MMAGS HOLDINGS PTY LTD and CITY OF FREMANTLE - [2006] WASAT 175

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1928 (WA)

CITATION: MMAGS HOLDINGS PTY LTD and CITY OF FREMANTLE [2006] WASAT 175

MEMBER: MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)
MS R MOORE (SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: 7 & 8 JUNE 2006

DELIVERED : 8 JUNE 2006

FILE NO/S: DR 34 of 2006

BETWEEN: MMAGS HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
CITY OF FREMANTLE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Town planning – Development application – Adaptive re-use of heritage facade – Internal demolition of 1950 wool store building adjacent to port and construction of mixed residential/commercial building behind street facades of wool store building – Impact on cultural heritage value – Whether additional setback of penthouse level warranted – Whether new windows in facade should replicate the same size and treatment as original windows – Differentiation of new elements from original elements in heritage building – Whether introduction of lightweight protruding balconies into facades would detrimentally affect heritage value

Legislation:

City of Fremantle Town Planning Scheme No 3, cl 77(s)

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA)

Result:

Application for review upheld and development approval granted once revised plans are filed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr M Bennett with Ms B Moharich
Respondent: Mr P Wittkuhn

Solicitors:

Applicant: Lavan Legal
Respondent: McLeods

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Filton Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2006] WASAT 70

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of the Tribunal's decision

These proceedings ultimately concerned a review of four conditions of development approval for the internal demolition of a wool store building adjacent to the Port of Fremantle and the construction of a mixed residential/commercial building behind the retained street façades of the wool store building.
Following the hearing, the Tribunal delivered an oral decision in which it determined that:
(i)an additional 1.0 metre setback of the sixth level from the retained façade of Levels 1 to 5 is not warranted;
(ii)it is contrary to sound conservation practice to require new elements added to a heritage building to replicate the same size and treatment as original elements;
(iii)the introduction of lightweight projecting balconies onto the wool store façade is acceptable in heritage terms, as the essential physical form of the building and its contribution to the townscape would not be detrimentally affected to any significant degree; and
(iv)the existing raised letters "WOOL STORES" on the Elder Place façade should be salvaged and displayed on that façade.
The Tribunal decided to uphold the application for review in part and to grant development approval.
The Tribunal's reasons, taken from the transcript and edited in minor respects to aid clarity, were as follows.

Introduction

These proceedings involve an application for review of the decision of the City of Fremantle (City) to grant conditional development approval. The development application now before the Tribunal proposes the internal demolition of the Elders Wool Store building (existing building or 1950 building) located at 48 68 Cantonment Street, Fremantle (site), which has frontages to both Cantonment Street and Elder Place, and the construction of 63 residential units over five levels in two blocks behind most of the street façades of the existing building, which are to be retained, as well as retail/commercial premises at street level on Cantonment Street, car parking and an internal landscaped deck.
The existing building was constructed in about 1950 as a fourlevel building with large regularly spaced windows, each comprising 24 glass panes, at Levels 1, 2 and 3. The existing building does not have windows or other openings at Level 4. A fifth level, also without windows or other openings, and a sawtooth roof, was added in 1967 (1967 addition). As its name implies, the existing building was built and used for wool classing and storage. This use apparently ceased in the early 1980s.
The site adjoins an apartment complex to the north, which was completed in 2003, and an earlier Elders Wool Store building, built in 1927, to the south (1927 building). The 1950 building was designed by the same firm of architects as was the 1927 building, and for the whole of its productive life as a wool store, was operated in conjunction with the 1927 building. The two buildings have a common setback, display face brick, and express a similar pattern of fenestration. The 1967 addition created a common fifth level and a common parapet, which unified the buildings.
However, the 1950 building reflects a more simplified and modernist approach, consistent with its design and erection almost a quarter of a century after the original building. In particular, whereas the 1927 building displays decorative detailing around the windows, attached piers and a cornice, the 1950 building displays a simpler window detail and does not contain any piers or cornice.
Notwithstanding the 1967 addition, because of these differences, the buildings appear to be separate. This separation will be confirmed and augmented by the creation of a view corridor at the southern end of the 1950 building above Level 1 as part of the proposed development, with which the City agrees. The result will be that the 1927 building will be able to be read and appreciated as it was built on each façade.
The heritage experts agree that the 1950 building is listed on the City's municipal inventory of heritage places with a management category of 2, but is not listed on the heritage register maintained under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA) (HWA Act). However, it appears that that agreement was based on what the heritage experts were informed by an officer or officers of the City. The minutes of council meetings in evidence also appear to assume and state that the 1950 building has a management category of 2 under the municipal inventory.
The 1927 building is listed on the City's municipal inventory of heritage places at level 1A and is listed on the heritage register maintained under the HWA Act. The only document provided by the City to demonstrate the heritage status of the 1950 building is a heritage inventory in relation to "Elders Wool Stores, 38 Cantonment Street". This document is problematic, to say the least. It contains some indications which support an inference that it relates to the site. It also contains a number of indications which support an inference that it does not relate to the site at all, but only relates to the 1927 building.
The indications to the effect that the document relates to the site are:
(i)the property detailed is described as the entire street block, which includes the site;
(ii)the historical notes refer to a number of wool stores that were built from 1927 onwards, including in the early 1950s; and
(iii)the historical notes also state that in 2001 the building was partially demolished for apartments, which statement can only relate to the adjoining land to the north.
The indications to the contrary are:
(i)the street address, namely 38 Cantonment Street, which relates to the 1927 building;
(ii)the architectural style, namely interwar functionalist, which also obviously relates to the 1927 building;
(iii)the level of significance, namely level 1A, and description of that significance; and
(iv)the reference to registration on the register of heritage places under the HWA Act.
The Tribunal accepts Mr Wittkuhn's submission that, ultimately, nothing turns in this review on whether the building is, in fact, listed on the City's municipal inventory of heritage places. The Tribunal is required by cl 77(s) of the City of Fremantle Town Planning Scheme No 3 in determining any application for development consent, to take into account the heritage significance of the place and its context.
Moreover, as the Tribunal recognised in Filton Pty Ltd and Town of Vincent [2006] WASAT 70, at [28] and [29], the effect of a site not being listed under a local scheme or municipal inventory is not that the cultural heritage significance of the site is irrelevant, but rather that the protections under the scheme are not available.
The Tribunal will proceed to assess this application effectively on the assumption that it is a listed item under the City's municipal inventory of heritage places, given that we have detailed evidence in relation to the actual heritage significance of the building and the effect of the development on that significance. However, the Tribunal notes that it is extremely unsatisfactory for the City to maintain a register in the way that it apparently has in relation to the site.
The applicant originally sought review of 30 conditions of approval. Following mediation, facilitated by a member of the Tribunal, the City formulated a set of amended conditions, all but four of which were acceptable to the applicant. The proceedings are now, in effect, for review of the four conditions proposed by the City and objected to by the applicant, namely, conditions 1, 2, 3 and 16, although during the course of the hearing, substantial agreement was reached between the parties in relation to condition 16.
The four conditions which are the subject of this review are as follows:
"1.The 6th floor of the proposed development being set back a minimum of 4 metres from the existing façade wall with a maximum height not exceeding 25.7 metres.
2.The existing façade of the building is to be retained, and modified by the provision of additional window openings to the proposed 4th and 5th floors, that must replicate the same size and treatment as the existing windows on level 1 3.
3.All balcony structures are to be constructed within the wool store façades with no projections being permitted beyond external walls of the façades to the satisfaction of the director urban management.
16.The applicant is to salvage and recycle significant features of the existing building such as timber floors, windows, doors, gates, lifting loft joinery, equipment vents and timber columns for use in the subsequent redevelopment of the site where practical to the council's satisfaction."
The Tribunal undertook a view of the external parts of the site and of the locality, accompanied by representatives of the parties, this morning.

Condition 1 Is an additional 1.0 metre setback of the sixth level warranted?

The City contends that the cultural heritage value of the existing building would be compromised by the setting back of the sixth level by a minimum of 3.0 metres, as is proposed, but would be acceptable if the setback were a minimum of 4.0 metres. It is to be noted that the proposed setback of the actual façade of the sixth level is, in fact, 4.0 metres, although a roof overhang projects a further 1.0 metre towards the street.
However, the sightline diagrams in evidence demonstrate that the sixth level would not be perceptible at all from the middle of the opposite footpath in Elder Place and would be barely perceptible from the middle of the opposite footpath on Cantonment Street. As one moves back to Princess May Park on Cantonment Street and the car park on Elder Place, gradually the façade of the sixth level would come into view.
In addition, Mr Ian Hocking, a heritage architect who gave evidence on behalf of the City, notes that the sixth level would be seen from oblique angles as one approaches the site on Elder Place or Cantonment Street and from the pedestrian footbridge leading to the overseas passenger terminal at Victoria Quay. Mr Hocking strongly prefers a minimum 4.0 metre setback and considers that no building elements other than a transparent balustrade set back from the existing parapet should project into the setback area.
Ms Rosemary Rosario, a heritage architect who also gave evidence on behalf of the City, considers that the difference between a 3.0 metre minimum setback and a 4.0 metre minimum setback would be perceptible from the bridge leading to the overseas passenger terminal.
However, in the Tribunal's view, there would be negligible visual difference from any viewing position if the projecting overhang on the sixth level were set back by an additional 1.0 metre.
The proposed setback of the sixth level from the principal façade of the building would result in a clear and unambiguous visual separation between the sixth level and the existing façade, provided that no structures are permitted to project into the setback area other than a transparent balustrade fixed to the rear of the existing parapet, which will be retained, and obscure glazed separations between the private open spaces of the adjoining units, which are 1.05 metres in height where they meet the front balustrade and for a distance of half a metre and then project at a 45 degree angle towards the façade of the sixth level, up to a maximum height of 1.8 metres above the finished floor level.
Moreover, to the extent that the sixth level would be visible from Princess May Park, the car park or further afield, a contemporary presentation is entirely acceptable from a heritage perspective. As Mr Patrick De Villiers, a consultant town planner with experience in heritage assessment who gave evidence on behalf of the applicant, observes, the Burra charter supports the principle of making changes in a way that makes them recognisable as changes.
As Mr Ronald Bodycoat, a heritage architect who also gave evidence on behalf of the applicant, explains:
"The addition of a new top level of different architectural character and setback from the line of the existing façades is strictly in conformity with sound principles of proper architectural design and conservation practice in the built environment replication is not appropriate and there is no outcome of confusion in respect to interpretation of new and old."
In their joint witness statement, Mr De Villiers, Mr Bodycoat, Mr Hocking and Ms Rosario agree that the sixth level should be differentiated from the retained façade elements to enhance their integrity, particularly when viewed from a distance. The heritage experts also agree that substantial additions should be contemporary in character, rather than be a reconstruction of historic elements, to assist the discernment of the evolution of the place.
Finally, we note that cl 6 of the City's Policy DGF 20 Princess May Park (DGF 20) provides that new buildings should be a maximum of four storeys in Cantonment Street "to maintain the downtown character and a 'framing' role to Princess May Park".
The fourstorey limit is a policy control which can be departed from in appropriate circumstances. As the City recognises, strict application of the control is inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. Since 1967, the existing building has had a height of five storeys in Cantonment Street. The proposed setback of the sixth level from the principal façade is adequate, in our opinion, to ensure that the framing of Princess May Park will remain substantially as it has since 1967.
It follows that we do not consider that condition 1 is warranted, insofar as it requires a minimum setback of 4.0 metres at the sixth level, although a condition should be imposed in its place which requires that no structure on this level may project closer than 4.0 metres to the façade of levels 1 to 5, other than the proposed roof overhang and the clear glazed balustrade and obscure glazed privacy screens we have described. Insofar as condition 1 requires that the height of the building should be limited to 25.7 metres, it is unnecessary, as the approved plans show a building which does not exceed that height.

Condition 2 Should the openings on Levels 4 and 5 "replicate" the same size and treatment as the existing openings on Levels 1 to 3?

It is noted that condition 2 as proposed by the City does not accurately reflect its key concern. The key concern is not with the window openings on Levels 4 and 5, but with the openings for balconies.
The hearing proceeded on the basis that the intent of condition 2 is to require the same size and treatment of windows and to limit balcony openings to a width of 3.0 metres, which is the width of the existing windows on Levels 1, 2 and 3, and the width of the proposed balcony openings on Levels 2 and 3.
Although the windows proposed on Levels 4 and 5 are directly above existing windows on Levels 1, 2 and 3, which are proposed to be retained, whereas the existing windows on Levels 1, 2 and 3 are 3.0 metres in width, 2.5 metres in height and comprise 24 glass panes, the proposed windows on Levels 4 and 5, while also 3.0 metres in width, have a lesser height and comprise four vertical panes.
Five 3.0 metre deep by 4.0 metre wide balconies are proposed to project from the existing façade on the Elder Place elevation and six on the Cantonment Street elevation on each of Levels 2 to 5. However, whereas the openings proposed for the balconies on Levels 2 and 3 are 3.0 metres in width, corresponding to and in the same location as existing 3.0 metrewide windows, the balcony openings on Levels 4 and 5 immediately above the openings on Levels 2 and 3 are proposed to be 500 millimetres wider on each side. The proposed openings on Levels 4 and 5 for the balconies are, therefore, 4.0 metres in width.
Ms Rosario considers that the existing building, which she describes as having a "restrained elegance", "is designed to continue the form, scale and articulation established by the earlier building [that is, the 1927 building], but uses detail in a manner contemporary to buildings of the 1950[s]". In particular, the building on the site continues the line of windows established by the 1927 building on Levels 2 and 3. In her opinion "to disrupt the scale of the façade by introducing larger windows or wall openings on the upper levels will visually disrupt and compromise its heritage qualities".
Mr Hocking considers that the 4.0 metre width of balcony openings on Levels 4 and 5 would not respect the strict regularity of the façade, retain the patterning characteristic of the façade, or retain the solidtovoid relationship characteristic of Levels 2 and 3. He considers that the 4.0 metre width, together with the introduction of balconies, would "confuse these façades as mementos of their time and their role in telling the story of Fremantle".
However, under crossexamination he conceded that, if the application proposed 4.0 metre wide recessed balconies on Levels 4 and 5, he would accept the application.
The Tribunal does not consider that the difference in size and style of windows or the difference in the size of balcony openings at Levels 4 and 5, when compared with the openings at Levels 2 and 3, would detrimentally affect the heritage value of the building. As noted earlier, the Burra charter supports the principle of making changes in a way that makes them recognisable as such. Furthermore, as Mr De Villiers points out, the Burra charter also indicates that using modern materials can be a good thing, when it shows that a modern element has been introduced.
In their joint statement, the heritage experts agree that the "new openings to be inserted on Levels 4 and 5 should be discernibly different from the original openings on Levels 2 and 3". The balcony openings proposed on Levels 4 and 5 would be contained within an existing wall which, since its erection in 1950, has had no openings. The City and its expert witnesses accept that it is appropriate that windows and balcony openings are created in the wall, although, as we will discuss later, the City and its witnesses consider that the balconies should be internal and should not protrude out from the face.

We accept Mr Bodycoat's evidence that the City's requirement for replication of existing openings in a wall which has never had openings is "contrary to sound conservation practice". The applicant's proposal to create subtle, but nevertheless noticeable, differences between the form of fenestration on Levels 4 and 5 and the retained fenestration below, and between the size of balcony openings on Levels 4 and 5 and the size of existing openings below, is a far more appropriate response to the conservation and preservation of the cultural heritage significance of the building than the City's proposed condition.
Indeed, there is a credible argument that the proposal could, and in an ideal world should, have gone further and even more robustly differentiated the new openings from the restored openings at Levels 1 to 3. However, we accept that the development as proposed merits approval and find that condition 2 is inappropriate.

Condition 3 Should projecting balconies be deleted?

Ms Rosario considers that balconies which project beyond the façade "would totally disrupt the façade". She notes that the 1950 and 1927 buildings do not contain any significant projections and considers that they form part of a solid masonry edge of built form which separates the port from the town of Fremantle and which does not contain such elements.
Mr Hocking considers that the proposed balconies would be countervailing to the previous flatness of each of the façades, would convert the twodimensionality of the existing façades into a threedimensional pattern, and convert the strict balance of the existing façades into vertical groups of windows and balconies. He considers that the "level of change proposed would mean loss of these façades as mementos of their time and their part in telling the story of Fremantle".
On the basis of this evidence, the City contends that the projecting balconies would compromise the building's façades and the cultural heritage qualities of the building in an unacceptable manner.
We do not agree. The proposed balconies are lightweight, cantilevered structures of open appearance. The essential physical form of the building, its ability to be read and appreciated as constructed, and its place in the solid masonry edge of the town of Fremantle, would not be detrimentally affected to any significant degree. We accept Mr Bodycoat's evidence that "the significant element of the wool store is its bulk and scale. If that element is significant in the townscape, then the proposal is appropriate, since it is in detail only that the existing building is changed".
Although it is correct that, with the exception of the adjoining apartment building to the north, the solid masonry edge of the town of Fremantle, being comprised of generally former commercial and industrial buildings, does not contain balconies, it is a varied masonry townscape, encompassing buildings of varying architectural character and size.
When viewed in the context of the wider townscape and also at close quarters, the defining characteristic of the 1950 building is its significant, perhaps monolithic, bulk and scale. That characteristic will remain, notwithstanding the projecting balconies. The regular pattern of openings at Levels 1, 2 and 3 will also remain, notwithstanding the fact that some of the windows in these openings will be replaced with projecting balconies. A similar level of change would occur with internal balconies, which are favoured by the City.
Mr Wittkuhn, counsel for the City, also sought to draw in aid examples of warehouse developments in Sydney and Brisbane, which do not appear to contain projecting balconies. However, the facts and circumstances of each case need to be carefully considered, as well as the individual heritage status of each building. The Tribunal does not have any detailed information in relation to the facts, circumstances or heritage status of the buildings referred to.
It is also to be noted that although the brick and fenestrated façade of the 1950 building is flat, and certainly more flat than the 1927 building, an awning between Levels 1 and 2 creates a third dimension when the building is viewed from close quarters.
Furthermore, because of the retention of the essential physical form of the façade, the proposed building will remain an appropriate contributory element to the 1927 building. The 1927 building will retain its "monolithic presence" in the streetscape, and will continue to be complemented by a building of similar size.
We also consider it relevant that the projecting balconies are a product of reasonable and appropriate adaptive reuse of the façade of the 1950 building. As the designing architect, Mr Kenneth Musto, explains, "one of the most important design elements of apartment planning is the 'breakout' of recreational space this is the balcony component".
The photographs of recessed balconies in some former industrial and commercial buildings provided by Cr Leslie Lauder demonstrate that although the façade of a building may be in full sun, very little sunlight penetrates into the recessed balcony, much less into the unit behind. The result is a poor level of internal amenity in the living areas of the unit.
We consider that, unless it is necessary for reasons of heritage conservation to create such a poor level of internal amenity, which we do not consider is the case here, such amenity consequences should not generally be accepted.
Ms Rosario also gave evidence that it is appropriate to consider the impact of the balconies with the impact of balconies on the 1927 building, since it is likely that the adaption of the subject building would be followed by adaption of the 1927 building. However, the heritage status and the aesthetic characteristics of the 1927 building are quite different. It may well be that, in consequence, even lightweight balconies of the type here proposed would be inappropriate for the 1927 building. The present application, we consider, should be assessed on its own merits.
Finally, we consider that the proposed development, including its fenestration and balconies, is consistent with the objectives of Policy DE2 Residential Development in the Central City, in that it is compatible with and does not prejudice the conservation of heritage buildings and values, and DGF 20, in that it constitutes sympathetic redevelopment.

Condition 16

At the conclusion of the hearing, the representatives of the parties indicated that there is broad agreement in relation to condition 16. The agreed condition is now as follows:
"Where practicable and safe, the applicant is to salvage and recycle jarrah columns, wandoo floors and equipment for use in the lobbies and landscaped deck areas of the development."
The Tribunal also considers that a further sentence should be added to condition 16 as follows:
"The existing raised letters to the Elder Place façade 'WOOL STORES' shall be salvaged and displayed on the Elder Place façade of the building."
The designing architect is of the view that such a requirement is appropriate. The Tribunal agrees.

Conclusion

It follows that the application for review should be upheld in part. Development approval should be granted, subject to the conditions proposed by the City, with the following alterations.
Condition 1 should be deleted and replaced with a condition which requires compliance with the plans of the development except as modified by the other conditions.
We note that the Tribunal was provided with plans in Exhibit 14 which show the amended application following mediation. However, the Tribunal does not presently have detailed elevations of the sixth level. In addition, it is appropriate that detailed plans be referred to in the consent, which are in the same form as the plans that were originally before the City and granted conditional approval.
Effectively, this requires the plans, being 04515 DASK 2 to 11 inclusive, to be amended in accordance with Exhibit 14. We recognise that this will require some work on the part of the designing architect, but we consider that it is appropriate that the conditions of development approval ultimately refer to a single consolidated set of plans.
Condition 2 should be deleted and the following condition inserted in its place:
"On the 6th level no structure may project closer than 4 metres to the façade of levels 1 to 5, other than the roof overhang shown on the approved plans which may project to 3 metres from the façade of levels 1 to 5, a clear glass balustrade fixed to the rear face of the existing parapet with a maximum height above the finished floor level of 1.05 metres and obscure glazed privacy partitions between the private open spaces of adjoining units, which must be of the same height as the front balustrade where it meets the balustrade and for a distance of 0.5 metre and then project at a 45 degree angle towards the façade of the 6th level up to a maximum height of 1.8 metres above the finished floor level."
Condition 3 should be deleted and the following condition inserted in its place:
"The balustrades on levels 2 to 5 shall be of an open metal appearance or clear glazed."
In relation to this condition, we note that the plans in Exhibit 14 show balustrades of an open metal appearance. However, we do not consider that this should preclude a glazed appearance. Either form of balustrading will ensure that the development is appropriate in terms of heritage conservation.
Condition 16 should be amended in the way that we have discussed earlier.
Because the applicant needs to amend the plans, we are not in a position to make final orders today.

Order

We make the following order:
By 22 June 2006, the applicant must file and provide to the respondent amended plans of drawings 04515 DASK 2 to 11 inclusive which accord with the plans in Exhibit 14 and which show the elevations and floor plans of the sixth level.

Attachment A

Conditions of Development Approval

Building Design

The development shall be carried out in accordance with ten sheets of plans drawn by The Buchanan Group Architects entitled "Fremantle Woolstores Redevelopment of the 1947 Woolstores Buildings – Stage B" project number 04515 drawing numbers DASK 2 Rev 2 (site plan), DASK 3 Rev 2 (basement plan), DASK 4 Rev 2 (level one plan), DASK 5 Rev 2 (level two plan), DASK 6 Rev 2 (level three plan), DASK 7 Rev 2 (level four plan), DASK 8 Rev 2 (level five plan), DASK 9 Rev 3 (level six plan) and DASK 10 Rev 3 (site elevations), each dated June 2006, and DASK 11 Rev 0 (isometric views only) dated March 2005, except as modified by the following conditions.

On level 6 no structure may project closer than 4.0 metres to the façade of levels 1 5, other than the roof overhand shown on the approved plans, which may project to 3.0 metres to the façade of levels 1 5, a clear glass balustrade fixed to the rear face of the existing parapet with a maximum height above the finished floor level of 1.05 metre, and obscure glazed privacy partitions between the private open spaces of adjoining units, which must be of the same height as the front balustrade where it meets the balustrade and for a distance of 0.5 metre and then project at a 45 degree angle towards the façade of level 6 up to a maximum height of 1.8 metres above the finished floor level.

All balustrades on levels 1 – 5 shall be of an open metal appearance or clear glazed.

The applicant shall redesign the ground floor level of the 1947 Woolstore to incorporate land uses and design details that activate the street level. Details to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Council prior to issue of a demolition and or building licence.

If after demolition, development does not commence within 12 months, the developer shall undertake appropriate remedial works such as landscaping and maintenance to protect the amenity of the area to the satisfaction of the Director Urban Management.

Development standards

The proposed development must comply with the requirements of Council’s Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines such that:

6.1Any glass used for windows or other openings shall be laminated safety glass of minimum thickness of 6mm or "double glazed" utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3 millimetres.
6.2All safety glass shall be manufactured and installed to an appropriate Australian Standard.
6.3All airconditioning systems shall be of 'split refrigerative' type.
6.4All multiple airconditioning systems shall have a centrally located shut down point and associated procedures for emergency use.

No reflective materials shall be used on the development facing the port. Details of all external colours and materials shall be submitted prior to issue of a planning clearance for a building license to the satisfaction of the Director Urban Management.

All airconditioning or any other plant and equipment to the roof (maximum height of the building to be 25.7 metres AHD including services) of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points, shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the Director Urban Management. Full details shall be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence.

Any satellite dish, antennae or like equipment must obtain separate planning approval, and should generally be located so as to be visible from the street.

Landscaping and external areas

Prior to the issue of a building licence, a landscaping and paving plan must be submitted for agreement to the Director Urban Management.

The plan is to include the following elements:
10.1Landscaping and paving to the land around the perimeter of the proposed development to the lot boundary.
10.2The forecourt areas facing the street, where landscaping is to be limited to hard treatments such as iron railing fence, paving and low level shrubs, and not timber or limestone pier fencing, nor lawn areas etc, that would be more appropriate to traditional residential streets.
10.3The pedestrian areas of the adjacent road reserves, where tree planting shall be in a linear form, reflecting the existing plantings in Cantonment Street.
10.4Where practicable, all stormwater from roofed and paved areas being collected and disposed of on-site in landscaped areas in accordance with watersensitive design principles areas.

The applicant is to either undertake the landscaping works in the adjacent road reserve, or provide full contribution to the cost of the City undertaking such works, as agreed in the landscaping and paving plan.

Crossovers are to be constructed and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s Crossover Specifications Policy after separate approval by Physical Services Department, prior to occupancy.

Any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the City and the applicant's expense.

Heritage

The existing building shall be fully documented by professionally prepared studies of the physical, documentary and other evidence and the existing fabric recorded before any disturbance of the building.
This documentation shall consist of a photographic report which includes the following:
14.1A site plan showing the position, direction and number of each photograph taken.
14.2Photographs in hard copy (and electronic format) showing all facades and important internal features. These shall be mounted on sheets of A4 size paper with the relevant number written under each photograph.
Two sets of such records, including photographs, shall be submitted to Council prior to issue of a demolition licence.

The applicant will prepare an Adaptive Conservation and Interpretation Plan, in accordance with Council's Policy D.B.H.13 "Impact of Developments on Heritage Places Policy" detailing:
15.1proposed preservation and ongoing maintenance of the Cantonment Street and Elder Place façades; and
15.2the use of historic photographs and the retention, restoration, adaptation and interpretation of recycled material in the public areas of the proposed development.
The plan or working drawings shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director Urban Management prior to issue of a demolition licence.

Where practicable and safe, the applicant is to salvage and recycle jarrah columns, wardoo floors and equipment for use in lobbies and landscaped deck areas of the development. The existing raised letters to the Elder Place façade "WOOL STORES" shall be salvaged and displayed on the Elder Place facade of the building.

Traffic

Prior to the issue of a building licence, a traffic management plan prepared by a suitably qualified professional is to be submitted for agreement to the Director Urban Management. The plan is to provide information in relation to:
17.1Pedestrian movements;
17.2Traffic circulation;
17.3Signage; and
17.4Access.

The applicant is to implement the traffic management plan prior to occupation of the proposed development.

Car parking

Prior to the issue of a building licence, a car park plan is to be submitted for agreement with the Director Urban Management. The plan is to provide the following:
19.1Location, marking and construction details of vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas (including loading and disabled bays);
19.2The allocation of car parking bays to each of the apartments;
19.3Car bays to be a minimum of 2.5 metres x 5.5 metres with a 6.0 metre accessway between rows; and
19.4Any car bay adjacent to a wall, rail, structure, etc, higher than 150 millimetres shall be a minimum width of 2.8 metres.

The applicant is to implement the car park plan prior to occupation of the proposed development.

Lighting

Details of any proposed external lighting shall be submitted for agreement with the Director Urban Management, and must conform to the following standards:
21.1Be designed to ensure that there is no conflict with port lights required for navigating ships; and
21.2Comply with Australian Standard AS1158.1.

Memorials on title

A memorial shall be placed on the title of each strata lot advising all prospective purchasers of the residential units that the site is located adjacent to a working port which is subject to 24hour operation, including the loading of livestock, and will be a source of potential amenity impacts, including noise, light and smells.

The developer shall place a memorial on the titles advising purchasers of the residential units within the property that the development is in close proximity to established commercial/entertainment premises and a railway line and is, therefore, subject to noise and patron behaviour not associated with a typical residential environment, and that in selecting to reside in this locality, purchasers must recognise the noise, traffic and other factors that are associated with such activities.

Construction conditions

A construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director Urban Management prior to the issue of a building licence addressing the following:

24.1staging;
24.2dust mitigation;
24.3construction/development times;
24.4complaint resolution;
24.5product storage;
24.6site rehabilitation during construction phase of the development;
24.7worker parking;
24.8or any other matters as deemed appropriate.

The plan shall be implemented, as required, to the satisfaction of the Director Urban Management.

Adjoining building

The existing 1927 building shall be fully secured against vandalism and weather damage. Minimum works to be undertaken shall include:
25.1All openings of the 1927 building, including windows, shall be boarded;
25.2Roofing material is to be inspected and patched to ensure no water ingress to the building;
25.3Rainwater goods are to be inspected to ensure adequate drainage;
25.4The eastern side of the building shall be fully secured. (Advice regarding the cladding material to be used to secure the east side of the 1927 building shall be obtained from the Heritage Council of Western Australia).

I certify that this and the preceding [69] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR D R PARRY, SENIOR MEMBER