.


Because the permits are paper-based and their use not recorded by City Integrated Patrol Officers (IPOs), the City has no accurate record of the actual use of the permits, meaning any past or future financial implications are difficult to measure. However, it is reasonable to assume that greater use of the residents’ free parking permit will result in reduced parking income for the City, as fewer bays are available for paid parking by visitors from outside Fremantle.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommendations of this report do not impact a local law.

CONSULTATION

The permit was discussed at the Informal Elected Members meeting on 6 June 2017 with a follow up meeting involving some elected members on 15 June 2017.

OFFICER COMMENT

Access to the city centre by other transport modes has been improved since 1999 with the introduction of the Fremantle CAT service, the high frequency Circle Route (Route 998 and 999) and Rockingham (Route 549) bus services, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and various TravelSmart initiatives. The current configuration of the residents’ free parking permit is convoluted, with a confusing mix of restrictions and conditions, making it difficult to communicate to residents, negatively affecting take up and use.


26 July 2017

Page 163

The permit was initially introduced as a temporary measure to support business; however, Fremantle is still in a period of transition and the retail industry Australia wide is experiencing difficult economic times. The continuation of the permit therefore, should be regarded as justified until Fremantle experiences more positive economic times. In developing options to improve the current system, the following principles were considered:

encourage off-street parking in preference to on-street (in line with the City’s ITS)

no loss of current entitlements from residents

support local businesses and organisations

demand management (doesn’t contribute to excess demand during peak periods)

permit conditions are clear and simple, therefore easy to communicate to residents

minimise unnecessary car trips. Using these principles as a guide, the following variables were analysed and discussed with elected members:

valid days of the week

off-street vs on-street

valid times of the day. The variables considered are detailed below: Valid days of the week The current permit has separate conditions for weekdays and weekends. To simplify the permit structure it is recommended to have the same conditions for the days that the permit is valid for. Although occupancy of city centre off-street car parks is much higher on weekends (see attachment), by not including peak periods of 11.00 am-3.00 pm, the recommended changes are not expected to have a major negative effect on parking availability during weekends. Feedback from businesses as well as visitation statistics suggests Monday-Thursday as the most important days of the week to attract more people to the city centre to support local businesses and organisations (see attachment). Off-street vs on-street To better align with the City’s ITS, a change from on-street bays to off-street bays is recommended. This is expected to improve length of stay by removing parker anxiety around time restrictions. Changing the permit conditions to off-street bays means there is no need to enforce time restrictions, except in the small number of occasions where car parks have a maximum stay sign-posted. These are:

car park 13 Fremantle Malls – 3 hour limit

car park 13a Henderson Street – 1 hour limit

car park 29 Fremantle Prison – 4 hour limit

car park 31 Fishing Boat Harbour – 3 hour limit It is recommended that permit holders must adhere to the time restrictions in these four car parks (above).


26 July 2017

Page 164

It is recommended that the permit applies to off-street parking only. To include a mix of on-street and off-street would be contradictory to the ITS, further exacerbate the current confusing mix of conditions, and have the most negative impact on the City’s parking revenue. A small number of City managed car parks are leased from private owners on a revenue share agreement, which is likely to be impacted by allowing residents to park for free using the permit. The impact on the revenue of these car parks is unknown. The agreements for the following car parks may need to be renegotiated:

car park 10 Fremantle Oval, 65 bays – leased from Fremantle Football Club on a percentage of revenue agreement

car park 29 Fremantle Prison, 98 bays - leased from State Heritage Office on a percentage of revenue agreement

car park 31 Fishing Boat Harbour, 461 bays - leased from Department of Transport on a percentage of revenue agreement

car park 43 Essex St, 13 bays – leased from the owners of 14-16 Norfolk Street and 3-13 Essex Street, Fremantle Strata Plan 21705 on a percentage of revenue agreement

car park 56 Norfolk St, 20 bays - leased from the owners on a percentage of revenue agreement

car park 41 Arthur Head, 47 bays – leased from Department of Transport for use by authorised vehicles only.

These car parks total 704 car bays, leaving 1 395 off-street car bays eligible to be used under the permit. Approximately 500 additional off-street car bays will be made available when the City takes over management of the Point Street car park and completes construction of the proposed car park on the current Stan Reilly site, taking total eligible bays to approximately 2 000. To ensure the permit conditions are as simple as possible, the preferred option is for all off-street car parks, including those under revenue share leases, to be eligible under the permit. It is recommended that council authorise the CEO to negotiate the lease agreements with the above parties to ensure the permit is as favourable as possible to residents without negatively impacting the 2017/18 budget. These negotiations may not be necessary if the revenue partners for the car parks above do not raise concerns regarding the proposed changes. Valid times of the day There is a need to have a break in the hours the permit can be used for during the day to:

avoid it being used for commuter parking (e.g. a Fremantle resident parks there all day and commutes by public transport to Perth city for work)

avoid offering unlimited free parking for residents

avoid creating excess demand during peak periods (11.00 am-3.00 pm).


26 July 2017

Page 165

With this in mind it is recommended that the permit is valid for the hours 3.00 pm-10.00 am. This is in-line with the original intent of the permit, by offering free parking for two hours in the morning. As charges for off-street bays begin at 8.00 am, it is recommended that the free two hour period is 8.00-10.00 am. (This differs from on-street parking, where charges begin at 9.00 am). Parking services tender imminent Officers are preparing to change the way the City delivers parking services with the goal of improving service delivery. Officers intend to release a new parking services tender in the first half of the 2017/18 financial year that will address both resident and visitor parking service delivery, with a greater focus on digital use. For this reason, officers have not reviewed the following aspects of parking service delivery for this permit, at this point in time:

applicant eligibility

type of permit (e.g. sticker, paperless)

term of permit

issuing process

renewal process

fees. The above issues will be reviewed as part of the tender process and are expected to take effect from December 2018. Communication plan To communicate the new permit conditions to residents, a communications plan was drafted and is included as an attachment. Implementation Permit holders who breach the new conditions of the permit (e.g. by parking on-street), will be issued a kindly worded notice (i.e. not a standard infringement notice) by IPOs reminding them the permit has new conditions, and referring them to their physical permit or the City’s website for details of the new conditions. Continual breaches of new conditions after the initial reminder notice will see permit holders infringed as per normal procedure. Residents who breach the unchanged standard conditions of the permit (e.g. by parking in an ACROD bay) will be infringed as per normal procedure.




26 July 2017

Page 166

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Cr A Sullivan MOVED the following alternative officer's recommendation Council:

1. Effective from 1 December 2017, replace item 2 of the ‘Conditions of use for residents’ free parking permit’, shown in the attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee dated 12 July 2017, with the following:

Item 2. ‘This permit exempts the holder from the payment of parking fees for City of Fremantle managed car parks during the following times only (including public holidays):

Monday-Sunday

valid between the hours of 12.01am to 10am and 3pm to 12am

valid only for City of Fremantle managed off-street car parks

permit holders must at all times abide by the sign-posted maximum stay applicable for individual car parks.’

2. Council request the Chief Executive Officer review all aspects of the

residents’ free parking permit when sufficient data has been collected after the permit is integrated into the new digitised parking services platform and report back to council on the effect of these changes with recommendation on any adjustments for consideration.

The following alternative recommendation was moved by Cr D Thompson but was not put to the vote and therefore was not carried.

1. The current conditions of use for resident's free parking permits" remain as is for the time being with the addition of Saturday and Sunday being considered as a minimum adjustment.

2. The proposed changes to “conditions of use for residents free parking permit”

considered in this report be referred to the next appropriate Audit and Risk Management Committee for consideration of the following;

a) Analysis of the impact on revenue for the City. b) Analysis of the impact against the risk management framework.

3. The Audit and Risk Management Committee refer the report back to the Finance,

Policy and Operations Legislation Committee for consideration of this analysis.


26 July 2017

Page 167


Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to refer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow the officers to provide an alternate recommendation based on the feedback from the Committee. CARRIED: 7/0 ALTERNATE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council: 1. Effective from 1 September 2017, replace item 2 of the ‘Conditions of use for residents’ free parking permit’, shown in the attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee dated 12 July 2017, with the following: Item 2. ‘This permit exempts the holder from paying parking fees for all standard on-street (curb side) car parking bays during the following times only (including public holidays):

Monday-Sunday (7 days per week)

Valid between the hours of 9.00am – 11.00am and between the hours of 3.00pm–5.00pm. Permit holders must abide by the posted time limits (e.g. 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours).

Valid between the hours of 5.01pm – 1.00am. Permit holders are exempt from the posted time limits during this period.’

2. Request that the Chief Executive Officer review the use of the residents free parking permit system and report to Council before consideration of the 2020/21 financial year budget. Advice note Data collection: Irrespective of the decision by council, officers will begin collecting data on the use of the residents’ free parking permit from this month. This should aid future evaluation of the use of the permits. On-street occupancy: The current on-street occupancy on Saturdays evenings is relatively high. If council were to extend the use of the residents free parking to weekends (on-street only), it is expected to place additional pressure on the availability of street parking to the point that it will be very close to capacity. However, based on the on-street usage patterns for Fridays after 3pm, it is expected that the change can be accommodated within the current supply of on-street bays, assuming there is not an increase in non-resident visitors to Fremantle at those times (after 3pm on Saturdays and Sundays). In the long-term, placing additional stress on Fremantle’s on-street parking capacity is undesirable. The outcome may be counter-productive in attracting visitors to Fremantle


26 July 2017

Page 168

as it may negatively affect the overall customer experience, if visitors grow frustrated at not finding suitable on-street parking. This may reinforce the perception that Fremantle has limited parking capacity at peak times (Fridays-Sundays). Communication plan: the alternate recommendation will be relatively east to communicate to residents compared with the original officers’ recommendation. This is because the conditions remain largely unchanged. The communication plan is an attachment to the 12 July FPOL agenda. ALTERNATE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION At Council Cr A Sullivan MOVED the following alternative officer's recommendation Council: 1. Effective from 1 September 2017, replace item 2 of the ‘Conditions of use for residents’ free parking permit’, shown in the attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee dated 12 July 2017, with the following: Item 2. ‘This permit exempts the holder from paying parking fees for all standard on-street (curb side) car parking bays during the following times only (including public holidays):




2. Request that the Chief Executive Officer review the use of the residents free parking permit system and report to Council before consideration of the 2020/21 financial year budget. Advice note Data collection: Irrespective of the decision by council, officers will begin collecting data on the use of the residents’ free parking permit from this month. This should aid future evaluation of the use of the permits. On-street occupancy: The current on-street occupancy on Saturdays evenings is relatively high. If council were to extend the use of the residents free parking to weekends (on-street only), it is expected to place additional pressure on the availability of street parking to the point that it will be very close to capacity. However, based on the on-street usage patterns for Fridays after 3pm, it is expected that the change can be accommodated within the current supply of on-street bays, assuming there is not an


26 July 2017

Page 169

increase in non-resident visitors to Fremantle at those times (after 3pm on Saturdays and Sundays). In the long-term, placing additional stress on Fremantle’s on-street parking capacity is undesirable. The outcome may be counter-productive in attracting visitors to Fremantle as it may negatively affect the overall customer experience, if visitors grow frustrated at not finding suitable on-street parking. This may reinforce the perception that Fremantle has limited parking capacity at peak times (Fridays-Sundays). Communication plan: the alternate recommendation will be relatively east to communicate to residents compared with the original officers’ recommendation. This is because the conditions remain largely unchanged. The communication plan is an attachment to the 12 July FPOL agenda. At Council Cr B Jones MOVED an amendment to Part 2 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording (shown in italics): 2. Request that the Chief Executive Officer and Audit Committee review the use of the residents free parking permit system to include off street options and report to Council before consideration of the 2018/19 financial year budget. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to Part 1 of the Alternate Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording (shown in italics): 1. Effective from 1 August 2017, replace item 2 of the ‘Conditions of use for residents’ free parking permit’, shown in the attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee dated 12 July 2017, with the following: Item 2. ‘This permit exempts the holder from paying parking fees for all standard on-street (curb side) car parking bays during the following times only (including public holidays):


26 July 2017

Page 170




SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 10/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. Effective from 1 August 2017, replace item 2 of the ‘Conditions of use for residents’ free parking permit’, shown in the attachment to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee dated 12 July 2017, with the following: Item 2. ‘This permit exempts the holder from paying parking fees for all standard on-street (curb side) car parking bays during the following times only (including public holidays):




2. Request that the Chief Executive Officer and Audit Committee review the use of the residents free parking permit system to include off street options and report to Council before consideration of the 2018/19 financial year budget. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright


26 July 2017

Page 171

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 172

FPOL1707-10 PRINCIPLES FOR THE VERGE POLICY

Meeting Date: 12 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Parks and Landscapes Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The street verge is part of the road reserve and is under the management of the City. The City actively encourages residents to develop and maintain verge gardens to contribute to the visual appeal and function of the streetscape. This report proposes principles to guide the development, management and maintenance of the City’s verges. The principles cover:

Verge garden development

Verge preparation and mulch delivery

Subsidised plants

Mulch collection The City will develop a Verge Policy based on the key principles adopted by Council in this report. The Policy will be presented back to Council for consideration. This report recommends Council adopt the principles for the verge policy:

1. Verge garden materials list.

2. Verge garden maintenance guidelines.

3. Verge preparation and mulch delivery scheme. Requests will be considered on the following order of priority:

Is a Seniors Health Card or Health Care Card holder.

Size of verge where large verges are ranked higher.

Not had their verge prepared in the previous 10 years.

4. Subsidised plant scheme. 5. Mulch collection scheme.

BACKGROUND

Verge Garden Development The verge is part of the road reserve and is under the management of the City. The City manages and maintains verges to enable access for City operations, and utility and service providers. The City encourages residents to develop gardens on their verge in accordance with the Verge Beautification Guidelines to improve the aesthetics and


26 July 2017

Page 173

function of verges. The guidelines provide advice on the preparation, mulching, plant selection, planting and design of verge gardens. The verge beautification program has been successful and the City has supported it by providing plants and mulch to the community. Development on verges is also guided by the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law. The verge garden materials and maintenance guidelines presented in this report support the local law by providing a list of acceptable materials in accordance with the Local Law. The acceptable materials and maintenance principles presented in this report have the intention of making verge garden development and maintenance easier for the community. This will help the City improve the visual appeal of our streets and meet strategic goals through the implementation of more verge gardens. Verge Preparation and Mulch Delivery The verge preparation and mulch delivery scheme is a new initiative not currently offered to the community. It includes preparing the soil levels of the verge and delivery of mulch to successful applicants. Its introduction aims to make it easier for residents to convert a verge to a garden. It is anticipated this will see a rise in the number of verges converted to gardens. Subsidised Plants The current plant subsidy scheme provides 1600 plants to the community. Residents are limited to 20 plants per household per year. Community groups can apply for larger numbers. Apace Nursery in North Fremantle grows and manages the plant collection in May each year. In 2017 the allocation of 1600 plants was used up on the third weekend of the month. This report proposes to increase the number of plants made available to the community to support verge gardens. Mulch Collection The City has provided mulch to the community through occasional mulch pickup days. A recent mulch pickup day, held in May 2017, was well-attended and strongly supported with numerous community requests for additional days. This report proposes to hold more regular mulch pickup days for the community.


The City is an endorsed Waterwise Council by the Department of Water and the Water Corporation and is eligible for matched funding up to $10 000 per year. The proposed verge preparation and mulch delivery, subsidised plants and mulch collection meet the criteria for matched funding under this program. The City will apply for the grant to part subsidise the scheme. The verge preparation and development scheme can be adjusted to suit the yearly budget adopted by Council. Annual costs would be in the order of $40 000, made up of $30 000 of City money and $10 000 of grant funding. The budget allocation would be broken down as follows:

The verge preparation scheme would receive $26 000 and allow the preparation of approximately 40-60 verges depending on size.


26 July 2017

Page 174

The City currently commits $5000 per financial year to the plant subsidy scheme. The extended scheme would receive an increase of $5000.

The verge mulch collection scheme would receive $9 000 to allow for 6 scheduled collection days per year.

The verge preparation and development scheme can be adjusted on a yearly basis to match the budget. The budget allocation between the initiatives can be flexible to cater for the demands of a particular year. The uptake of the initiatives will be reviewed yearly to inform the following years budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

No specific legal implications.

CONSULTATION

The Verge Policy and verge preparation and development scheme will be promoted to the community to encourage verge garden development, management and maintenance.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City encourages residents to develop and maintain verge gardens to contribute to visually appealing streetscapes which provide a range of social, environmental and economic benefits. Verge gardens help the City achieve strategic goals identified in the One Planet principles and implement green plan linkages identified in Green Plan 2020. Well designed and maintained verge gardens:

improve water efficiency

contribute to beautiful streets

reduce urban heat island impacts

provide ecological benefits including habitat for flora and improved biodiversity

improved building thermal performance. This report proposes guidelines for verge gardens and a range of initiatives to help subsidise and encourage the development of verge gardens. Verge Garden Development Verge Garden Materials The City’s approach to managing verge gardens is to encourage residents to plant low maintenance, waterwise gardens. Residents are able to install materials considered safe without the City’s approval provided they are managed in accordance with the maintenance guidelines. The City requests residents seek approval for certain materials to ensure they are placed in a safe location and don’t interfere with services or public utilities. Some materials are unacceptable as they restrict City or Public Utility access for maintenance, are detrimental to the environment, present hazards or pose significant public / City liability risk. In the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law Section 2.8.2(c) states that an "acceptable material" means any material which will create a hard


26 July 2017

Page 175

surface, and which appears on a list of acceptable materials maintained by the local government. The following is the proposed verge material list.

Material Classification Material Description

Acceptable Materials Approval not required prior to installation.

Maintained turf

Low shrubs and groundcovers

Vegetables and herbs

Organic mulch

Street trees (planted and maintained by the City only)

Irrigation at ground level

Vegetable planters (removable construction type) that are 2m from the kerb and/or crossover, 1m from the footpath and clear of pedestrian and vehicle sight lines.

Trafficable paving and/or consolidated inorganic mulch less than one third of the verge (excluding the crossover) and 2m away from the trunk of a street tree

Garden edging at ground level that does not present a trip hazard.

Materials requiring approval Approval required prior to installation to ensure placement in a safe location not interfering with services or public utilities.

Temporary structures such as ornaments or posts / stakes to aid the establishment of the verge garden

Furniture including seats and benches

Trafficable paving and/or consolidated inorganic mulch more than one third of the verge (excluding the crossover) and/or within 2m of the trunk of a street tree.

Unacceptable Materials When in the opinion of the Council a material, structure or verge treatment is considered to be hazardous or pose a significant risk to the public the material will be considered unacceptable and appropriate compliance action will be taken.

Materials or structures which are unsafe, block sight lines, are loose or slippery, present a hazard, are impermeable, are weeds, are sharp or prickly will considered to be an unacceptable material.

Verge Garden Maintenance The maintenance of verge gardens is the responsibility of the resident and includes mowing turf, weeding, pruning, mulching, irrigation maintenance and cleaning hard surfaces. Guidelines for maintaining a safe verge are:

Vegetation must be kept clear of vehicle and pedestrian site lines.

Vegetation must be maintained so it doesn’t present a hazard and is clear of paths, crossovers, roads and service infrastructure.

Irrigation must be maintained so it doesn’t present a hazard.

Mulch levels must be below top of kerbs and surrounding hard surfaces such as paths and driveways.


26 July 2017

Page 176

A bin pickup zone must be maintained free from obstructions including overhead trees.

Where there is no footpath, a pedestrian has safe and clear access of a minimum width of 2m along that part of the verge immediately adjacent to the kerb as (in accordance with the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law.

Street tree planting and maintenance remains the responsibility of the City. Residents can request a street tree to be planted or maintained by contacting the City. Verge Preparation and Mulch Delivery Correct preparation helps ensure the long lasting success of a verge garden. Verges should be prepared prior to planting to remove weeds and prepare levels. Once planted, verges should be mulched to suppress future weed growth and improve water efficiency. Weed removal from verges will remain the responsibility of the applicant. The City will provide residents with best practice guidelines on how to remove weeds using mechanical, physical and, where necessary, targeted chemical methods. To assist with level preparation, the City will remove soil, grass and vegetation against hard surfaces including kerbs, driveways and footpaths. The level reduction will prevent mulch spilling out of the verge gardens and onto adjacent surfaces. Clearing the whole verge is not recommended as topsoil, organic matter and soil fauna will be lost. This will negatively impact the establishment and long term performance of the verge garden. The City will deliver mulch to residents to assist with mulching of verge gardens. Mulch will be delivered to approved applicants who will be responsible for spreading the mulch. Mulch provided will be tree clipping mulch recycled form the City’s tree pruning program. Verge level preparation and mulch delivery will be undertaken to the annual budget allocated for this purpose. Expressions of interest will be called for annually from residents and the community. Requests will be considered on the following order of priority:



Not had their verge prepared in the previous 10 years. The City will prepare as many verges until the annual allocated budget is used up. Subsidised Plants The City provides plants to residents through the plant subsidy scheme to help verge garden development and maintenance. The existing plant subsidy scheme is strongly supported and there is a demand for more. The plant subsidy scheme would be expanded by:

increasing the total number of plants available

increasing the number of plants available per household

increasing the number of plants available to community groups, schools, charities and other groups upon application for community based installations.


26 July 2017

Page 177

Plants provided through the scheme provide a range of benefits, including:

low water usage

endemic or Western Australian

provide habitat for fauna

are flowering

suppress weeds

reduce urban heat island effects

promote biodiversity. The subsidised plant scheme will be expanded to the annual budget allocated for this purpose. Mulch Collection Providing mulch to residents will encourage and help water wise verge garden development. It will also improve the benefits of verge gardens by reducing weeds and saving water. Mulch provided will be tree clipping mulch recycled form the City’s tree pruning program. Mulch collection days will occur at the depot periodically between autumn and spring. Mulch will be available for all City residents, businesses and community groups for use on their verge garden. The mulch collection scheme will be expanded to the annual budget allocated for this purpose. Verge Policy The City will develop a Verge Policy based on the key principles adopted by Council in this report. The Policy will be presented back to Council for consideration.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan This report recommends Council adopt the principles for the verge policy:




Maintained turf



Organic mulch



Vegetable planters (removable construction


26 July 2017

Page 178

type) that are 2m from the kerb and/or crossover, 1m from the footpath and clear of pedestrian and vehicle sight lines.










3. Verge preparation and mulch delivery scheme. Requests will be considered on

the following order of priority:




4. Subsidised plant scheme.

5. Mulch collection scheme. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording as shown below in italics:




Maintained turf



Organic mulch



26 July 2017

Page 179









Fruit and nut trees




3. Verge preparation and mulch delivery scheme. Requests will be considered

on the following order of priority:





5. Mulch collection scheme.


26 July 2017

Page 180

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Doug Thompson

REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION We have discussed wanting to encourage food productive trees however I acknowledge there may be complications associated with underground services, so people should be able to plant fruit and nut trees, once they have checked that they will not be problematic. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording as shown below in italics:




Maintained turf



Organic mulch










Fruit and nut trees


26 July 2017

Page 181



AstroTurf or non-permeable surface cover


3. Verge preparation and mulch delivery scheme. Requests will be considered






5. Mulch collection scheme. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Doug Thompson

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Verges play an important role in reducing urban heat island effect as well as assisting with drainage and ground water recharge. This should not be impeded by individualised verge treatments.


26 July 2017

Page 182


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan




Maintained turf



Organic mulch










Fruit and nut trees



AstroTurf or non-permeable surface cover

2. Verge garden maintenance guidelines. 3. Verge preparation and mulch delivery scheme. Requests will be considered




26 July 2017

Page 183


Not had their verge prepared in the previous 10 years. 4. Subsidised plant scheme. 5. Mulch collection scheme.

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 184

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.


26 July 2017

Page 185

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1707-1 HENRY STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 501), FREMANTLE PARTIAL DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE (5) STOREY WITH BASEMENT MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (126 DWELLINGS INCLUDING 2 HOME BUSINESSES) AND CONSERVATION WORKS (AD DAP001/17)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 2 (Lot 501) Henry Street, Fremantle and No. 7 (Lot 501) Pakenham Street, Fremantle

Development Description: Partial demolition, construction of five (5) storey (with basement) Multiple dwelling development (126 dwellings including 2 Home businesses) and conservation works

DAP Name: Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: TPG + Place Match

Owner: CBD REV HOLDCO PTY LTD

Value of Development: $44,220,000 (inc GST) $40,200,000 (exc GST)

LG Reference: DAP001/17

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/17/01193

Report Due Date: 28 July 2017

Application Receipt Date: 14 March 2017

Application Process Days: 137 days (due to EOT)

Attachment(s): 1. Locality Plans 2. Development Plans 3. Applicant’s Planning Report 4. Applicant’s additional planning report

information and heritage comment 5. Applicant’s Heritage Impact Statement 6. Conservation Works Schedule 7. Applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (as

amended) 8. Applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement

addendum (as amended) 9. Applicant’s Waste Management Plan 10. City’s Heritage Assessment (original

plans) 11. City’s Heritage Assessment (amended

plans 12. Schedule of submissions 13. DAC Minutes (12/12/2016, 13/3/2017

and 10/7/17)


26 July 2017

Page 186

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: REFUSE DAP Application reference DAP/17/01193 and accompanying plans dated 22 June 2017 (City of Fremantle date) in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 68(2)(c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building height does not comply with the maximum building height

requirements in Schedule 8, Sub Area 1.3.1 and does not satisfy the criteria for variation to height requirements specified in Clause 4.8.1.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The building height is not supported as a variation to a site or development requirement specified in the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 under the provisions of Clause 12 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

3. The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity and heritage of the area under clause 67(a), (c), (g), (k), (l), (m), (n), (w), (y) and (za) of Schedule 2 of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

4. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy DGF14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy.

Background:

Insert Zoning: MRS: Central City

TPS: City Centre

Insert Use Class: Multiple dwelling ‘D’, Home business ‘P’

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 4,861m²

Insert Existing Land Use: Office


26 July 2017

Page 187

No. 2 (Lot 501) Henry Street and Nos. 5, 7 and 9 (Lot 501) Pakenham Street have been recognised as four individual places of cultural significance through inclusion on City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory at either Management Category Levels 1B or 2. The site used to contain five warehouse buildings that were constructed during the gold rush period. Except for the front façades, the buildings were demolished in the 1980’s and, as part of the complete redevelopment of the site, the facades were retained as walls, screening the new buildings that were constructed behind them. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and / or to this application:

On 19 June 2014, the City granted conditional planning approval for internal alterations to existing office building at No. 2 (Lot 501) Henry Street, Fremantle (refer DA0283/17).

On 3 May 2017, JDAP approved a request for an extension of time for the RAR to be submitted. The original due date was 30 May 2017; however, this was extended to 28 July 2017 to allow the applicant to address planning and heritage related concerns, raised after an initial assessment of the application. Details: outline of development application On 14 March 2017, the City received an application seeking planning approval for partial demolition and the construction of a five (5) storey (with basement) Multiple dwelling development (122 dwellings) and conservation works at No. 2 (Lot 501) Henry Street, Fremantle and No. 7 (Lot 501) Pakenham Street, Fremantle. In response to an initial assessment, amended plans were submitted on 22 June 2017 including the following:

reconfiguration of the dwelling layout

increase in number of dwellings (by 4)

introduction of live/work studios (classified as Multiple dwelling with Home business)

increased diversity in dwelling types

increased provision of on-site car parking bays

design improvements based on heritage advice provided by the City

design improvements based on advice received from the City’s Design Advisory Committee. The amended application proposes:

demolition of existing buildings, but not including existing heritage facades

conservation works to the existing heritage facades

construction of three segments of five storey residential developments and three segments of four storey residential developments

in total, the residential developments will have 126 Multiple dwellings comprising of:

o 51, one bedroom dwellings

o 70, two bedroom dwellings

o five, three bedroom dwellings

o two, home businesses (basement/ground floors which are part of two single bedroom

Multiple dwellings)

o 129 car parking bays.

A floor by floor breakdown of the development is as follows: Demolition:

demolition of existing buildings, but not including existing heritage facades Conservation works:

conservation works to the existing heritage facades


26 July 2017

Page 188

Semi-Basement level:

two, two bedroom live/work studios (Multiple dwelling/home business)

129 car parking bays (including 11 tandem bays)

store rooms

incidental amenities/plant equipment. Ground Floor:

26 Multiple dwellings (15, one bedroom; 13, two bedroom)

47 bicycle racks

store rooms

landscaped communal areas

incidental amenities First Floor:

31 Multiple dwellings (17, one bedroom; 14, two bedroom)

store rooms

incidental amenities

Second Floor:

23 Multiple dwellings (9, one bedroom; 13, two bedroom; one, three x bedroom)

store rooms

incidental amenities Third Floor:

24 Multiple dwellings (5, one bedroom; 17, two bedroom; two, three bedroom)

store rooms

incidental amenities Fourth Floor:

20 Multiple dwellings (5, one bedroom; 12, two bedroom; three, three bedroom)

store rooms

incidental amenities

rooftop gardens/activity space Rooftop:

rooftop plant equipment The development plans (as amended) are contained as Attachment 2 of this report, and the applicant’s planning report is contained as Attachment 3. Further justification and accompanying information relating to the amended plans is contained as Attachment 4. Legislation & policy: Legislation The legislative framework and policy base providing for the assessment and determination of the subject application is as follows:

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990

City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015:

Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 12 – Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes

Schedule 2, Part 8, Clause 64 – Advertising applications


26 July 2017

Page 189

Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 66 – Consultation with other authorities

Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 67 – Matters to be considered by local government

Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 68 – Determination of applications

Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 70 – Form and date of determination Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Part 3, Division 2, Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 relates to Public authorities assisting in the conservation of registered places. For the purposes of this Act, the determining authority is considered to be a public authority. This section of the act states that any determination granted by a public authority must be consistent with the advice received by the State Heritage Office. City of Fremantle LPS4 Provisions: The following Scheme provisions are considered the most relevant in the consideration of the planning application:

Clause 3.2.1(b) - Objectives of the City Centre Zone

Table 1 – Zoning

Schedule 8 – Local Planning Area 1 City Centre – Sub Area 1.3.1 West End

Clause 4.4.5 – Dwelling diversity

Clause 4.8.1 – Variation to height requirements

Clause 4.8.2 – Variation to other requirements

Clause 4.14 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of defined words and expressions

Clause 78B – Design Advisory Committee State Government Policies The following state government policies are considered the most relevant to this proposal:

State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes

State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation

State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning

Local Planning Policies The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3)

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee and Principles Of Design (LPP1.9

Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3)

Local Planning Policy 2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre – Noise from an Existing Source

Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contribution for Public Art and/or Heritage Works (LPP2.19)

Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes

D.G.F14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy Consultation: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The original plans of the application were advertised for a period of 42 days. Significant applications such as this typically require 28 days; however, in accordance with LPP1.3, as the advertising period fell over the Easter holiday period, it was extended by an additional 14 days. The advertising within this period included:


26 July 2017

Page 190

sign on site was erected to the frontage of the existing building, to each street frontage (3 signs in total)

letter to owners and occupiers within 100 metres of the site

advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website

the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association were informed of the proposal

notice relating to the proposal was placed in the Fremantle Gazette. A community information session was held on 27 April 2017 in accordance with LPP1.3. Land owners / occupiers within a 100 metre radius of the site, and elected members of the City’s council, were invited to attend the community information session. The session was attended by approximately 25 members of the public and two City of Fremantle councillors. A total of 39 submissions were received comprising of 34 objections, four submissions of support and one comment. The main concerns raised in the submissions related to building height, heritage and car parking / traffic. A summary of each submission is included in Attachment 12. Responses to the concerns are discussed throughout the report. State Heritage Office (SHO) In accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the proposal is located within the West End Heritage Area, which is on the State Register of Heritage Places. The SHO provided the following comments in relation to the proposal on 5 May 2017 which were based on the plans originally submitted:

“Formal consideration of the proposed development by the Development Committee has been deferred, to permit the applicant to consider the following informal advice when revising the proposal: 1. The proposed new buildings dominate the heritage facades and streetscape. 2. Proposed new building heights dominate the existing facades and should be set back so as

to be subservient to the existing facades, and should reflect the pattern of the heights of the existing buildings.

3. New facades should present a very simple and discreet aesthetic, which reflects the fine grain, materiality and rhythm of the existing facades, to which is should be subservient.”

Further to the above, the City sent the revised proposal dated 22 June 2017 to the SHO for review and comment. The extent of the changes are outlined in Attachment 4, and summarised above in the ‘Details: outline of development application’ section of this report. On 29 June 2017, the City received the following comments:

“The development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is not supported for the following reasons:

1. The Henry Street addition is aesthetically dominant in the streetscape with its upper levels overly monolithic. It needs to be revised to be visually subservient to the adjacent heritage buildings.

2. The proposal for the upper level additions to Phillimore Street currently reads as a linear monolith that does not respond to the two heritage buildings below it. It needs to be lighter, set further back and finely grained with more vertical emphasis.”

In accordance with the Part 3, Division 2, Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, JDAP cannot approve this development in its current form given the advice from the SHO as set out above. Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port buffer area. LPP2.3 states that the potential impacts for sites within Buffer area 2 include: a) ingress of toxic gases in the event of an incident within the Port


26 July 2017

Page 191

b shattering or flying glass as a consequence of explosion within the Port, c) noise transmission emanating from the Port (attenuation in the order of 30dB(A) is

required) d) odour.

In accordance with LPP2.3, the proposal was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) for comment. The FPA provided the following comments in relation to the proposal on 24 March 2017:

“The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. The requirements of the City’s local planning policy LPP2.3 Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (LPP2.3) for Area 2 are applicable. It would be appreciated if these requirements could be included as conditions of approval.”

The guidelines contain specific requirements relating to built form measures and the inclusion of a notification on the Certificate of Title to mitigate the above potential impacts. These matters could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes. Department of Environment Regulation (DER) The application was referred to the DER for comment as the site is listed as ‘Report Not Substantiated’, which means that there is not enough information to indicate that the site could be contaminated. After liaising with the DER, it was determined that the application would be referred to the DER for comment as sensitive land uses were proposed (i.e. residential). The DER provided the following comments in relation to the proposal on 10 April 2017:

“It is understood that the site is proposed for high density residential development.

In September 2008, Lot 501 on Plan 35045 as shown on certificate of title 2548/69 known as 2 Henry Street, Fremantle WA 6160 (the site) was classified as ‘report not substantiated’ under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003.

The City of Fremantle advised DER that 7 Pakenham was used as a warehouse for storage of hydrocarbons (oils) between 1908 and 1916. Fuel storage is land use that has the potential to cause contamination, as specified in the guideline ‘Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites’ (DER 2014).

Contaminated Sites also notes that the site is located in an area identified as moderate to low risk of acid sulfate soils (ASS) within 3 metres of ground surface level. Deep excavation, such as to install a basement, may encounter acid sulfate soils.

The proposed redevelopment represents a change to a more sensitive land use. Given the sensitivity of the proposed land use and historical use of the site for a potentially contaminating activity, DER is unable to comment on the suitability of the site.

Therefore, DER recommends that in accordance with ‘Model Subdivision Conditions Schedule’ (Department of Planning and WAPC, October 2012) contamination condition EN9 and advice note ENa2, and ASS condition EN8 and advice ENa1 Should be applied to the approval.”

The revised plans were not required to be referred to DER as there was no substantial change in regard to the proposed uses. The DER’s recommendation could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee on three occasions:

12 December 2016: concept design only

13 March 2017: plans as submitted as part of this JDAP application

10 July 2017: reviewed amended plans dated 22 June 2017.


26 July 2017

Page 192

A copy of the full minutes from the DAC meetings of 12 December 2016, 13 March 2017 and 10 July 2017 are contained as Attachment 13. A summary of the key comments from the DAC meetings is given: DAC meeting of 12 December 2016:

“RECOMMENDATION

The design is at an early concept stage and the Committee is not in a position to recommended support or not. Regardless of DAC support, it’s also vital to understand that the City requires the proposal to comply with the Planning Scheme regarding building height. Notwithstanding this the DAC looks forward to receiving more refined and detailed drawings in the future, which also address the planning concerns about building height.”

It is acknowledged that the plans presented to DAC at the above meeting were conceptual in nature and lacking specific details regarding layout and finishes; the issue of height was raised by both the DAC and the City during this meeting. DAC meeting of 13 March 2017:

“RECOMMENDATION

While DAC is not yet in a position to support the proposal, it is suggested that the following items should be given strong consideration in the next revision provided to the Committee: 1. The proposed Pakenham Street upper floor additions be amended in response to

comments above, 2. The future provision of air conditioning needs to be fully considered and evidence of

its location included in the proposal at DA stage, 3. By not providing balconies to 17 of the units, further consideration of the amenity of

the central courtyard is required to compensate those residents who do not have private outdoor living areas.

4. Exploration and amendments to the design to allow better opportunities for cross ventilation of all units and consideration of the introduction of roof skylights to the upper floor units to allow cross ventilation,

5. Increasing the southern boundary setback of the proposed two upper floors (4th and 5th floor) abutting the Lance Holt School to safeguard solar access to the existing PV panels of the adjoining property and assist in built form graduation, and

6. Additional information relating to detailing, colour, texture and material selection for facades”

In response to the DAC comments from the 13 March 2017 meeting, amended plans dated 22 June 2017 were submitted, with the following changes summarised in the applicant’s response:

“Modifications to the Pakenham Street upper floor additions to better relate to the underlying heritage facades by simplifying the materials palette and reducing the overall bulk.

The Phillimore Street/ Henry Street new form over the facade has been broken down into vertical bays to align better with the underlying heritage vertical elements.

Floor levels have been located exactly where they were originally which further improves on the relationship between the historic facades and new insertions. It also allows the basements to become activated at Nos 5 and 9 Pakenham Street by reconstructing the original floor plates.

Dwelling yield has increased from 122 to 124 [126]. This increase is a result of two 1 bedroom home/work units being located in the activated basement areas.

Parking bay numbers have increased from 123 to 129.

Air conditioning condensers have been located on the roof space to meet projected need

Greater detail has been provided on materiality and detailing of new built form”


26 July 2017

Page 193

A more detailed response to all of the dot points in the DAC’s recommendation from the applicant is contained as Attachment 4 of this report. The amended plans were presented to the DAC on 10 July 2017 in which the DAC made the following recommendation:

“RECOMMENDATION The DAC acknowledges the Planning Department’s concerns regarding the proposed height of the development and the concerns of the State Heritage Office and Heritage Officer. As a result, the DAC is not able to offer full support for the amended proposal, however it advises the following: 1. The proposal in general is for a high quality project with a number of positive elements

including the connection of the proposed building to the retained facades and the

introduction of live/work units to adapt the sub-basement areas.

2. The inclusion of additional details of the landscape design demonstrates the quality of

the communal space for future occupants of the development.

3. The apartment designs retain their well-considered layout.

4. Acknowledges that the proposed location of air conditioning condensers for the

development has been considered and illustrated to be appropriately located on the

roof.

5. The design of the new buildings above the parapet levels of the existing buildings

remains unresolved in terms of allowable height, their volume and the legibility of their

relationship to the strong design elements of the retained facades, especially on

Pakenham Street. The amendment to the Pakenham Street additions is not

considered to successfully achieve the ‘lightness’ that the DAC and Heritage sought in

its previous recommendation. The proponents are encouraged to include in the new

buildings located above existing buildings architectural responses to the lower

buildings. The patterns of the perforated screens were not considered successful nor

sufficient in this regard.

6. Although it has been demonstrated that, when compared with the existing building,

the proposal does not increase the overshadowing impact on the adjoining Lance Holt

School building, further consideration should be given to the transition in the height

and scale of the development to the height of the existing streetscape.”

Although the DAC acknowledges the high quality aspects of the project it confirms that it is not able to offer its support for the proposal in its current form having regard for the concerns discussed further in this report relating to height and heritage.

City heritage services

The amended plans dated 22 June 2017 were referred to the city’s heritage services for comment. The following advice was received:

the changes proposed include substantial refinement and inclusion of additional heritage conservation works, which are acknowledged as being a significant step forward from the original proposal

the demolition works are supportable

the conservation works to the retained facades are supportable, provided that they are done in accordance with good conservation practice

the proposed new buildings located behind the existing facades are supportable


26 July 2017

Page 194

the proposed height of the new buildings can only be supportable where necessary to vary metreage to accommodate marrying up of existing floor levels. At present, there is no substantive link that clearly demonstrates an apparent and / or unavoidable need in heritage conservation terms to warrant an additional storey above what is prescribed

the proposed new building, where it projects above the parapet height of the existing heritage facades, is not supportable.

A copy of the heritage assessment based on the original plans is contained as Attachment 10. A copy of the updated heritage assessment based on the amended plans of June 2017 is contained as Attachment 11. Other internal referrals The proposal was referred to relevant internal directorates of the City. The recommendations from these directorates could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes.

Planning assessment: Although the application cannot be approved due to the SHO’s advice the application has been assessed against relevant legislation including the Planning and Development Regulations, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and State and Local Planning Policies. Details of this assessment is provided below. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 Clause 67 of Schedule 2, Part 9 of the Regulations relates to matters to be considered by local government in considering an application for planning approval. The proposal is not considered to satisfactorily address a number of these matters, for the reasons outlined in this report and therefore should not be supported. Matters that have been considered are as follows: (a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating

within the Scheme area; Relevant scheme provisions are discussed in the planning assessment of this report with the proposal not complying with all of the zone objectives relating to heritage conservation and building height requirements.

(c) any approved State planning policy;

The proposal is not consistent with SPP3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation as it will have a detrimental impact on the distinctive and culturally significant character of the West End in general and its immediate context in particular which is discussed in the planning assessment of this report.

(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area;

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with DGF14 West End Conservation Area Policy and/or LPP2.20 – Discretion to vary local planning scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes which is discussed in the planning assessment of this report.

(k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance;

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

development is located; The proposed additions will have a detrimental impact on the significance of the streetscape and the character of the locality which is discussed in the planning


26 July 2017

Page 195

assessment of this report. Furthermore the proposal is not been supported by the City’s heritage services or the State Heritage Office.

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

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

The proposal has not been supported by the City’s heritage services, the State Heritage Office or the City’s DAC. Further, the proposed height is considered to be incongruous with the locality generally and in relation to adjoining properties as discussed in the planning assessment of this report.

(n) the amenity of the locality including the following —

(i) environmental impacts of the development; (ii) the character of the locality; (iii) social impacts of the development;

The proposal is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the existing character of the locality.

(w) the history of the site where the development is to be located;

A detailed history of the site is included in the City’s heritage services assessments. The proposed demolition is supported and the proposed façade conservation works are a positive aspect of the proposal however the proposed development above the height of the existing façades will be detrimental to the significance of the retained facades and the locality. Furthermore the proposal has not been supported by the City’s heritage services or the State Heritage Office.

(y) any submissions received on the application;

A summary of submissions received is included as Attachment 12 of this report. The

key issues arising from the notification period are discussed below. (za) the comments or submissions received from any authority consulted under clause 66;

The proposal has been referred to relevant authorities for comment. The SHO have advised that they do not support the proposal therefore it cannot be approved in its current form.

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Demolition

Under the provisions of Clause 4.14.1 of LPS4, council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(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.”

The demolition works as proposed relate to later 1980’s works and as such these elements of the building are of limited or no cultural heritage significance. Further, they do not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality. In this regard, the proposed demolition is supported. A copy of the heritage assessment is contained as Attachment 10. Objectives of the zone Clause 3.2.1 of LPS4 provides objectives for each zone, with Clause 3.2.1(b) stating that the objectives of the ‘City Centre’ zone are:


26 July 2017

Page 196

“Development within the city centre zone shall— (i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation,

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

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12,

(iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development.” Whilst the City encourages new residential development in the city the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the zone on heritage grounds (iii above) as it will adversely dominate the retained facades, the existing streetscape and the character of the heritage precinct. In relation to (ii) above, there are no ‘objectives’ specified for local planning area 1 of Schedule 8 of LPS4. Building height For the purposes of considering the building, there are three distinct buildings within the development site as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Buildings proposed on the site

The following breaks down the general characteristics of each building in terms of height:

Building Location Heritage façade

General height

1 Pakenham Street Yes (3 different ones)

Three storeys at the street, fourth setback* increasing to five storeys in southern most section

2 Henry Street No Three storeys at the street, fourth and fifth set back*

3 Corner Henry and Phillimore Streets

Yes Three storeys at the street, fourth and fifth set back*

*Setback not sufficient enough to meet ‘visible from the street’ is defined by LPS4 as:

“will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle to the boundary of the development site and the street or public open space, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground


26 July 2017

Page 197

level. An area of public open space will be considered to have an assumed street width of 20 metres for the purpose of this definition.”

The subject site is located within Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre, sub-area 1.3.1 West End and is subject to the following building height requirements:

Requirement Provided Discretions

Permitted height Sub Area 1.3 permitted building height: Three storeys and 11m external wall height Discretionary height Additional storey (4th storey subject to:

the upper floor being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site

max external wall height of 14m

compliance with clause 1.2 of Schedule 1 – Area 1.

5 storeys and max external wall height of 17.7m.

1 storey

the portion of the building above 11m external wall height, being 6.7m

upper 5th floor not being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site.

The City contends that the applicant has incorrectly demonstrated the proposal’s compliance with the building height provisions of the Scheme in the cross sectional plans. The correct interpretation is that the façade of any existing heritage listed building is to form the basis, or the reference point, to restrict views of any development above that existing facade. For instance, if the top of the external wall of a heritage listed building is 9m, then that would take precedence over the 11m permitted by LPS4. In this regard the proposal does not comply with the ‘visible from the street’ requirement. As the proposal does not meet the permitted and / or the discretionary heights as prescribed by Schedule 8 of LPS4, there are two possible options to consider a discretionary assessment in relation to height, these are:

option 1: clause 4.8.1 of LPS4

option 2: Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 12 – Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes of the Planning and Development Act (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

The proposal has been assessed against both options which are discussed below. Option 1 ~ site and / or adjacent building approach Clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 states:

“Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,


26 July 2017

Page 198

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.”

For 4.8.1 to be triggered, there must be a building either on-site or adjacent that depicts a height greater than that specified in Schedule 8, in terms of both storeys and metres (i.e. maximum external wall height greater than 14.00 metres and greater than four storeys). Meeting metres or storeys independently does not trigger the clause. The subject site is currently comprised of a three storey building with a maximum external wall height of 12.5m, which is visible from the street. This does not represent a trigger. A property across Pakenham Street to the east, being No. 8 (Lot 1 000) Pakenham Street, Fremantle, is improved by a five storey development which has a maximum external wall height of approximately 16.32m. The image below depicts its relative location to the subject site.

Figure 2: Subject site relative to No. 8 Pakenham Street

As the subject site is adjacent to buildings that depict a greater height than the 11m and three storeys as prescribed in Schedule 8, the maximum height requirements may be varied if the development satisfies all of the above criterion (a), (b), (c) and (d). These four tests are now examined in turn. Test (a) ~ amenity

With regards to test (a), amenity is defined by the Regulations, as:

“Means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity.”

The applicant contends that:

“The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties as the proposed structure actually reduces overshadowing on adjacent properties, most notably the Lance Holt School. Additionally, the protruding corner site is removed from the predominant lower scale character of the West End, and the Phillimore Streetscape is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate a building of this scale without impacting on amenity of the locality.”


26 July 2017

Page 199

With regard to the amenity of adjoining properties, the proposal will be a significant departure in terms of bulk and scale upon the southern and western adjoining properties. Such impacts immediately to the east would be minimised owing to the five storey building across the road at 8 Pakenham Street, and even more so as the buildings fronting Pakenham Street are four storeys increasing to five storeys mid-site to the west. It is acknowledged that the applicant has attempted to minimise amenity impacts upon the southern adjoining property along Henry Street, being the Lance Holt School, as they have set back the fourth and fifth storeys by 3.5m from that boundary to mitigate building bulk and shadow impacts. Notwithstanding the above the proposal, particularly its frontages to Henry and Phillimore Streets, presents largely as a five storey development with minimal setback from the street (~2.4m to fourth and fifth storeys) that will have a detrimental impact upon the adjoining properties by way of building bulk and scale. In summary, five stories down to two and three storeys, does not represent an appropriate graduation of height and is not supported. The number of storeys in the general locality of the subject site is depicted in the diagram below as part of the discussion relating to the second part of sub-clause (a) pertaining to amenity of the locality generally.

Figure 3: Number of storeys for buildings in general locality, predominantly 2 to 3 storeys

With regard to the amenity of locality generally, from a historical character perspective, the West End heritage area has a definable character of two to three storey buildings. The State Heritage Office describes the West End Heritage Area as being:

“… characterised by small lots, narrow streets and buildings of similar size and form. The area remains highly intact with a predominance of buildings dating from the mid nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. Streets are relatively homogenous with attached buildings two to three storeys in height, of stone or rendered masonry constructed to the street boundary.”

The City considers that in applying the term ‘locality’ in the context of 4.8.1, the general West End Heritage Area boundaries should apply, particularly north of High Street owing to the subject site being located in the northern portion of the area. From this, it can be said that at the street buildings are typically two to three storeys in the locality, with minimal exceptions (e.g. three storeys at the street with a fourth setback so as to not be visible from the street). There are even fewer examples that go above this, and these represent the minority.


26 July 2017

Page 200

The character is two to three storeys at the street, with a fourth storey setback so as to not be visible from the street. As such, introducing new buildings that depart from the LPS4 requirements and / or the locality generally, such as the proposed five storey building which is only partially setback, would be detrimental to the existing amenity of both adjoining properties and the locality generally. The proposal thus does not meet test (a) and is not supported. Test (b) ~ graduation of height: With regard to test (b), it must be noted that the predominant height of buildings within the West End Heritage Area are two to three storeys with wall heights of 11m to 14m. The applicant contends that:

“In terms of the graduation of height, the clause refers to the locality, which is noted as being a larger area than the adjacent buildings. As discussed above, the height notably steps down towards Lance Holt School in deference to the lower scale buildings on Henry Street and on the Pakenham Street side, so in terms of immediate locality there is a graduation of height. Therefore, the development achieves the graduation of height. Additionally, the survey (Attachment C) demonstrates that there is not a uniformity in height in the West End. Taller landmark buildings have traditionally been located on corners and the scale has reduced from those points. This proposal reinforces that landmark corner and consequent graduation in scale.”

In simple terms, the proposal is by and large, a five storey development with an external wall height that is not consistent with the locality on one of the biggest land holdings in the West End. These factors when combined are, in terms of pure scale, such that this building would be incongruent with the buildings in the locality and as such is not supported. As discussed under test (a), the West End Heritage Area is clearly definable as having a predominance of two to three storeys at the street with some buildings having a fourth storey setback so as to not be visible from the street. Most of the these buildings fit within the current LPS4 height provisions for the locality, in that they typically have an external wall height of 11m at the street and 14m when setback. This, coupled with an almost uniform ‘boundary-to-boundary’ (i.e. nil) setback between buildings provides for establishment of a built form environment that is both predictable and consistent, representing predominance in the locality. There are no other buildings in the West End that present an external wall height as high as what is proposed. If this was approved in its current form, it would have the greatest external wall height of any building currently within the West End. 8 Pakenham Street, which is directly across the road to the east, is one of the tallest buildings in the West End with an external wall height of 16.32m. This building is an exception, as discussed below, and presents a higher level of bulk and scale than what is typical of the West End. It could be said that graduation of scale can work both ways, and that it doesn’t necessarily preclude a higher building from being introduced into the locality as it may assist other higher buildings in the locality to effectively graduate compared to what they currently do. This is not considered to be the case for this proposal. The tallest elements of the proposal are fronting Phillimore and Henry Streets and mid-block. The portion fronting Phillimore and Henry Streets, present a height of up to 17.7m and five storeys approximately 2.4m from the lot boundary to the street. Importantly this height, as it presents to the street, is carried for approximately 100m along the site’s Phillimore and Henry Street streetscape presentation. The extent of this area (notably its length) sought for a five storey building at such a height presents a scale of development that is completely incongruous with the scale of buildings within the locality. As highlighted by the SHO in their physical description of the West End Heritage Area, most of the lots within the area are relatively narrow and generally small in area. These typical lot


26 July 2017

Page 201

characteristics, coupled with building height and setback allowances, provide for limited opportunities of scale to exist in the West End as ‘normal’ or commonplace. Therefore, the issue of scale is effectively accentuated and exacerbated on a lot that is one of the largest land holdings in the West End. While it is acknowledged that many of the heritage buildings in the streetscape generally have higher external wall heights than more modern buildings of similar storey heights, the bulk of this building is not considered to effectively graduate (or step down) the height. The proposal is therefore does not meet test (b) and is not supported. Test (c) ~ conservation of cultural heritage In relation to test (c), and as detailed in the ‘Consultation: City’s heritage services’ part of this report, the site is individually heritage listed at management category level 1B and is within the West End Heritage Area which is now on the State Heritage Register. The applicant contends that:

“The proposal has been amended in consultation with the City’s Heritage Coordinator and the State Heritage Office to protect the conservation of the cultural heritage values of the subject site. This has been achieved most notably through the alignment of new insertions with the historic floor levels and conservation of the facades including reactivation of historic cart ways. Additionally, the vertical emphasis given to the new form has further ameliorated a perceived disconnection between the old and the new. As shown in the relevant key views analysis, the proposal will not be visible from either the Round House or Monument Hill, and has been sensitively designed to respond to the heritage fabric and the skyline, therefore not impacting adversely on the cultural heritage value of the West End Precinct.”

The proposed demolition and conservation works to the retained facades and design inclusions to re-activate the cart ways and the semi basement levels, are supported the City’s heritage services; the State Heritage Office do not support the proposed above parapet additions in their current form including the fifth storey. Test (d) ~ relevant council policies With regard to test (d) the local planning policies applicable to this application are discussed below particularly Policy DGF14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy in which the proposal is not considered to be consistent with heights in the locality. Conclusion ~ Looking back over all four tests, additional height is not supported as the proposal fails the tests as follows:

the proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties and the locality

the proposal does not effectively graduate the scale of buildings within the locality

the proposal is detrimental to the heritage significance of the site and the West End Precinct

the proposal is not consistent with the built form requirements of Policy DGF14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy

Option 2 ~ facilitate built heritage conservation Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 12 – Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes states:

“(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to — (a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register

of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or


26 July 2017

Page 202

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must — (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to

vary the site or development requirements under this clause.” The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 (WA) defines the term ‘built heritage conservation as:

“means conservation as defined in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 section 3(1);”

The Heritage Act of Western Australia 1990 defines the term ‘conservation’ as:

“means, in relation to any place, the management of that place in a manner that will —

(a) enable the cultural heritage significance of that place to be retained;and

(b) yield the greatest sustainable benefit for the present community without diminishing the cultural heritage significance of that place,

and may include the preservation, stabilization, protection, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation, and maintenance of that place in accordance with relevant professional standards, and the provision of an appropriate visual setting;”

For the reasons to be outlined in the following sections of this report, the proposal is not considered to meet Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 12 of the Regulations – Variations to local planning scheme provisions, for heritage purposes. Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes (LPP2.20) The purpose of LPP2.20 is to:

“… provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage outcomes stated in clause 12(1)(a) or (b).

Site and Development requirements can include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks, plot ratio, provision of car parking, etc. These site and development requirements will vary depending upon the site and the development being proposed.

Application and consideration of this policy is therefore critical to the discretionary height assessment being sought. Clause 3 of LPP2.20 details the minimum requirements for the applicant’s statement of justification including:

“ (a) the physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and one of the heritage outcomes referred to in (1);

(b) whether and, if so, how the heritage outcomes achieved through the variations make a contribution to the public realm (e.g. streetscape);


26 July 2017

Page 203

(c) whether the extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) is the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcome;

(d) the proportionality between the nature and extent of the variation sought and the heritage values and level of the heritage significance of the place or area;

(e) the spatial relationship (including degree of proximity) between the place or heritage area (as the case may be) and the development in respect of which a variation is sought.

The Statement of Justification may also address other issues which the applicant wishes the decision maker to consider.”

The applicants response to tests (a)-(e) is included in their planning report as part of Attachment 3 under their LPP2.20 discussion. The City’s heritage services do not consider the proposal meets tests (a)-(e) above (see the City’s Heritage Assessment at Attachments 9 and 10). ‘Building 2’ is a five storey building (three storeys at the street, two partially setback) fronting Henry Street, which does not have an existing heritage façade to contend with (refer image below). It will be a new building with no fundamental heritage reason to be of that height. The City does not consider there to be sufficient grounds for five storeys on any of the site for heritage reasons; for this building in particular there is no specific proportionate heritage outcome.

Figure 4: ‘Building 2’ is a five storey building where their currently exists no heritage façade

In relation to (d) above, the applicant has provided the following justification:

“Generally, the proportions of the new height is lesser in scale than the underlying facades meaning that the heritage component of the development will retain primacy on the lot.

Historically heights of building’s have increased over time as demands have changed and this is apparent in the West End. For example, No.5 Pakenham Street had an additional storey added in 1903 as demands increased on the commercial warehouse. The proposal is the next development in the evolution of these buildings and the history of the West End.

The key views and vistas into the West End have been assessed as part of this proposal. It is clear that the proposed development is of a scale that will have negligible visible impact on the West End generally.”

This scheme clause requires demonstration of “the proportionality between the nature and extent of the variation sought and the heritage values and level of the heritage significance of the place or area”. Effectively the applicants are arguing the proportions of the building to the existing heritage facade, not the degree of proportionality of the height discretion to the heritage outcome, warrant support. The key differences between the two terms are outlined below, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary:


26 July 2017

Page 204

Proportion: “The relationship of one thing to another in terms of quantity, size, or number; ratio.”

Proportionate: “The quality of corresponding in size or amount to something else.”

The defining factor that warrants a recommendation for refusal is that the discretion for height sought (extra storey) is not proportionate to the heritage outcome (conservation works) proposed, as stated by the City’s heritage services (underlined for emphasis):

“It is recognised that the recommendation to construct the new floors so they match the floor levels of the original buildings, may provide some justification for increasing the height of the new structures – but in the context of metres only, and in this case not in storeys. It cannot however be assumed that an increase in height will be approved without further justification, especially as the proposal is seeking an additional storey. At present, there is no substantive link that clearly demonstrates an apparent and/or unavoidable need in heritage conservation terms to warrant an additional storey above what is prescribed… It is acknowledged that the site is comprised of a number of different heritage facades, and that this may necessitate some degree of varying heights across the development footprint so as to ensure that original floor levels are matched. This has to be achieved in a manner specific to each heritage façade and may result in higher buildings in terms of metres; however it is not considered that an entire additional storey is justifiable to achieve a desirable heritage outcome. The justification for each variation will require a clear demonstration of how it will enhance the heritage values of the precinct. Decisions on the acceptability of the proposal will include a judgment on whether each extension has been designed to be compatible with its related conserved façade. There will also be a need to demonstrate that in each case, the extent of the proposed additional height is the minimum necessary to achieve the required heritage outcome.”

To understand the intent of the degree of ‘proportionality’, an established example is the building across the road at 8 Pakenham Street, Fremantle. At its meeting of 27 March 2014, the JDAP considered an application for partial demolition of existing warehouse and construction of a five (5) storey building which includes Tourist Accommodation (73 room – 122 bed) use at No. 8 (Lots 133, 134 and 135) Pakenham Street, Fremantle (reference DAP80001/13 (DP/13/00463), which has been built and is now finished. That site is directly across the road from the subject site and was subject to the exact same height requirements of LPS4. That building achieved a height discretion for an additional storey (five in lieu of four storey maximum) and additional meterage (16.3m in lieu of 14m maximum). That building was approved under the former clause 7.5 of LPS4, which is replaced by Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 12, (Variations to local planning scheme provisions) for heritage purposes of the Regulations. It was also approved before council adopted Local Planning Policy 2.20 (Discretion to vary local planning scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes). Policy 2.20 was created to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions. In order to provide some context with the 8 Pakenham Street example, the following is an excerpt from the discussion from the RAR for that proposal which outlines how an over-height building was supported on that site on heritage conservation grounds (five storeys and additional meterage):

“The two key aspects regarding the proposed development which relates to the proposed building height and enable retention of elements of the warehouse building which ultimately contributes to the cultural heritage significance of the site are:

(1) the alignment of the floor levels of the ground floor and first floor of the new development with the existing corner warehouse component of the building, and


26 July 2017

Page 205

(2) preservation of some of the internal space and volume of the existing warehouse building and related structures through the creation of the internal courtyard which will incorporate some existing saw tooth roof trusses, columns and gantry.

Whilst its recognised that by lifting the ground floor and first floor, floor to ceiling heights to match the existing building levels would typically result in increased wall height, this ultimately could also be achieved without the need to increase the number of storeys of the development, and as such this alone isn’t considered to warrant support to vary the building height under clause 7.5 of LSP4.

However, with regards to the proposed retention and preservation of the internal warehouse volume and space and associated structures, necessarily means that any new development would not be able to occupy this part of the site, resulting in a significant loss of development potential in terms of internal volume. Therefore, to accommodate the retention of this internal floor space, which would otherwise occupy the internal courtyard area, the applicant is proposing to relocate some of this development area and incorporate it into a fifth storey.

With regards to the appropriateness of the amended development building height, street setbacks, building bulk and scale and overall design, the City’s DAC generally supported the new proposal, subject to the specific criteria outlined in recommended condition no.13. Additionally it must be noted that the amended plans dated 6 March 2014, already include some amendments to address parts of condition No.13.

Remembering that clause 7.5 does not require the proposed height variation to be necessary or essential to conserve this heritage place, but rather the conservation of this place is made easier or less difficult (as per the definition of ‘facilitate’) by the building height variation.

Given that the proposed height variation ultimately facilitate conservation of the warehouse building as it assists with the preservation, adaption and retention of several key elements of the existing building which are integral to the sites cultural heritage significance, in this case the proposed fifth storey is considered appropriate particularly given the support the proposal has received from the City’s Heritage department and Design Advisory Committee.

For these reasons, the proposed building height variation is supported under Clause 7.5 (a) of LPS4.”

8 Pakenham Street was supported as the volume of the existing warehouse was being retained and conserved rather than occupied by additional floor space. The preservation of this volume was offset by relaxations in additional building height. Conversely, with the proposal for the subject site, there is no ‘volume’ being lost and / or an ability to retain, as only heritage facades remain. This reinforces the city’s heritage comments that a good heritage outcome would be matching up and reinstating the floor to floor levels of the heritage facades with any new development, which in part is achieved in ‘Building 1’ and ‘Building 3’. This would deliver a positive heritage outcome, and as such would invite flexibility in varying the height in terms of meterage, not storeys, as it is directly proportionate to the heritage outcome. Clause 5 of LPP2.20 states:

“Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.”

In their initial planning report, the applicant acknowledged that there was also an economic reason driving the height sought:

“The height of the new development is dictated by the location of the windows on the existing heritage facades and the viability associated with the retention and conservation of the historic facades. It is acknowledged that heritage conservation works and development within a heritage site costs are higher than new residential building on an unencumbered site. The extent of this work is considerable and expensive but the outcome will enhance the ability to


26 July 2017

Page 206

appreciate the authenticity of the historic fabric and its contribution to the West End. To offset this conservation cost it is reasonable to expect that some enabling development is provided. In this case that requires to be over and above what can be physically accommodated within the confines of the heritage facades.”

It is acknowledged that the applicant, as part of the amended plans, has made a concerted effort to increase the level of conservation and interpretation from what was originally proposed. The applicant contends the following as part of the amended plans:

“The original submission sought discretionary height variation in accordance with LPP2.20, which is based on the heritage conservation benefits gained by the proposal. The justification contained within the original submission remains valid and the revised proposal further enhances the interface between the new insertions and the historic facades. Most notably, the basements have been activated on Pakenham Street which further enhances the vitality and revitalization of the streetscape character in the West End.

The proposal has also further detailed the proposed conservation works, including reactivation of cart ways, reconstruction of the lost detailing on the historic facades and the removal of inappropriate finishes. The Conservation Works Schedule included within the TPG Heritage response contains more details on these aspects (refer Attachment B). In its entirety, the proposal is one which is seeking to make amends for the damage caused by the 1985 site redevelopment and it makes considerable strides in conservation and reconstruction of the original heritage fabric and the revitalisation of the West End Conservation Area.”

The additional details relating to the proposed conservation works and the activation of semi-basement and cart way is considered to be a positive element of the proposal. However, the discretion for height sought (extra storey) is not considered to be proportionate to the heritage outcome (conservation works). The proposal is therefore not considered to meet clause 12 of the Regulations or LPP2.20 and is recommended for refusal. Minor projection In regard to the projection of the roof top plant, Clause 4.8.1.3 of LPS4 allows for consideration of ‘minor projections’ to extend beyond the highest part of a development, stating:

“Excluding development within the Residential zone, Council may permit a minor projection above the highest part of a development, subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria–

(a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above the highest part of the main building structure; and

(b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building.

For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.”

In this regard, the top of the plant room and staircase risers for the development extends above the highest part of the development, and will not be visible from the street. If the proposed development was of an acceptable overall height the plant room and staircase risers would be considered to be consistent with the definition of ‘minor projection’ as referred to in this clause and satisfy both (a) and (b) above and as such be considered acceptable.

Dwelling diversity


26 July 2017

Page 207

Clause 4.4.5 of LPS4 relates to diversity of multiple dwelling sizes and requires the following:

Required Proposed Discretion

25% all dwellings max floor area 60m² (32 dwellings)

23.81% (30 dwellings)

1.19% (2 dwellings)

Maximum 40% all dwellings min floor area of 120m² or more (54 Dwellings)

1.58% (2 dwellings) Nil - complies

The proposal is therefore required to be assessed against clause 4.8.2.1 of LPS4 which states:

“The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following: (a) the variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with

the locality generally; (b conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and (c) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.”

The proposed variation is considered minor in nature as it has a shortfall of only two dwellings that are 60m2 or less in area. In relation to (a), the discretion would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties. Clause 4.4.5 permits up to 40% of the total dwellings as having a greater floor area than 120m2. In this regard, the proposed development only provides for 3.27% (four) such sized dwellings, with the bulk of the mid-sized housing product being 60-120m2 accounting for 78.68% (96 dwellings). The minimal amount of larger dwellings, combined with the predominant provision of mid-sized product, offsets the relatively small shortfall of smaller housing products. This is further reinforced by the proposal meeting the Deemed-to-comply standards in relation to dwelling size, in that the development proposes: 51 single bedroom dwellings (40.47%); 70 two-bedroom dwellings (55.55%); and only 5 three-bedroom dwellings (3.97%). In relation to (b), the dwelling mix does not directly impact the conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining in and of itself. In relation to (c), there are no specific requirements outlined in Council’s local planning policies pertaining to dwelling diversity. The proposal could be considered consistent with the provisions of clause 4.8.2.1 of LPS4 in relation to dwelling diversity. State Government Policies State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes

Outdoor living areas

Required Proposed Discretion

At least one balcony or equivalent accessed directly from a habitable room with a min area of 10m² and min dimension of 2.4m

14 dwellings do not have a balcony or equivalent accessed directly from a habitable room

Refer below

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘Design principles’ for the following reasons:


26 July 2017

Page 208

The dwellings that do not have their own balcony or equivalent are dwellings that have a direct interface with the existing heritage façade fronting the corner of Phillimore and Henry Streets.

The heritage facades offers a development constraint in that it is a better heritage outcome utilising the original windows within the heritage façade to provide sunlight to habitable rooms.

At its meeting of 13 March 2017, the DAC considered the lack of balconies or equivalent areas on a number of proposed dwellings and stated “further consideration of the amenity of the central courtyard is required to compensate those residents who do not have private outdoor living areas.” At its meeting of 10 July 2017, the DAC advised that the revisions made by the applicant to the communal landscaped areas adequately demonstrate the quality of the area.

The site has a considerable provision of high quality communal open space and landscaping as highlighted in the applicant’s landscaping plan which provides for opportunities for both active and passive pursuits. It is considered that these areas are readily accessible from each of the dwelling.

In addition to the proposal satisfying the Design principles of the R-Codes, this aspect of the application could also supported in accordance with clause 12 of the Regulations and the LPP2.20 as the inclusion of balconies for the 14 dwellings identified above would have a direct impact on the retention and conservation of the heritage façade. In this regard a variation to the provision of balconies for these dwellings is considered necessary to achieve the desired heritage outcome for the site. Car Parking

Required Provided Surplus/shortfall (+ / -)

Min 128 Resident bays 129 +1

Min 32 Visitors bays 0 -32

Min 32 Bike racks 47 +15

The proposed visitor car parking variation is considered to satisfy the ‘Design principles’ for the following reasons:

There is sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the type, number and size of dwellings.

There is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site.

A strategic approach to city centre parking is developed as an action flowing from the City’s Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS), adopted in February 2015. The ITS identifies, under section 9.3 ‘supporting policies and actions’, that a Parking Plan will be developed, covering aspects such as pricing, permits and planning scheme requirements. Preparation of the Parking Plan is currently at a preliminary stage. The ITS also states that: ‘Due to the current over supply of off street parking in central Fremantle, there is no urgent need for the provision of extra parking.’

There are bus stops located in close proximity to the site, with stops located approximately 150m away Market Street. It is approximately 190m away from both the Fremantle Train and Bus Stations providing rail services to Perth CBD and beyond, and bus services for the 103,107, 111, 148, 158, 160, 501, 502, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 532, 548 bus routes,


26 July 2017

Page 209

as well as high frequency bus routes 910, 989 and 999 in addition to those services provided by the Fremantle Central Area Transit (CAT). Public transport is readily available.

There are forty-seven (47) on-site bicycle racks, which is fifteen (15) more than what is required by the ‘Deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes.

Notwithstanding the above, if the fifth storey of the development (being the over height portion), and its associated 20 dwellings was to be removed, the proposal would require only 111 car bays for dwellings and 28 visitor bays which would reduce the proposed variation. Sight lines

Required Proposed

Walls and fences and other structures truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.50m where they adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a street

Not truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.50m where it meets the street

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘Design principles’ as it does not allow for unobstructed sight lines between the vehicle access way (to the on-site parking area) and the street. The main reason that the ‘Deemed-to-comply’ provision cannot be met is that the provision of the necessary truncation would involve partial demolition of the existing heritage façade. In this regard this aspect of the application could be supported in accordance with clause 12 of the Regulations and the LPP2.20 as the inclusion of sight lines would have a direct impact on the retention and conservation of the heritage façade. In this regard a variation to this provision is considered necessary to achieve the desired heritage outcome for the site. Notwithstanding the above, an alternative solution would need to be considered to slow vehicles and improve sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site, which could include flashing warning lights, convex mirrors and / or speed humps internal of the development site. This matter could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes. State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation

SPP - 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation provides guidance for local governments when assessing applications within Heritage Areas or on the Heritage List. The following principles should be considered when assessing an application and its appropriateness having regard to existing Heritage Listed features, and a wider heritage area:

Alterations, extensions or change of use affecting a heritage place

Development should conserve and protect the cultural significance of a heritage place based on respect for the existing building or structure, and should involve the least possible change to the significant fabric.

Alterations and additions to a heritage place should not detract from its significance and should be compatible with the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and external finishes of the place. Compatibility requires additions or alterations to sit well with the original fabric rather than simply copying or mimicking it.

In some cases, the conservation and protection of a heritage place may require a change of use to ensure a reasonable beneficial use or return. Sympathetic adaptation and change of use should be supported in such cases.

Development should be in accordance with any local planning policies relating to heritage.


26 July 2017

Page 210

Development within a heritage area

Development within a heritage area should respect and complement the heritage significance of the area as identified in the local planning policy. A respectful design approach gives special consideration to the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and finishes of the proposed development in relation to its neighbours, without copying historic detailing or decoration.

Alterations and additions to existing buildings should be designed and sited in a manner that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area.

A general presumption should apply in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the significance of the area.

Any new buildings erected in heritage areas should be designed and sited in a way that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area. New construction that is imaginative, well designed and harmonious should not be discouraged.”

A heritage assessment undertaken by the City on the proposed development does not support the existing design and has concluded that the proposed development should not be supported due to the detrimental impact that it will have on the distinctive and culturally significant character of the West End in general and its immediate context in particular. This is further reinforced by the SHO’s and DAC’s non-support of the proposal in its current form. State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning The City did not formally refer the proposal to the Public Transport Authority (PTA) for comment; however, as a nearby landowner they were sent a letter during the public consultation period whereby they provided the following comments:

“Please be advised that the Public Transport Authority has no objections to the proposal on the proviso that a section 70A notification is placed on the titles advising potential purchasers that the amenity of the lot may be affected by rail noise and vibration.

If an Acoustic Noise and Vibration Study reveals that noise and vibration isn’t an issue, there is no requirement for a notification on the title/s.”

These matters could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes. Local Planning Policies

Local Planning Policy 2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre – Noise from an Existing Source (LPP2.18) The applicant has advised that they acknowledge the requirements of LPP2.18 and that:

“Noise attenuation has been taken into consideration in the development of the design. However the details of the noise attenuation will be specified as part of the detailed design of the development. It is considered that an Acoustic Report can be conditioned if required.”

These matters could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes. LPP2.19 – Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works (LPP2.19) The applicant is seeking discretion in accordance with the criteria of clause 6 of the policy: they propose that the public art is to be incorporated into the development at a value of 1% of the total cost of development in a position clearly visible to the general public. The proposal doesn’t propose any clearly definable contributions for public art and / or heritage works and therefore, the appropriateness and artistic merit of the proposal cannot be determined. This matter could be dealt with via the imposition of relevant conditions and advice notes. DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy (DGF14)


26 July 2017

Page 211

The subject site is located within zone 2 – West End as prescribed by Council’s DGF14 policy. Clause 4.2.2 of Council’s DGF14 policy provides for development controls within the West End Conservation Area (WECA). Clause 4.2.2(a) relates to townscape and amenity and provides that:

“The fundamental townscape planning parameters are DENSITY, HEIGHT and SETBACKS.

The appropriate density is that which confers development potential on site and allows intensification, without undermining an efficient distribution of activities or putting existing buildings at risk.

The appropriate height is one which respects the scale and reinforces the integrity of the existing streetscape. The Council’s officers and advisers believe that in principle this is to be a maximum height of three storeys, on the street frontage. The height will be assessed by appropriately considering its relation to and effect on the existing landmarks, on recognised vistas, skyline and in particular on the heights of the adjacent buildings.

The appropriate setback is that which is the dominant in the area or the street and in particular that of adjacent buildings. In this respect most properties in the West End have nil front and side setbacks.”

In relation to density alone, the proposal complies in terms of ‘Deemed-to-comply’ standards for building size (plot ratio) of the R-Codes with 2.0:1 permitted (9,792m2) and 1.98:1 proposed (9,633 m2). In relation to height, this has been discussed earlier in this report and the proposal is not considered to meet the height requirements within the West End Heritage Area and is not consistent with heights in the locality. Both the City’s heritage services, and the SHO, have stated that the proposals impact upon the street, particularly the upper most levels given their setback, will have a detrimental impact upon not only the streetscape (including adjoining properties), but the area generally. Furthermore, the DAC have continually expressed concern over the graduation of height proposed on the subject site on Henry Street down to the Lance Holt School. It is noted that the applicant has attempted to mitigate building bulk issues to that particular site by incorporating a setback of 3.5m to the fourth and fifth storey elements of the proposal. Despite this setback, the DAC does not consider that the graduation of bulk and scale is sufficient enough. Clause 4.2.2(b) relates to use and provides that:

“In considering proposals for new uses the Council will apply the following criteria:

Their compatibility with the existing uses and desirable future uses of the area.

The Council will encourage the development of the West End Conservation Area as an area of mixed uses (people uses generally) where office, service uses, residential and retailing activities are integrated with entertainment, and tourist accommodation facilities. Specialised art and educational institutions scientific and other research establishments and professional and consulting activities, government and port related agencies, lodging houses, boarding houses and hostels are considered appropriate uses for the West End by means of conserving, adapting and recycling of appropriate old buildings or compatible developments on vacant and under-utilised sites.

The Council will support the growth of desirable outdoor and on-street activities, including street theatre, street musicians, restaurants, art exhibitions and other informal activities in suitable locations in streets and parks, which encourage pedestrian use while respecting the character of the area.

The Council will use its discretionary powers to discourage uses which are considered unsuitable for the area. They include:

o Uses unsympathetic to the significant building fabric.


26 July 2017

Page 212

o Uses which generate heavy through traffic.

o Industrial.

o Car sales and repairs.”

The proposed residential use is considered to be consistent with DGF14 in that it brings in a significant amount of residential to a precinct that is predominantly commercial. Application of noise attenuation measures specified in Council’s LPP2.18 would be needed ensure that the residential uses can co-exist with existing commercial and entertainment land uses in the locality. Clause 4.2.2(c) relates to policy and movement and provides that:

“In each case the Council will have regard to the significance of existing environment and the scale and respect of proposed development to the existing human scale spaces at pedestrian level.

The Council will also assess applications in light of the Council’s parking policies having regard for the overall priority that both: short-term and long-term parking situations should be developed at the edges or adjacent to the West End Conservation Area

The Council may require in larger developments that the applicant supports its development application with traffic studies. Such studies should involve liaison of the Council’s Strategic Planning, Physical Services and Development Assessments Departments with the traffic operators and other companies, organisations and retailers whose success depends on improving people’s access to the area.

In assessing parking requirements under Town Planning Scheme No. 3 the Council will favourably consider transport proposals which will reduce the need for parking in the area and be compatible with the National Estate values. These may include ride sharing and incentives for public transport use.”

The City has reviewed the updated Traffic Impact Statement (refer Attachments 7 and 8) and concur with the findings and conclusions within that report. In this regard, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact in terms of traffic in the locality and upon the existing car parking facilities both off and on-street. Other

Overshadowing/solar access A number of public consultation submissions raised concerns in relation to potential overshadowing of existing solar collectors (solar panels / sunlights) and play space of the southern adjoining property on Henry Street, otherwise known as the Lance Holt School. Firstly, the provisions relating to overshadowing of the R-Codes are not considered applicable as there are no Deemed-to-comply standards when the density of the site (R-Code) exceeds R60. The subject site and the Lance Holt School, both have a density code of R-AC3. As there is no Deemed-to-comply standard, it is not considered necessary to undertake a Design principle assessment. Notwithstanding, the general principles can be discussed in the context of existing and proposed site conditions. The Lance Holt School erected a number of solar collectors between November 2008 and March 2010, which would have been by and large almost completely overshadowed during the winter solstice based on the existing shadow diagram as shown below. Therefore, it can be said that they were located in an already compromised position when they were erected. As shown in the comparison diagrams below, the existing level of overshadowing is considered substantial, and would already significantly overshadow solar collectors on the various roofs of the Lance Holt School. The proposed development, whilst changing the overshadowing conditions to what exists today in many respects improves the middle-third of the Lance Holt


26 July 2017

Page 213

School site as it compresses building bulk towards Henry Street where it currently extends further north towards Pakenham creating a consistent shadow over the school site.

Figure 5: Existing overshadowing conditions at 12pm, 21 June – Lance Holt School nominated in

red box

Figure 6: Proposed overshadowing conditions at 12pm, 21 June – Lance Holt School nominated

in red box The relative improvement in reducing overshadowing of the Lance Holt School site as a whole is considered a significant improvement.

Conclusion: The proposed partial demolition, construction of a five (5) storey (with basement) Multiple dwelling development (126 dwellings including two Home businesses) and conservation works at No. 2 (Lot 501) Henry Street and No. 7 (Lot 501) Pakenham Street (Lot 2), Fremantle has been assessed against the relevant planning legislation.


26 July 2017

Page 214

In accordance with the Part 3, Division 2, Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, JDAP cannot approve this development in its current form given the advice from the SHO as set out above. The key planning issue with the proposal is the development’s non-compliance with the height requirements set out in schedule 8 of LPS4. The City does not consider that the proposal meets the discretionary criteria as set out in clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 and / or Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 12 – Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes of the Planning and Development Act (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In addition, for the reasons outlined in this RAR, the proposal is not considered to meet clause 67(a), (c), (g), (k), (l), (m), (n), (w), (y) and (za) of Schedule 2 of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan

That the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: REFUSE DAP Application reference DAP/17/01193 and accompanying plans dated 22 June 2017 (City of Fremantle date) in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 68(2)(c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for the following reasons: 5. The proposed building height does not comply with the maximum building height

requirements in Schedule 8, Sub Area 1.3.1 and does not satisfy the criteria for variation to height requirements specified in Clause 4.8.1.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

6. The building height is not supported as a variation to a site or development requirement specified in the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 under the provisions of Clause 12 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

7. The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity and heritage of the area under clause 67(a), (c), (g), (k), (l), (m), (n), (w), (y) and (za) of Schedule 2 of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

8. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy DGF14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy.


26 July 2017

Page 215

SECONDED: Cr B Jones CARRIED: 10/0

For Against



26 July 2017

Page 216

C1707-2 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS- JUNE 2017 - FINAL

Meeting Date: 26 July 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager of Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 30 June 2017

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 30 June 2017 Statement of Financial Position – 30 June 2017 Statement of Net Current Assets – 30 June 2017 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 30 June 2017 Cash and Investment Summary Report – 30 June 2017 Debtors Outstanding Report – 30 June 2017 Payment Report (EFT and Cheque) (viewed electronically) - June 2017 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for June 2017 (viewed electronically)

SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of financial performance for June 2017 based on the following statements: • Statement of Comprehensive Income; • Statement of Financial Activity; and • Statement of Financial Position. An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) shows an actual year to date operating deficit of $1,574,221 a favourable variance of $2,298,791 compared with the current budgeted deficit of $3,873,012. An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 2) shows that the end of year forecast of a municipal cash surplus of $2,581,096 a favourable variance of $2,581,096 compared with the current budgeted surplus of $0 at February budget review. Capital works expenditure of $11,009,979, an unfavourable variance of $4,260,634 compared with the current budgeted capital expenditure of $15,270,613 at February budget review. An analysis of financial position based on Statement of Financial Position (Attachment 3) and Statement of Net Current Assets (Attachment 4) shows that the City held $58.99 million (excluding $305,412 held in trust) in cash and short term investments as at 30 June 2017. The cash and cash equivalents include $43.56 million in Reserves and $15.43 million in unrestricted cash.


26 July 2017

Page 217

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 30 June 2017. 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) Actual Financial Performance to 30 June 2017

- Actual operating income of $74.60 million is $538,865 more than the year-to-date

budgeted income of $74.07 million (refer to explanation within the report).

- Actual operating expenditure of $76.18 million is $1.76 million less than the year-

to-date budgeted expenditure of $77.94 million (refer to explanation within the report).

- Actual operating deficit of $1.57 million is $2.30 million lower than the year-to-date

budgeted operating surplus of $3.87 million (a favourable variance). 2. Capital Works (The Statement of Financial Activity - Attachment 2)

- Actual capital works expenditure of $11.01 million (excluding committed

expenditure) is $4.26m less than the budgeted capital works expenditure of $15.27 million (an unfavourable variance).

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how actual income/expenditure compares to budget and actuals for the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding the actual end of year financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)


26 July 2017

Page 218

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants, subsides and contributions, reimbursement income, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $74.60 million is $538,865 more than the budgeted

income of $74.07 million (a favourable variance).

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure. Actual operating expenditure of $76.18 million is $1.76 million less than the budgeted expenditure of $77.94 million (a favourable variance).


26 July 2017

Page 219

Capital Expenditure

Actual capital expenditure of $11.01 million is $4.26 million less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $15.27 million (an unfavourable variance).

MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 30 June 2016 (Item SC1606-1 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 10% and $25,000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items

YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions Favourable variance of $488,142 is mainly due to receiving advance payment of Financial Assistant Grants income of $536,486 from WA Local Government Grants Commission for 2017/18 financial year.

Favourable $488,142

Over budget 11.87%

Interest Earnings Unfavourable variance of $181,539 is mainly due to late settlement of property sales for Queensgate Building, which is offset by increased parking income.

Unfavourable

$181,539 Under budget

10.17%


26 July 2017

Page 220

Major Variance Items

YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Profit/(Loss) on Asset Disposals The profit/loss on sale of assets hasn’t been processed due to the integration of financial assets register (TechOne) and assets management register (Assetic). It will be processed as part of the year end process.

Unfavourable $5,712,000 Over budget

100%

Depreciation Depreciation hasn’t been processed due to the integration of financial assets register (TechOne) and assets management register (Assetic). The estimated depreciation amount is used for reporting purpose. It will be revised after the year end process is finalised.

Favourable

$9,479 Under budget

1.3%

Employee costs - Agency Labour Unfavourable variance of $241,575 is mainly due to the engagement of agency labour in Waste Collection team, Building Facilities team and Construction and Maintenance team to cover the vacant positions and provide additional labour force to maintain the service level.

Unfavourable

$241,575 Over budget

49.59%

Capital Grants and Subsidies/Contributions for the development of Assets Unfavourable variance of $1,340,358 is mainly due to the delay of the following projects: - Project-10329 Install structures - Cantonment Hill (stage 1)

Unfavourable variance of $930,155 for grants income, which is offset by the decreased capital expenditure. This project will be carried forward to 17/18 FY and the grants income for this project is to be claimed in 17/18 as the project progresses.

- Project-10591 Construct South Beach Full Basketball Court

Unfavourable variance of $167,000 for income from trust funds due to the delay of this project. This project will be carried forward to 2017/18 FY with a revised budget of $35,000 funded from trust funds.

- Project-10163 Construct roundabout at the intersection of Watkins Street and Wiluna Ave

Unfavourable variance of $150,000 for grants income, which will be received in 17/18 FY once the project is finalised.

- Project-10165 Construct new traffic calming measures Unfavourable variance of $117,000 for grants income, which will be received in 17/18 FY.

Unfavourable $1,340,358

Under budget 36.21%


26 July 2017

Page 221

Capital Expenditure The City’s capital expenditure is decreased from $15.27 million to $11.01 million, an unfavourable variance of $4,260,000 (27.9%). This is mainly due to some capital projects have been identified as incomplete at 30 June 2017 and will be carried forward into 2017/2018 as listed below. Finance is currently reviewing all the capital projects and will report to council the final carried forward amount to 2017/18 budget once the end of year accruals are finalised. At the time of reporting the following are material capital projects with variances over $25,000 between the current budget and actuals.

Cash Investments The graph below summarises the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 30 June 2017.

IP Activity_Project Actual

Revised

Budget Variance

2017/18

Budget Comment

200288 - Project-10329 Install structures - Cantonment Hill (stage 1) 31,108 943,580 912,472 848,620.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200068 - Project-10325 Refurbish Cantonment Hill Naval Store to herit 178,026 680,000 501,974 517,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200284 - Project-10296 Prepare detailed design for Council offices (F 769,636 1,240,000 470,364 0.00 Rebudget in 2017/18 as part of Kings Square project

200274 - Project-10242 Install compliant lift and stairs to Evan Davis 128,691 450,000 321,309 10,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200297 - Project-10380 Replace heavy vehicles 2016/17 364,379 590,000 225,621 0.00 Vehicle will be received in 2017/18 FY.

200346 - Project-10902 Installation of an EV Charging Station 6,500 169,970 163,470 0.00 Project cancelled

200061 - Project-10028 Resurface roads 2016/17 404,038 551,497 147,459 0.00 Cost savings

200317 - Project-10591 Construct South Beach Full Basketball Court 24,748 167,000 142,252 35,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200098 - Project-10057 Install drainage pits pipes and soakwells 2016 142,802 250,000 107,198 0.00 Cost Savings

200304 - Project-10469 Install new lighting equipment - road reserve 45,704 150,000 104,296 55,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200368 - Project-11601 Fitout temporary accommodation at Fremantle Oval 0 95,000 95,000 745,000.00 Rebudget in 2017/18 as part of Kings Square project

200257 - Project-10135 Resurface South Street from Marine Tce to stre 164,288 244,224 79,937 0.00 To be reviewed

200104 - Project-10055 Design and install permanent public artworks 26,746 92,871 66,125 0.00 Cost Savings

200037 - Project-10025 Upgrade paths including South Terrace 2016/17 17,924 80,881 62,957 0.00 To be reviewed

200278 - Project-10253 Refurbish Fremantle Boys School 92 Adelaide St 686,866 743,000 56,134 14,700.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200353 - Project11077 - Relocate Wireless network infrastructure Qgte 0 50,000 50,000 50,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200270 - Project-10165 Construct new traffic calming measures 260,938 309,454 48,516 0.00 To be reviewed

200268 - Project-10163 Construct roundabout at the intersection of Wa 103,910 150,000 46,090 0.00 Cost Savings

200310 - Project-10508 Undertake external conservation works to Fremantal2,725,076 2,770,737 45,661 0.00 Cost Savings

200362 - Project-10896 Relocate existing fibre network within the Kings Square 0 45,000 45,000 25,000.00 Expenditure will be accrued in June 2017

200007 - Project-10056 Improve way finding and signage 2016/17 189,663 234,126 44,463 20,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200277 - Project-10250 Upgrade bike facilities at the intersection of 219,170 263,000 43,830 0.00 To be reviewed

200052 - Project-10059 Replace drainage pits pipes and soakwells 2016 9,999 48,000 38,001 0.00 Cost Savings

200339 - Project-10849 Upgrade intersection at Norfolk/Parry and South 244,767 280,000 35,233 0.00 Cost Savings

200292 - Project-10347 Prepare detailed design for the redevelopment 66,222 100,000 33,778 34,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

200266 - Project-10161 Upgrade drainage sumps 67,562 100,000 32,438 0.00 Cost Savings

200369 - Project-11602 Fitout temporary accommodation for Visitors Ce 0 25,000 25,000 95,000.00 Carried forward to 2017/18 FY

Total 6,878,762 10,823,340 3,944,578 2,449,320


26 July 2017

Page 222

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 30 June 2017. There are $27 million of investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 46% of the total investments.

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


This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of. Financial performance to the period ended 30 June 2017:

A municipal cash surplus of $2.58 million (a favourable variance of $2.58 million);

An operating deficit of $1.57 million (a favourable variance of $2.30 million); and

A capital works expenditure of $11.01 million (an unfavourable variance of $4.26 million).

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

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);

AMP, $3.0M, 5%

ANZ, $11.2M, 19% BOQ, $4.0M, 7%

ME Bank, $1.0M, 2%

NAB, $17.8M, 30%

Rural Bank, $6.4M, 11%

Beyond Bank, $2.2M, 4%

Suncorp, $7.8M, 13%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $5.5M, 9%

Investments at carbon non-

support financial institutions,

$27.0M, 46%

Counterparty Exposure

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


26 July 2017

Page 223

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)

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2016/17 revised budget.

The operating performance for the City of Fremantle for the period ended 30 June 2017 resulted in an overall $2.30 million favourable variance being identified, which is mainly as a result of cost savings. It should be noted that processing of June 2017 is still occurring as part of end of year which may change these results for the final Annual Financial Statements. Capital projects are under budget by $4.26m. Our end of year operating deficit is decreased from $3.87 million to $1.57 million and municipal cash surplus is predicted to increase from the original/current budget of $0 to $2,581,096. This municipal cash surplus is including budgeted carried forward amount of $658,330 and grants income received in advance of $644,032. The carried forward amount to 2017/18 budget will be finalised after the end of year process and reported for Council approval.


Absolute Majority Required


26 July 2017

Page 224


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council: That Council: 1. Receive the City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of

Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 30 June 2017

2. Receive the payments authorised under delegated authority and detailed in the

list of invoices for June 2017, 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



26 July 2017

Page 225

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.08 PM.


26 July 2017

Page 226

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 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 limitations associated with the issue.


26 July 2017

Page 227


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.

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.


26 July 2017

Page 228


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.


26 July 2017

Page 229

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.


26 July 2017

Page 230

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 26 July 2017, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

26 July 2017

Page 2