Freo's View



The first item on Wednesday’s Fremantle Council Strategic Planning and Transport Committee is an interesting and challenging one because it is about the City-owned properties 9-15 Quarry Street.

Proposals for the development of the sites have been controversial and not to the liking of local residents who want to retain the low-rise streetscape on the southern side of Quarry Street while it is more likeley that developers would want to build medium to high density there.

The officers recommend to:

Introduction of a uniform zoning of Mixed Use and residential density of R80 with a plot ratio of up to 1, across the lots.

Introduction of specific building height limits and setbacks, to reflect the site’s location and facilitate a transition between high and low density.

Introduction of policy controls to include specific boundary wall, overshadowing, interface and pedestrian access link controls.

Councillors and staff held an on-side workshop on April 1 this year and the agenda state that:

The following broad parameters were discussed at the informal Councillor workshop:

Priority for residential land use given the need to encourage more people to live near central Fremantle, without excluding the potential for a modest mixed use component;

A residential coding of a medium-high density (achieving an equal or greater yield to that under current zoning – previously estimated around 34 dwelling units – refer to December 2018 report);

Diversity of dwelling types is preferred but should not be prescribed beyond the new requirements recently introduced into the R-Codes Volume 2 by Design WA;

Building height up to 4 storeys (reflective of provisions already applicable to Lots 2 and 1 and its associated sub-area) in the centre of the site with lesser heights on the boundaries with existing low density residential (including that to the south-west);

A higher quality design outcome is desired on site, as far as this can be achieved through traditional planning processes (noting the much stronger emphasis on this aspect established in the new R-Codes Volume 2 by Design WA);

Existing vegetation should be encouraged to be retained but not be prescribed beyond the new requirements recently introduced into the R-Codes Volume 2 by Design WA;

There should be specific provision on where boundary walls should be permitted, along with minimum setbacks for upper floors to limit bulk and overshadowing on neighbouring properties;

Pedestrian access should be incorporated through the site to provide a connection to Fremantle Park and to potentially activate the ‘dead’ corner at the back of the site

The site walk-around reinforced local community concerns about excessive bulk and height, impacts on amenity, the suitability of the site to accommodate non-residential uses and concerns about design quality. Support was expressed for the proposed pedestrian connection into Fremantle Park.

There have been suggestions made to use the sites for age-care and affordable housing and Slavin Architects released plans on how good low-rise development could be achieved at Quarry Street.

The sites are very well located close to the railway station, high frequency buses, the Leisure Centre and Arts Centre, shopping, schools, Fremantle Park, Princess May Park, etc.

It will have to be seen if developers are interested at all as there are a lot of apartments still vacant at Heirloom and LIV and the proposed Hilton development could not manage any pre-sales of the apartments on offer there.

The residential development of the former  Energy Museum, which is very close to 9-15 Quarry Street has also not eventuated although the Match group has stated it will go ahead with it.

Any other ideas for the sites? Share it with the Freo community!

Roel Loopers

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Sam said, on June 18, 2019 at 11:10 am

    Well there is an oversupply of apartments at present given the multiple developments. According to REIWA data, market value of Fremantle apartments is up 11.7% over the last year which is much higher than neighbouring suburbs like North, South and East Freo, all experiencing negative growth.


  2. freoview said, on June 17, 2019 at 7:29 pm

    Fremantle is not such a “thought after location” when we consider how many empty brandnew apartments there are and the fact that a lot of development is on the slow burner because of the lack of pre-sales. There are plenty of people who worked very hard and made sacrifices who were less fortunate and now rely on affordable housing because of bad luck, or bad decisions, or bad relationships, whatever.



  3. Sam said, on June 17, 2019 at 6:06 pm

    Paula and Roel, what are you proposing exactly? Fremantle is a sought after location and what you term ‘expensive’ is determined by the market, and bought by those that have worked hard and made sacrifices through their lives. If you want affordable buy a home in Hilton. Also why should taxpayers fund additional community/social housing on prime real estate? We already have our fair share in Fremantle as it is.


  4. Peter Scott said, on June 15, 2019 at 1:32 pm

    Why is our council so hell-bent on selling this valuable city asset to yet another (lurking) developer?
    Sensible & wise management of our city’s assets does not mean “to sell” …!
    Part of the overall site still retains a purpose built (disused) child care facility, which with a little inexpensive clean-&-restore works could resurrect & bring back online as a money earner for the city.
    The remainder of the area landscaped with native trees & plants & retained (an asset) as access to the quiet corner of Fremantle Park.


  5. freoview said, on June 15, 2019 at 12:21 pm

    Fremantle needs the money, Paula and local government can’t really get into residential development I assume, but it is indeed a shame that we’ll probably be getting more expensive apartments while more people have to live on the streets because they can’t afford the high rents or even contemplate buying.



  6. Paula Amaral said, on June 15, 2019 at 11:30 am

    It’s a great pity that both local and state governments are only interested in selling publicly owned land to private developers. They in turn only want to build luxury apartments which very few people can afford. Why isn’t community housing and co-op housing being considered?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: