Latest on Arthur Head/J Shed

by dgeorgieva on 3 September 2016

Dear Precinct

Things have taken on a more positive turn in FICRA’s ongoing community action to prevent Sunset Events imposing an amplified concert venue for an audience of 1500 and an extremely large 800 patron tavern at Arthur Head by J Shed below the Round House.

In June we were greatly buoyed by the decisions of both the Fremantle City Council Planning Committee and the full Council voting not to recommend the Sunset Events proposal to the Western Australia Planning Commission.  This was in spite of a poorly reasoned recommendation from the City’s Planning Department to support the application.

At the WA Planning Commission, FICRA joined the J Shed artists and the volunteer Roundhouse Heritage Guides in making submissions to as well as meeting with the officers of the WAPC outlining our concerns and objections.

This process culminated in an address by all three groups (and Sunset Events) to the members of the WAPC on Tuesday August 23.

FICRA is extremely pleased by the Planning Commission’s subsequent decision which was published early this week (Monday August 29th) on their website. The WAPC wholly rejected the application of Sunset events on multiple grounds. (See below).

We fully expect that Sunset Events will appeal this decision and that the next part of the Roundhouse Guides, the Artists and FICRA’s action will take us to the processes of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) sometime soon. We of course remain confident given our very substantial grounds for opposing the proposal, but wary.

 To be continued . . .

That the Statutory Planning Committee resolves to refuse the application for proposed special event (live music) venue and the alterations and additions to allow for a change of use to a tavern at Lot 2051 (Unit 1), Reserve 21263 Fleet Street, Fremantle as shown on the plan amended plans received 11 July 2016, for the following reason(s):

The WAPC’s reason(s) for refusal are:

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.      Approval to the application would set an undesirable precedent for the development of other Parks and Recreation Reserves which would undermine the objectives and requirements of the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Maryrose Baker  

FICRA Committee Member

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

This website is designed by Jumping Jigsaws