Fremantle Stuff > Fremantle Society > campaigns >
Fremantle Society MailChimp posts
You are looking at a seagull's view provided by the developer of Yolk Property's proposal for 65 South Terrace on the corner of Suffolk Street.
Most people in Fremantle don't see their environment like a seagull does, but it helps developers hide the true impact of their proposals.
Last week, despite a disturbing officer report ignoring normal planning protocols, which concluded the 6 storeys were OK, all councillors voted against it. There were thoughtful comments from Crs Archibald, Thompson (both running for re-election), Wainright (up for re-election but possibly not running again) and Graham. Cr Archibald made the important point that the officers had not even mentioned the effect of the proposal on the largely one storey adjacent Suffolk Street, "one of the earliest and most important of Fremantle's streets."
But it has to go to council this Wednesday before going to the State Government's Covid Committee, set up to help developers during the current boom get permission to build higher than they are normally allowed.
The Fremantle Society has submitted this exciting report to all councillors:
Public comment to the government has closed, but Fremantle Council's comments will form part of the government's decision making when they make a decision.
The Fremantle Society, while always supportive of good development, is strongly against this development. It is yet another overscale development by Yolk Property who are arguing that non conforming mistakes of the past like Arundel Court and Fremantle Hospital can be used as precedents when in fact they are aberrations. The great concern is that council officers have agreed with them in their report.
The Fremantle Society has four architects on its committee. To add extra commentary we have commissioned one of the State's top planners, who works on numerous design panels and is regarded by many as the best in the field. He wishes to remain anonymous but his comments are still valid.
He comments:
· The report details, on page 9 of the (19 May) agenda, the 4 limbs of Clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 that need to be satisfied in regard to the exercise of discretion – this is the key. The Fremantle Society does not believe the clauses referred to are all satisfied:
4.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 7, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to allof the following—
(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining propertiesor 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,
(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.
· The SAT supported the initial refusal on this basis and the reasons are outlines on page 5/6 (19 May) of the agenda. You should ask the question whether SATs observations apply to the current design – I believe they do, and point out that they would apply equally, if not more, to the proposal.
The Fremantle Society agrees that the SAT observations printed below in red apply even more so to this development.
The most relevant previous applications include a four storey, plus basement mixed use development comprising a hospital, medical centre, and multiple dwellings. This application was refused by Council in 2008 as it was inconsistent with the building height provisions of LPS4. The decision was appealed to the SAT who, in 2009, upheld the decision providing the following reasons (summarised):
There is a legal ability to approve a height variation under clause 4.8.1 (formerly 5.8.1) of LPS4, subject to the development meeting the four considerations of the clause, however, the SAT was not satisfied that the proposed development met the considerations.
The variation to the wall height proposed would be detrimental to the character, and thus the amenity of the locality, because the height would be incongruous and unsympathetic to the South Terrace streetscape. Predominantly, the reasoning was that the development presented with a nil setback to three of the four boundaries and thereby made it read as being a part of the South Terrace streetscape, particularly the western side of the street, which is composed predominantly of single or single and a half storey buildings of heritage significance. The hard-edged nature of the entirety of the proposed development, combined with the design and the bulk was considered out of character with the streetscape. The implication was that had the development been set back from the street, similar to Arundel Court and, to a lesser extent, the Fremantle Hospital, the development might have been considered to read as separate enough from the existing streetscape so as not to detract from the amenity of the street.
The SAT was not satisfied that the four storey development effectively graduated the scale between buildings of various heights within the locality. SAT accepted that scale is not simply height, but is a product of bulk, built form, architectural design and setbacks. As the development occupied the whole of the site, unlike Arundel Court next door, it would not effectively graduate the scale between buildings of various heights.
The SAT was not satisfied that the development would conserve the cultural heritage value of the adjoining corner store building as it would not have provided an appropriate visual setting for the corner shop.
The SAT was not satisfied that the development would preserve traditional building forms and streetscapes or relate to the scale, height, form and mass of existing buildings.
The SAT opined that a three storey development, with the third storey set well back from the street, would be a more appropriate outcome, consistent with the locality.
· The interface with the existing shop and cottages in Suffolk (which have heritage value) is ‘brutal’ and does not transition (step down) in the gentle manner of the previously approved development (illustrated in page 7 of the May 19 agenda).
· There is an argument that the proposal is premature in that there ought to be comprehensive detailed planning for the precinct to establish how transitions from the taller buildings to the smaller building should be managed, or what happens for example, if Arundel Court and its car park are redeveloped.
· As a general guide in planning, variations to the local planning framework need to be adequality justified (or ‘earned’), and that any benefit of a non-compliant design should be commensurate with the variation – ie giving a little to get a little, giving a lot to get a lot. In this case, the applicant is asking for a lot and not giving much.
· From a design perspective, the design has some merit when viewed though a contemporary architectural prism. However, design quality alone is not enough. The building still has to do the right thing by its setting.
· On parking: I wouldn’t focus on that. It’s always raised as an issue and my usual comeback is, “do you really want more cars in your town?” Parking is seldom a reason for refusal.
Councillors: please reject this overscale development for the reasons outlined above.
John Dowson
President
The Fremantle Society
tba
Garry Gillard | New: 3 June, 2023 | Now: 18 June, 2023