All recent comments on applications from Fremantle City Council, WA

I am a resident/owner on the corner of Rose Street and South terrace. I oppose another bar on the South terrace strip of South Fremantle. I am not opposed to other business or a restaurant but not a Bar. South terrace is a mix of homes as well as businesses and there are enough drinking venues on this street. The venue is quite large (previously being a restaurant) which would mean a lager number of people coming to the area for drinking only. Currently the area is just manageable with the amount of intoxicated people roaming the streets, urinating, defecating, leaving bottles, glasses and beer cans littered on the strip and side streets. We are frequently having to repair, remove toilet paper human faeces and replace plants on our curb side garden. I did ask the owners what sort of food they would be serving and they said they had no idea. Obviously this sent warning bells in regard to safe drinking laws. In summary I object to another Bar on the small south fremantle south terrace strip as there is enough drinking venues already and unfair on current property owners and their families. It also worries me as there is no notification at the venue, local home owners would be unaware of the application to comment. I have lodged an objection to the Liquor licensing & Gaming however they have not received an application from this address yet

I recognise that there is a need for facilities such as these but this land use seems inconsistent with the intent of the Knutsford East Local Structure Plan, which seeks to guide the transition of this neighbourhood from industrial to urban while supporting existing local businesses. The land use doesn't help to activate the street, synergise with other existing local businesses on Stack Street and nearby, or reflect anything about the artistic and historic background of the area. Recent land uses for this particular site have included a former depot jointly owned by other local government authorities and a showroom / offices for Funky Monkey Bars. A showroom, offices, shop, artist workshops, or even small educational establishment, might tie in better here. "Funeral Parlour" does not reflect the changing nature of the area and the presence of residences directly across the street who will be faced with grieving families every day if approved. It may be better sited in a commercialised area, sleeved sensitively amongst other remnant light industrial/service commercial land uses on central Montreal (i.e. near the deport) or Stock Street, or physically closer to Fremantle Cemetery.

I am puzzled as to why it is necessary to pay for approval and a building licence to have a shade sail? These things are a temporary structure and are usually taken down in winter or when a storm is due.

I live in the house behind the mentioned property at 90a Rennie Cres sth, Hilton. This structure sits in a very discreet place away from view from the street. I have never experienced any disturbing noises associated with this space. One would never know its there if not told thereof. I believe it deserves to be approved to remain.
M. Batenburg

Location of new building is in the same location as historic garden shed. New building used as a study/ office area.

I am writing in support of the proposed housing development at 1 Beazley Way.
Because there is such a growing and chronic shortage of affordable housing, many vulnerable people are at risk of homelessness.
People with disabilities are of particular concern. Imagine what it is like to be the parent of an adult child with a disability. All you want is to know that your daughter or son will have secure, safe, ongoing and affordable housing when you are no longer around to advocate on their behalf.
Such a sad comment on society when we make harmful and incorrect assumptions about vulnerable people be they with disability, elderly or low income. These people are valued, loved, respected and equal to anyone of us.
Please support this application.

I'm writing in support of the development of social housing on 1 Beazley Way White Gum Valley.

It is crucial that the City of Fremantle allows for the development of as much social and affordable housing as possible. In recent years there has been a sharp decline in the in the number of social housing units in Fremantle. Within the context of our housing crisis, the City should take every opportunity to encourage the development of social and affordable housing.

The Fremantle community is broadly supportive of social and affordable housing. Many community members recognise the need for diverse housing options as housing in areas of the city, including White Gum Valley, are becoming increasingly unaffordable for an average person.

Social housing is important in ensuring that our community remains diverse and vibrant.

I strongly reject the assertions in the submissions from community members drawing a connection between the City's consideration of this development application any 'crime problem' in the area. The perceived risk that the approval of this application will result in increased crime in the area is unfounded, offensive and is not reflective of community sentiment in Fremantle.

I urge the council to approve this application.

I strongly oppose this development in the current location.

The area is already struggling with accommodating the existing rate payers vehicles with off street parking options scarce.

The original approved development proposal for this site was 17 x Baugruppen development, this project maintained the aesthetics of the area, now there is suddenly an increase to 24 apartments!

As stated by the previous commenter, the area already has a significant crime problem, with home burglary and car break in a common occurrence.

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed development of social housing on the currently identified land within our community. After careful consideration, it has become clear that the intended use of this land for social housing raises significant issues that warrant urgent attention and reassessment of the proposed development plan.

Firstly, it is important to recognize that the value of the land in question is significantly higher compared to other areas nearby that could offer much more value for the investment. By choosing a location just a short distance away, in the same suburb, it is possible to achieve greater benefits for both the community and the potential residents of the social housing project. Such a decision would not only optimize the use of financial resources but also align with the best practices of urban planning and development.

Moreover, our area is already grappling with challenges related to high population density, which has had a direct impact on the quality of life for its residents. Parking, in particular, has become a critical issue, with insufficient spaces available to accommodate the needs of the community. The addition of a social housing development in this already congested area would exacerbate these problems, leading to increased frustration and potential conflict among residents.

Additionally, it is with great concern that I report an incident that occurred just this morning—a break-in into my vehicle, highlighting the exceptionally high crime rates our community is currently facing - (literally) every day on this street we have had break ins. The introduction of a social housing project, accompanied by an increase in population density and the associated increase in vehicles, is likely to further strain our already overburdened law enforcement resources who are unable to do anything in response to the crime rates here.

In light of these considerations, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed development of social housing on the currently identified land. It is imperative that we seek alternative solutions that not only provide valuable housing opportunities but also preserve the quality of life for the existing community.

What are Madalena's planning? Hard to comment when there is no information.
They have been guilty of loud party noise in the past. Hopefully any additions do not involve DJs.

I live in Loukes St and am wondering if the subdivision would result in a driveway into Loukes St?

This site is the gateway to Fremantle from major ship and train transport hubs. Fremantle residents have invested hugely in the promotion of Fremantle as a key tourist destination with the ambition of promoting local businesses and reinvigorating this important port town. The re-development of Fremantle’s Woolstores shopping center is a critical component of Fremantle’s master plan. Yet after demolition, the land remains abandoned for over a year. Now a retrospective application for yet another car park. This retrospective application is a disgrace and should be denied. If the developer fails to build, it would make better sense to plant trees and turn this eyesore into a green space.

Our neighbours at 2 Snook are lovely and we're very happy for their plans of the patio to go ahead and the pool has already brought their young children such joy. We share the rear boundary and our rear wall is only 1 metre from the new pool/patio area. We are hoping that this added variation isn't too major as our proximity to both the pool and the proposed patio is tight. The rear of our house is all bedrooms so noise is always a concern as we are shift workers.

Anthony, there is no detail here to comment on. There are no plans to view that I can see. The comment is a generic one about protecting roofscapes as well as streetscapes. We spoke today, and happy to speak again.

This is a highly visible heritage building and the addition of solar panels should not be on the street where they would diminish the integrity of the heritage cottages but on the roof facing the rear. As technology improves the unsightly but valuable solar panels will become less an less visible and intrusive.

John, Have you taken a look at the proposed plans before commenting? Nothing at all is visible from the street and there are no additions or sunshades, lift overruns etc that form part of this. A great deal of time and consideration has gone into the preparation of these plans before the submission was made to ensure all heritage aspects were given due consideration.

The West End is a highly significant heritage listed precinct not well enough protected by a council which allows detrimental changes too often. Any extra addition to a building in the West End should not be visible from the street or adjacent streets. The value of roofscapes in a low rise heritage precinct is an important part of the streetscape value and any visible addition is a detriment to the value of the original building and its neighbours. This particularly applies to additions like sun shades, lift overruns, air conditioners and other clutter which should not be screened - they should not be allowed in the first place if visible from adjoining streets.

Absolutely agree with John Dowson. A shoddy bright-yellow paint job has no place in this location. The building itself is already inappropriate in this location, without making it stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.

The front facade of this building has recently been painted bright yellow which is totally inappropriate in the centre of a historic town, opposite the 1887 Town Hall which recently underwent a $3 million restoration and adjacent to heritage icons like the 1886 Federal Hotel. There are no details provided about the rear access signage, but council should act swiftly to have the damage done by the bright yellow paint rectified by being repainted.

Shade sails on the front of the buildings would be inappropriate for these heritage buildings. They would detract from the streetscape; impact public amenity; reduce the attractiveness of the buildings for tourism. A poor precedent would be set - assuming, of course, that the shadesails would be for the front of the property.

Without seeing details of what is proposed my comment would be that it is very hard to see how such an addition could be implemented at the front of the property without seriously impacting on the highly significant streetscape.Should the addition apply to the rear of the property then shade sails are vastly preferable from a heritage perspective to eg pergolas.
I have been i personally involved in a large scale heritage project where replacement of pergola with shade sail was undertaken for this reason.
Overall I hope that if the City does not already have policies/.guidelines in place covering such cases , development of them will be treated as a matter of urgency.A precedent should not be set by approving an inappropriate addition in this instance.

There is no detail offered here to explain the extent of the proposal. But, shade sail cloth should not be allowed in front of highly significant heritage buildings because (a) they are buildings that have not needed such structures for the past 150 years of their existence (b) they negatively impact the appreciation of the building by residents and visitors, especially those who take photographs.

Visual clutter in highly significant heritage precincts is to be avoided. Already in this location is a plastic flapping sign in the street advertising the markets which is cheap and tacky and should be removed.

The negative impact of such sail cloth can be seen in North Fremantle in front of the former primary school there on Stirling Highway where sail cloth has obliterated the view of the attractive heritage building.

As a homeowner and resident of Mardie st, I have concerns regarding the new property design. Having consulted the plans, I have issues with the height of the property and the rooftop terrace effectively creating of 3 storey property which would be overbearing on the mardie st properties and give a reduction in privacy, since views from the terrace would look directly into bedrooms. Additionally I believe that the aesthetics of the new property do not align with the style of housing currently on mardie st, many of which have potential or apparent heritage status as outlined by Fremantle council in document DGB4.

Hi, we live down the road and I'll like to find out more specifically what is being planned for this site? There is already a women's refuge in the street and if it is likely to be backpackers, another refuge or something similar it has a high chance of further substantial negative impact being imposed on the surrounding residential areas. The area is undergoing long overdue gentrification and a change of use to short-term accommodation has the potential to significantly contradict and slow this process.