Freo's View

WHY WAPC REJECTED J SHED TAVERN

Posted in city of fremantle, heritage, hospitality, j shed, western autralia by freoview on September 22, 2016

I had a look at why the WA Planning Commission rejected the Sunset Events proposal for a tavern and live music venue at J Shed at Fremantle’s Bathers Beach and found it quite puzzling why neither the City of Fremantle nor the State Heritage Office did see these issues and approved the tavern at Arthur Head.

Here part of the ruling by the Statutory Planning Committee from their meeting of August 23, 2016.

1. The proposed application does not comply with the requirements of the Clause 30 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme as it is inconsistent with the purpose for which the land is reserved under the scheme, inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality and does not allow the preservation of amenities in the locality.

2. The proposal does not provide sufficient on- site car parking;

3. The proposed application does not comply with the requirements of Development Control Policy 5.3 – Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space as it is not of a nature and scale of the proposal is compatible with the use and zoning of the surrounding land, the nature and purpose of the reserved land and the environmental character of the location;

4. The proposed application does not comply with the requirements of Development Control Policy 5.3 – Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space as it is not identified there being a community need for the proposed facility in the proposed location and the proposal is not consistent with existing or proposed land use and management plans;

5. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 4.1.2 (b) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy as the proposal does not demonstrate a low key use and is not compatible with the ethos of the area;

6. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 3.4 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF26 – Planning Policy for the West End of Victoria Quay as the proposed land uses are not compatible with the primary or ancillary land uses desired for the locality;

7. The proposal is inconsistent with objectives 3.1 and 3.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF5 – Arthur Head Reserve Strategy Plan as the proposal is not a low profile commercial uses of J-Shed reflective of and is not compatible with the history and maritime themes of Arthur Head and the foreshore;

8. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF6 – Arthur Head – (West End of High Street, Fremantle) as the proposal is overloading the vicinity with proposed developments;..

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. freoview said, on September 22, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    Yes it’s a mystery to me.

    Roel

  2. freoishome said, on September 22, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    I would have thought it was a role the staff to bring these policy digressions to the notice of the Council when this was proposed, and hence there would be a record of the discussion that they caused. Let alone that the public said as much, but without that formal information.
    Be interesting to see what the councilors who voted have to say now, as it surely will impact future ideas, not just here but other sensitive places.
    Paul

  3. bigjulie said, on September 22, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    With not one box ticked, one does have to ponder HOW it ever got the big luscious loving kiss of approval by Council?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: