State Planners Reject 'Premature' Five-Storey Development in South Fremantle
State planners have rejected a proposed multi-dwelling building in South Fremantle, deeming the five-storey development premature for the area. The Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel voted unanimously against the proposal at their March 4 meeting, following significant community opposition and concerns about the project's scale.
Proposal Details and Community Response
Dan O’Donovan Architects had sought to build a five-storey building at 242 Marine Terrace, a site that has been vacant since 2016. The original application was for six storeys with an extra unit, but this was modified to five storeys containing four dwellings. Each dwelling would feature three bedrooms and two bathrooms, with the ground floor dedicated to parking spaces and a lobby.
The City of Fremantle received 40 submissions during the public comment period, with 33 objections raising serious concerns. Residents argued the building was too high, would overshadow neighbouring properties, and disrupt the existing streetscape character. A report to the Development Assessment Panel noted that surrounding buildings are only one to three storeys high, creating a significant scale discrepancy.
Architect's Defense and Panel's Verdict
Architect Dan O’Donovan defended the proposal, stating the site was in an area identified for urban intensification and that the design had been carefully modified after receiving feedback. "The development contains only four apartments, one per level, so operational intensity is low," he told the panel. "This project replaces a long-vacant site with active residential use and improved landscaping. There are no unacceptable amenity impacts."
Despite these arguments, panel members remained unconvinced. Cr Andrew Sullivan acknowledged the building had "very interesting elements" and was "very elegant," but ultimately found it too tall and detrimental to the streetscape. He particularly criticized the ground-floor parking design, citing similar issues in Cottesloe as a "bloody disaster."
"I can predict in the future this is the sort of building that we should see on a site like this or in that area," Sullivan said. "It's just premature, unfortunately. There is an opportunity there. It's just not this one."
Future Possibilities and Planning Implications
Panel presiding member Clayton Higham emphasized that the rejection does not mean the project is completely lost. "There are great opportunities here, even though it's a very difficult site," he noted, suggesting that a revised proposal might find approval in the future. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between urban intensification goals and community preservation concerns in evolving neighbourhoods.
The panel's report specifically addressed the building scale issue, stating: "The building scale would step from the proposed five-storey building down to 2-3 storey buildings to the north, east and south." This abrupt transition was deemed unacceptable given the current character of Marine Terrace and its surroundings.
