Fremantle Stuff > FHS > Fremantle Studies > 2 > Bizzaca
Bizzaca, Kristy 2001, 'The heritage movement in Fremantle 1955-1982', Fremantle Studies, 2: 1-16.
The 1950s, 1960s and 1970s brought about significant changes in the planning and development of the Perth metropolitan area. According to the guidelines set out in the 1955 Plan for the Metropolitan Region, Perth and Fremantle  and the 1963 Metropolitan Region Scheme  the City of Fremantle was planned to develop as a ‘sub-regional centre’: a residential, commercial, workplace and industrial centre which would service the surrounding area.
Fremantle City Council had already instigated plans in the 1950s and 1960s to modernise and develop the municipality. The Council believed development was essential to ensure that Fremantle retained an important role in the State. Even more significant was the belief that ‘modernisation’ would be fundamental to Fremantle’s economic survival, which had been under threat due to the decline of the port and the growth of suburbia.
1962 and 1963 saw the instigation of a number of development projects; among them, the plan to build new municipal offices adjacent to the Fremantle Town Hall. This was to be part of the ‘Central City Development Project',  a plan to promote development of a retail and commercial centre in the main city area. One of the largest projects undertaken by Council was the Westgate development. This resulted in the demolition of houses and small businesses between Adelaide and Cantonment Streets, then Point and Queen Streets, in order to make way for construction of a Boans store (now Target). Westgate was considered an enormous success, paving the way for other large scale Council projects such as building the Myer/Woolworths complex (Queensgate) in 1972.
Council records show that works carried out on historic buildings in this period were primarily in the form of maintenance: the Fremantle Town Hall, for example, was renovated as part of the Central City Development Project. This came about not as a special instance of heritage consciousness, but rather from the need to upgrade municipal offices. In 1964/1965 the Council announced it had commenced its first major preservation work at the former Lunatic Asylum and the Round House. 4
Fremantle Asylum in the early 1960s (Fremantle City Library Print No 58)
In spite of its use by the Education Department in the post World War II years, the Asylum had by this time fallen into a state of great disrepair. There was a general belief - especially among government departments - that the Asylum buildings were not significant enough to warrant the substantial cost of restoration, 5 and plans were made to demolish the building and replace it with new premises for the Education Department. In September 1958, at the instigation of the Mayor (WF Samson), a public meeting was held to discuss the future of the Asylum and, in particular, a proposal to convert it to a ‘Community Arts Centre and Mariners Museum’. A vote was held at the conclusion of the meeting and, by a margin of one vote, the decision was made to restore the building. In 1967, after protracted negotiations, the State Government began to fund the restoration and conversion of the Asylum into a branch of the Western Australian Museum. The State Government also provided an annual grant to fund the day-to-day running of the Museum and a new Arts Centre, which would also be housed in this complex. 6
Although the case for the preservation of the Asylum as an example of gothic architecture was said to have been raised initially by the Earl of Euston, Chairman of the National Trust of Great Britain, 7 it was in fact individuals such as
Fremantle Asylum after restoration, 1971 (Courtesy Fremantle City Library Print No 585)
Robin McK Campbell and George Seddon who were among the first to identify the ‘monumental’ value of the complex, and won the support of Samson 8 for the cause. The campaign to preserve the Asylum received a welcome boost when it became known that the Earl of Euston had also promoted its significance.
The Round House first came under threat during the pro-development period of the 1950s and 1960s. In 1965/1966, plans by the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority and the West Australian Government Railways proposed its demolition. Council considered a suggestion to re-locate the Round House to the grounds of the Asylum, but decided instead on preservation on its original site, already identified as ‘of historical significance? 9 In 1965 the Council had in fact carried out work to make the building more accessible for visitors and tourists. In 1966, Council finally achieved agreement for the restoration of the Round House in its original setting. 10
The preservation of these two buildings highlights a particular aspect of the heritage movement at both national and international levels. In the 1960s and 1970s it was inner city areas like Fremantle, Carlton, Paddington and Woolloomooloo - areas in which historic buildings had been threatened with demolition - that were the focus of redevelopment plans. This threat prompted strong reaction against such plans, fostering instead an awareness in local communities of heritage issues and recognition of the need to preserve historical sites. Although such a response was only just beginning in Fremantle in the 1970s, it became increasingly apparent when a residents’ action group, the Fremantle Society, was formed to articulate the growing concerns of the Fremantle community.
The restoration of the Round House and Asylum did not mean, however, that Council had been won over completely to the preservation cause. Major works, primarily road and traffic works, were still planned even though they threatened to destroy a number of historic buildings. The two most controversial traffic proposals during this period were probably the widening of Adelaide Street, (resulting in the part-demolition of Fremantle Boys School), and the West End by-pass (resulting in the demolition of all the buildings along the east side of Henry Street). 11 Such proposals prompted various groups and individuals within the Fremantle community to question the Council’s move towards redevelopment; and in particular, the redevelopment of sites of historic, cultural and/or social significance.
Fremantle City Council established a Cultural Development Committee 12 in 1969. As part of its activities, a sub-committee was formed to examine ‘the problems associated with “progress” in an historic city such as Fremantle" 13 This subcommittee (often referred to as ‘The Preservation Group’) comprised Council staff most likely to be affected by such a study, and those who had previously demonstrated an interest in preservation. They included Deputy Town Clerk Murray Edmonds, City Librarian JEV Birch, and Council’s Consultant Architect R McK Campbell. In March 1971, the sub-committee submitted its report, Fremantle - Preservation and Change, to assist Council in developing policy on preservation issues. 14
Preservation and Change represented the growing interest in the role of preservation within Fremantle’s ‘developing’ townscape. It demonstrated that those directly involved in formulating the report were keenly aware of the debate pitting ‘old’ against ‘new’. The report sought to present preservation in such a way that there was little chance of it impeding the ‘progress’ of Fremantle. One of the tactics used was to argue that problems associated with replacing a historic building with a new one would only arise on the ‘odd, rare occasion’.
The sub-committee believed that Fremantle should present a reﬂection of its past; and that it was both the responsibility and the right of the community to concern itself with the preservation of Fremantle’s history. This also represented a growing belief among Council staff that the past could be a potentially valuable resource, especially in terms of tourism. 15 The report recommended that Fremantle should both physically and visually reﬂect its own particular identity. It declared:
There is a Fremantle identity - a ‘Fremantle feeling’ - that is important to Fremantle people. The visual environment created by certain buildings and places, together with people’s awareness of their history, makes a major contribution to this feeling that Fremantle is a separate place, and a special place. 16
This notion of a ‘Fremantle identity’ plays a significant part in the heritage movement in Fremantle. This concept, as well as the perceived need to preserve the ‘Fremantle character’, is reiterated again and again in the argument and rhetoric of the Fremantle heritage movement. This was especially so when preservationists saw what was occurring in the City of Perth during this same pro-development period: a rush to new development that resulted in the demolition of many historic buildings.
Preservation and Change established a set of criteria for evaluating historic buildings and sites in the Fremantle central area. After being assessed, each building was allocated to one of three priority categories which were set up to advise the Council on what should be preserved and what should not: Category l buildings being the most important. While it was a remarkable achievement for a local government during this pro-development period, the list was not without deficiencies. Development proposals for a number of buildings were to be the cause of much trouble to the Council in the future, mainly because they had been allocated to Category 3 - indicating that the buildings were believed to have such little historical significance that their loss to the Fremantle community would be counterbalanced by redevelopment of their sites.
The inﬂuence of the Preservation Group began to be seen in Council’s decision making and actions. Several proposed works involving the demolition of historic buildings were referred to the Preservation Group for consideration. Proposals for the widening of Adelaide Street and the demolition of Fremantle Boys School came under much scrutiny. The Council eventually recommended the retention of the whole of the building and requested that Main Roads allow it to project into the widened road; resulting in the re-alignment of the road around the school site. 17
In 1970, the Town Planning Committee recommended that the Council demolish the Court House, the Police Station and any buildings not ‘required’ on the sites of Fremantle Boys School (despite the fact that plans had been altered to ‘save’ this site) and Princess May School for Girls. The Preservation Group opposed this decision, and the Town Planning Committee was directed to reappraise the proposal in light of the Preservation and Change report. As a result, the Town Planning Committee amended its original suggestions to incorporate the report’s guidelines. Under the amended proposal, the Court House, the Police Station and Fremantle Boys were to be restored and converted for re-use, but Princess May School (which had been allocated to Category 3) was to be demolished. 18
Preservation and Change was never formally incorporated into the Council’s planning policy. Concern persisted regarding proposed developments that would place historic sites under threat: the widening of Henry Street in the West End, for example, or the multi-storey retail/commercial developments planned for around the site of Kings Square. The Council’s failure to implement a preservation policy at this time produced two reactions; one from the Preservation Group and the second from within the Fremantle community.
As was the case with similar activism occurring in the Eastern States in this period, local residents had begun to express their concern with regard to current planning decisions. They were especially worried at the possible impact of such decisions on ‘the Fremantle character’. As a result of a meeting of concerned residents, the Fremantle Society was established and presided over by then North Fremantle local Les Lauder. Like similar action groups already established in the Eastern States, the Fremantle Society created a political platform from which residents could express concerns about the Council’s planning policy. Inauguration of the Fremantle Society reﬂected the community’s interest in development and, even more significantly, represented an organised community response to development and planning issues. 19 While the Fremantle Society supported the Council’s efforts to protect some historically significant sites, it firmly believed that the Council should commit itself to the preservation of Fremantle’s built character. The first step being the establishment of a planning policy and a subsequent town planning scheme.
Attempts to change or contest proposed development came up against the strong pro-development policies which had dominated town and metropolitan planning for the last twenty years. There was now growing dissension between the supporters of development and those who sought to protect Fremantle’s historic past and character. In August 1973, for example, it was reported that Councillor Sowden had apparently been dismissed from the Town Planning Committee after being accused of stalling progress on the controversial Queen Street development, a multi-storey building planned to face Kings Square. 20
Incidents like this contributed to the belief that Council needed to incorporate greater measures of control in its town planning scheme. There was a growing realisation within the community (primarily within the Fremantle Society and among various staff and Council members) that more had to be done to ensure that these objectives were achieved.
The Society now recognised that it would have to become directly involved in Council activities. This initially took the form of sending submissions to Council, and encouraging and organising community protests over controversial planning decisions. It soon became apparent that, in order to gain the desired results, the Society would not only need Council support but — even more significantly - would need actual numbers on Council itself. As a direct result, several members campaigned for Council elections. By the end of 1973, the Fremantle Society saw five of its members —including Society President Les Lauder and Dick Cotton - elected to the Fremantle City Council. 21 The result reflected both the popularity of the Society’s main aims and increasing community awareness and understanding of heritage and planning issues.
At the same time, the Preservation Group worked to promote heritage preservation from within the Council ranks. In 1973 the Group produced its second report, Changing Fremantle, 22 which discussed the role of preservation in planning and the inadequacies of the Council’s planning policy at the time. There was much concern expressed about the nature of Fremantle’s redevelopment and, more specifically, the conviction that if this development continued Fremantle would become ‘just another part of Perth? 23 This belief reinforced the notion that Fremantle was distinct and distinguishable from Perth and, given the demolition of a number of Perth’s heritage sites, that it should not follow Perth’s example:
It is already late. Damaging intrusions have already appeared. The city’s special character has already been diminished.
If we fail, or simply care too little, then we can sit back and wait - it won’t be a long wait - for that once identifiable, once proudly different place called Fremantle to be re-named what it will inevitably become - Port Perth. 24
Following a recommendation made by the Cultural Development Committee, 25 the Council approached the Minister for Urban and Regional Development for assistance in addressing the problem of Fremantle’s growth and preservation. The resultant Maunsell & Partners 26 study highlighted the argument between preservation and change. The consultants noted that problems in Fremantle flowed on from state and local government plans to develop the City as a sub-regional centre, thereby prioritising modernisation and redevelopment to the extent that ‘undue emphasis is placed on the widening of streets and the construction of multi-storey buildings, both of which are thought to be inimical to the present character of the city.’ 27 The report recommended commissioning further studies on issues such as development, traffic, and building guidelines. Also funded by the federal government, the resulting second report, Fremantle: Guidelines for Development, 28 was presented to Council in September 1974. Its authors emphasised the need for a flexible town planning policy. They proposed a policy of renewal and redevelopment which encouraged rebuilding behind facades in an effort to maintain the unique streetscape; compatible design and planning of new structures; planning measures such as height restrictions; reassessment of zoning by-laws; and the establishment of a pedestrian scheme for the central Fremantle area.
It was a number of years before Council implemented any recommendations at a town planning scheme level. In the meantime, preservationists were forced to work tirelessly in their efforts to protect various buildings from redevelopment.
Council decided in 1973 that all plans concerning demolition or redevelopment of buildings be put forward to the Executive Committee for approval. Decisions on applications had been deferred in several cases pending such time as the Council had determined its policy towards preservation. Historic buildings affected by this decision included Victoria Hall (which had also been the object of a Builders Labourers Federation green ban), the Orient Hotel and the Fire Station in Phillimore Street.
In practice, the delay in Council approval allowed staff time to explore ways to retain historic buildings. Staff worked to achieve this end by examining each site with a view to identifying compatible reuse of the buildings and finding occupants who could fund the cost of renovation. This can be seen in the cases of Fremantle Boys School and Princess May Girls School, both of which had been targeted for redevelopment.
The retention of the Fremantle Boys’ School building was made feasible by staff finding tenants - the Institute of Film and Television willing to fund most of the cost of renovation themselves. 29
The renovation of the Fremantle Markets building in 1975 also illustrates work done by Council staff. Although this building had been occupied, it had not been put to good use and, as a result, had fallen into disrepair. It was believed that it would be more beneficial if the buildings were demolished to make way for new and better development. (The original proposal would have resulted in the demolition of the Markets, as well as the adjacent Warders Cottages and Court House, to make way for the widening of Henderson Street.) In a report to Council, City Planner Henwood recommended that Council restore the building for re-establishment of its past use as a markets building. 39 This recommendation was adopted by Council and, in January 1975, Rob McK Campbell commenced preparation of a restoration plan of the place. 31 The Council also received $25,000 through the National Estate Grants Program towards restoration.
Council staff took advantage of the Federal Government’s interest in the National Estate by applying for large numbers of grants (for planning / conservation studies or restoration works) from such sources as the Grants Commission, the Department of Tourism, the Area Improvement programme and the National Estate Grants Program. 32 With experience, they became proficient and successful. In the year 1974/1975 for example, they obtained grants totalling $92,500: $35,000 to assist with the restoration of the Round House; $25,000 for the restoration of Fremantle Markets; $15,000 for restoration of the stone wall and landscaping around the Boys School and Princess May; $12,000 for the preparation of a study on the future use of the Fremantle Prison; $3,000 for the proposed conversion of the Evan Davies Library building to a theatre for the Harbour Theatre Company; and $2,500 for the preservation of the Fire Station. 33
The Federal Government’s interest in Australia’s heritage had an enormous impact on the heritage and preservation industry throughout Australia. This was particularly evident in Fremantle as it was primarily due to the National Estate Grants Program which allowed restoration of various buildings to go ahead. It also served to legitimise the preservation work done by the Council staff. While this definitely aided the activities of staff, officers were still reliant on the support of Councillors sympathetic to heritage preservation.
The election of Fremantle Society members to the Council produced two opposing factions among the City Councillors; one represented business, commercial and development interests, while the other faction prided itself on looking out for the interests of the Fremantle community.
In September 1974, Council was advised that provision had been made for the demolition of the Evan Davies building. 34 In 1975 Les Lauder opposed a determination to proceed with earlier plans to develop the block of land bounded by South Terrace, Market Street and Collie Street into a park: his motion was seconded by another Fremantle Society member, Gerry MacGill. 35 Council staff worked behind the scenes to save the building. Rob Campbell prepared a survey of the building in conjunction with an application for funding to carry out its restoration. There was much debate between the pro-development lobby and the Fremantle Society about the building’s preservation, especially with regard to the cost of the proposed restoration. The final decision on the demolition proposal was put to Council’s vote; however, Council was evenly divided. Mayor Bill McKenzie was forced to decide the issue, and voted in favour of the building’s retention and restoration.
Although he himself was not a member of the Society, McKenzie always welcomed the Fremantle Society members who had been elected to Council. He was also sympathetic to and encouraged the restoration work undertaken by Council staff, as well as steps taken to preserve Fremantle’s built character. This was evidenced when a proposal was made to construct an eight-storey above ground building at the hospital site. The plan caused much public opposition as it was felt that the extensions were out of scale with the rest of the Fremantle skyline. McKenzie was one of many who spoke out in opposition to the proposed construction. One of the problems with this particular development was that Council had yet to implement any height restrictions or controls of the type suggested in Fremantle: Guidelines for Development. Council could only appeal to the Minister of Planning for his intervention on the matter but, in spite of much community opposition to the development, the State Government went ahead with the plans.
During this time, the Council was also attempting to make planning amendments to protect Fremantle’s residential areas. Plans to rezone areas such as the North
Fremantle City Council, May 1976. Back Row: F Del Rosso*, KJ Gleeson, RE Higham, MI Staniford*, PW Newman*, RA Cotton *, JA Cattalini, D Whittington *, JA Minervini, RB Warren Front Row: G MacGill*, J Boddy*, L Lauder*, SM Stone, WA McKenzie (Mayor)*, A Whittington *, J Sowden, EK Fletcher, OFE Stack.
*Fremantle Society members/supporters
(Courtesy Fremantle City Library Print No 1080)
Ward were proposed. Other Council schemes included the Inner Urban Housing Study and the Small Houses Scheme, which operated ‘on the principle of purchasing old houses, renovating the existing main buildings, and if possible, development of additional residential units on the same site'.
By 1977 the interest in preservation had reached the point where planning practices had begun to incorporate more controls. Planning policy now required that all development proposals be submitted to Council with a model, perspective drawings and samples of materials and finishes, so as to promote compatible development within the Fremantle townscape.
In the late 1970s, the Council set out to prepare both a town planning scheme and a development plan which would incorporate the conservation of Fremantle’s unique townscape. By this time, actions of the Fremantle Society and Council staff had brought about such a shift within the Council that there was now fundamental acceptance that preservation issues would have to be included in the town planning scheme - the aim for which both groups had been working since the early 1970s.
Fremantle Hospital buildings extension, 1978 (Courtesy Fremantle City Library Print No. 993A)
In 1978 a landmark decision was made with regard to development in the West End. In 1977/1978, work to develop the West End By-pass was scheduled to go ahead. However, by this time attitudes towards preservation had changed to such an extent that what was deemed appropriate in 1960 was now believed to be unacceptable. The Council informed the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority that it (the MRPA) was required to review the proposed road improvements for the city centre, and for the West End in particular. In 1978, it was reported that the MRPA’s review had brought an end to the West End by-pass and other major road widening projects in the area. This decision not only demonstrates the shift in Council’s attitudes and decision making, but also indicates the conflict between the Council and the State Government over development issues.
The Council’s 1978 Annual Report announced that in order to achieve the balance between growth and preservation both the Council and the State Government had decided to carry out a joint project examining Fremantle’s role as the ‘head of the South West Corridor of the Perth Metropolitan Region’.
Plans to prepare Town Planning Scheme No 3 were initially deferred until the completion of this sub-regional centre study. However it was eventually decided that the town planning scheme and the sub-regional centre study should be carried out at the same time and a mechanism was developed so that the reports would be complementary. (One of the primary ways this in which this was done was through establishing steering committees for both projects, comprising councillors (including McKenzie and elected Fremantle Society members) and staff (such as City Planner Henwood and Development Officer Jeremy Dawkins.)
In 1978, the Fremantle Society announced the news in its newsletter:
After years of procrastination and obstruction, the Council has finally appointed a firm of consultants, Ken Adam and Assocs, to draw up the much needed planning scheme. 43
The 1980 Fremantle: Sub-Regional Centre Strategy Plan stated that the overall goal of Fremantle’s development should be:
To achieve continuity and enhancement of the City of Fremantle as a sub-regional centre with unique historical and maritime characteristics, while maintaining the City’s strengths as an ongoing community. 44
The guidelines set out in the strategy plan emphasised the shift from the modernisation and development plans for Fremantle in the 1960s to controlled growth, incorporating both conservation and development. Fremantle’s role as a sub-regional centre and a port would still inﬂuence the way in which the city would develop, but the strength of the Fremantle community, its increasing role as a recreational and cultural centre, and the local commitment to the preservation of its built heritage were identified by the planners - and subsequently by government authorities - as having an integral part in the city’s future. 45
Further, the new town planning scheme was a culmination of all the work done by the Fremantle Society and Council staff. The new scheme signified the Council’s commitment to heritage preservation as well as the establishment of policies which would ensure - through controls - sympathetic redevelopment. Besides implementation, the planning scheme was the final stage in what had been a gradual process of establishing a preservation policy. Town Planning Scheme No. 3 was adopted by Council in March 1982. 46 Some of its main features were the protection and retention of Fremantle’s townscape and streetscape, the inclusion of a list of Fremantle’s historic buildings, and controls for the demolition and alteration of buildings.
Town Planning Scheme No. 3 symbolised the significance of the preservation movement in Fremantle. It also established heritage as an integral part of the Fremantle City Council’s planning policy. The scheme was extremely important because it ﬁnally accomplished the goal for which preservationists (such as the Fremantle Society and staff of the Fremantle City Council) had been working for fifteen years. The adoption of the scheme ensured that commitment to the preservation of Fremantle’s built heritage would continue. It could be argued that, if it were not for the new town planning scheme, the controlled development and restoration resulting in the ‘cleaning up’ of the City for the America’s Cup could not - and would not - have occurred.
Note: For more details on the heritage movement in Fremantle, as well as the Fremantle Society, see: K. Bizzaca, A History of the Development of the Heritage Movement and the Establishment of Heritage Policy in The City of Fremantle (1955 - 1982), Master of Arts Thesis, Murdoch University, November 1997.
Presented at the Fremantle Studies Day
29 October 2000
l. G Stephenson and J A Hepburn, Plan for the Metropolitan Region, Perth and Fremantle, 1955 Report, Government Printing Ofﬁce, Perth, 1955
2. Metropolitan Region Planning Authority, Metropolitan Region Scheme, Government Press, Perth, 1963
3. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1962, p 1
4. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1964-5, p 1
5. Fremantle Arts Centre File, Fremantle City Library Local History Collection
6. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1966-67, p 1
7. City of Fremantle, Minutes, I 7 November 1964
8. Murray Edmunds interviewed by Larraine Stevens, Oral History interviews 20 March 1993, 31 July 1993 (Fremantle City Library Local History Collection)
9. City of Fremantle, Minutes, 21 February 1966
10. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1964-5, p 1
11. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1967-68, p 6
12. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1968-69, p 12
13. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1970-71, p 6
14. Fremantle City Council, Fremantle: Preservation and Change, City of Fremantle, March 1971
15. Murray Edmonds, OH Interviews 20.3.1993, 31.7.1993 (transcript), p 20
16. Fremantle: Preservation and Change, 1971, p 5
17 City of Fremantle, Minutes 16 June 1969; Minutes, 15 June 1970
18 City of Fremantle, Minutes, 15 June 1970
19 Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 1 no 1, April 1973, p 2
20 Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 1, no 4, August 1973, pp 2 — 3
21 Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 1, no 2, 1973, pp 2 - 3; Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 1 no 6, 1973, p 4
22. Fremantle City Council, Changing Fremantle, City of Fremantle, February 1973
23. Fremantle: Preservation and Change (1971), p 5
24. Changing Fremantle, (1973), p 6
25. City of Fremantle, Report Book, January 1973 — December 1973, pp 78 — 82
26. Cities Commission (Maunsell & Partners Pty Ltd), Fremantle Historical Buildings - Initial Study, July 1973
27. Fremantle Historical Buildings - Initial Study (July 1973), p 1
28. Fremantle City Council & Department of Urban and Regional Development (National Estate Division), Fremantle: Guidelines for Development, September 1974
29. In 1972/1973, work also began on the Princess May Girls School for reuse as a Community School. (Stan Parks interviewed by Erica Harvey, n.d. (Fremantle City Library Local History Collection.)
30. City of Fremantle, Minutes, 16 September 1974
31. City of Fremantle, Minutes, 20 January 1975
32. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1973-74, p l 1
33. Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 3, no 1, 1975, p 10
34. City of Fremantle, Minutes, 16 September 1974
35. City of Fremantle, Minutes, 21 August 1975
36. City of Fremantle, Minutes of Special Meeting, 16 October 1975
37. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1973-74, p 1
38. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1974-75, p 2
39. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1976-77, p 7
40. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1977-78, p 2
41. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1977-78, p 1
42. City of Fremantle, Minutes, 21 August 1978
43. Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 6, no 1, 1978, p 7
44. Fremantle Society Newsletter, vol 6, no 1, 1978, p 6
45. Ralph Stanton Planners with Kinhill Planners, Fremantle: Sub-Regional Centre Strategy Plan, prepared for the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority, 1980
46. City of Fremantle, Annual Report, 1981-82, p 1; see also City of Fremantle, Town Planning Scheme No. 3, February 1982
Garry Gillard | New: 1 August, 2017 | Now: 16 December, 2018