Freo's View


Posted in architecture, city of fremantle, development, heritage, Uncategorized by freoview on July 27, 2017


Pakenham Street development proposal


I am delighted that Fremantle Council last night unanimously rejected the application for three five-storey buildings in Fremantle’s West End.

The three buildings would have been built from the Customs House on the corner of Henry and Phillimore Street all the way to Pakenham Street and would have destroyed the West End forever and set a precedent for future massive buildings.

Not only did our Councillors reject the application but the State Heritage Office also recommended its refusal.

Councillor Bryn Jones said that the reasons for the refusal are very comprehensive and it would have been the end of the West End as we know it.

Councillor Andrew Sullivan said the development was significantly out of order and that the permanent state heritage listing of the West End was a game changer that would have an impact on how the State’s Joined Development Assessment Panel(JDAP) would rule on future applications for the historic area.

Councillor Jones said that JDAP cannot approve a development when the State Heritage Office recommend it to be rejected.

There is incredible arrogance by architects trying to get five-storey buildings in the West End, when the planning scheme only allows for three storeys, with a possible discretionary additional storey for outstanding architecture or heritage preservation.

The proposed buildings show absolute disrespect for the heritage significance of the beautiful West End and are very basic, boring, mediocre TBL(tripple bottom line) boxes that would do nothing to enhance the area.

The attack by developers on the West End needs to stop and the State Government needs to step in and be stronger and make sure that the DAP does not approve future five-storey applications.

Councillor Bryn Jones reminded us last night that the State Heritage Office had recommended the Notre Dame University five-storey building in High Street for approval and that is a serious worry.

It was only the university’s Vice Chancellor Celia Hammond’s respect for Fremantle Council and the Freo community that saw Notre Dame withdraw the development application after public rejection.

That building will now be totally redesigned to accommodate the wishes of the community. That is responsible and respectful development other developers should take heed off!


Roel Loopers


5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. freoview said, on July 27, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    I was told the City of Fremantle cannot just refuse applications because they are inappropriate and that they have to go through the proper process.

    I agree with you that it is a waste of time and cost the City money in officers’ hours, etc. That is why it is so very annoying to me and many other residents of Fremantle.


  2. Paula Amaral said, on July 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    If the planing guidelines clearly state that only 3 storeys are allowed, and applicants ignore the rules shouldn’t it be more efficient and less wasteful of human resources, if the city would simply reject the plans on application?
    I don’t think there is a law that obliges the City to accept those types of applications, so why go through the whole process which causes the residents so much annoyance and anxiety and actually opens up the possibility of it being accepted?

  3. Carl Payne said, on July 27, 2017 at 11:03 am

    It’s not even a conscious arrogance Roel; it’s more related to the degree of exposure that we arse-detectors have to the vast range of variant design influences.

    Education and personal experience creates a different set of criteria; a different list of priorities. So different architects will create vastly different solutions to the same design brief. It’s a natural and perfectly understandable creative response. Just like movie-makers do; and potters; and song-writers; and cooks. And photographers even.

    That’s why the debate about design controls for sensitive heritage areas goes on. Everywhere, all over the world. It’s a minefield; and becomes very dangerous when we walk into it with discussions about the design issues of scale and proportion and texture and the like. However, height limits, as a determining design criterion, is a safer determinant; and more logical regarding implementation and the provision of clear policy.

  4. curiousjulz said, on July 27, 2017 at 10:19 am

    Great news!!!

    Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________

  5. Steve said, on July 27, 2017 at 9:49 am

    The arrogance of these modern architects blighting our city with their half assed money grabs is frustrating. It’s like they don’t even care and don’t even try. I’d prefer we recycle designs from 120 years ago rather than accept this shit. It begs the question – what are they teaching architects in school? Because it certainly isn’t form or function. These eye sores would probably sit empty and ignored much like the blight inflicted upon both sides of the road on Bannister st. Pathetic.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: