SUNSET PAY $400 A WEEK

SUNSET PAY LESS THAN SMALL HOUSE RENTAL IN FREMANTLE
Sunset Venues received the keys to J shed’s number 1 studio today (Thursday 6th July) and will pay only $402 per week on the prime property, representing a lower rent than many families pay for a small home or apartment in Fremantle.
The rent, described by Fremantle Council as a ‘startup’ figure, is granted under a scheme designed to help companies establish new businesses in the city.
Sunset’s 21 year lease over no.1 J Shed was activated last Saturday morning, the rent will not increase until 1st July 2018. They will then pay $800 per week and will not pay the full rental figure, $1616 a week, until July 2019. The rent has been described as ‘too low’ and a ‘peppercorn rent’ by critics of the plan.
Had council insisted the site was activated, with full rent, in 2015 ratepayers would have been better off by about $255,000.
The council will only receive approximately $60,000 over two years.
Mayoral candidate Ra Stewart, has mentioned that council should not be responsible for Sunset’s poor management.

ARE THEY SUITABLE TENANTS? – NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS
At a public information meeting in the Council Chamber two years ago David Chitty, a director and principle spokesperson for a number of related companies, was asked, ‘What will you do with regard to public behaviour after your concert events?’
He replied, “I have no responsibility for the behaviour of people when they leave the venue”. In fact he does but seems to be blissfully unaware of laws related to licensed premises.
There have been numerous complaints in relation to concerts held in Fremantle, including those held by Sunset at the J Shed venue. Fremantle residents spoke of people vomitting, defecating and urinating in the streets and doorways after the concerts. There were also complaints of vandalism and excessive noise. Anecdotal evidence suggests that immediately Sunset’s concerts finished security guards, who searched concert patrons before entry to venues, were stood down.
Chitty was also asked what he would do in relation to people listening to concerts from public spaces. He replied that he would ‘call on the police’ to remove people from those locations. That is an indication he may only be interested in guarding profit margins at the expense of legal considerations for public behaviour.

FUTURE CONCERTS ARE POSSIBLE
A licensed bar of 400 people is not likely to be trouble free. There is also an underlying opinion that there will be concerts. The application for the site’s activities says there will be no ‘paid’ music. This could mean that unpaid musicians may be used and the potential remains to apply for professional concerts later.
The Sunset companies are struggling to pay their suppliers and have failed to reactivate the Drill Hall where Fly by Nite operated. Could this lack of activation be because the Sunset companies have a reputation for not paying their suppliers and artists and musicians are not prepared to work for them? Sunset had applied for a delay of lease activation for 12 months. A principle reason was related to financial instability.

COUNCIL APPLY PRESSURE: FICRA  SAY ‘SUNSET IN BREACH OF LEASE’
Council placed Sunset under pressure to perform following a unanimous vote to refuse an additional 12 months grace before the lease’s activation.
The Fremantle Inner City Residents Association (FICRA), in a submission to Council, outlined a number of issues related to Sunset’s inability to manage the site successfully. They say Sunset is already in fundamental breach of the lease by failing to “use its best endeavours” to secure necessary approvals by the required time. They also say, “Given that Sunset have known since the lease was signed in 2015 that they have had no financial success in the interim period it is unlikely they will gain large investment funding”.
It now rests with Fremantle Council to ensure the lease is implemented and, in the event of default, take rapid action, possibly to evict the company and revoke the lease.

CONTINUING FAILURE ‘ALMOST CERTAIN’
FICRA outline, ‘There will almost certainly be a continuing failure by the lessee to meet fundamental obligations saying, ‘The unwillingness or incapacity of [Sunset] to pay the already reduced rent (25%) does not suggest willingness or capacity in the future to provide substantial investment as the lease contemplates’.

HAVE YOUR SAY
A few days remain to contact council and express your opinion in relation to the revised plans for J Shed.

This link will take you to the web site.

[http://mysay.fremantle.wa.gov.au/jshed-unit-1-fleet-street-fremantle]

Roger Garwood : Editor

editorbackchat@gmail.com

SUNSET  SHAMBLES

COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION ADVISE ‘KILL THE LEASE’

RA STEWART:  ‘COMPANY’S LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE SHOULD NOT BE COUNCIL’S PROBLEM’

Tomorrow night (Wednesday, 28th June) Fremantle council will consider what to do with the troubled Sunset Venues’ lease.
As a result of financial issues the company’s  request for a 12 month period of grace before their lease is implemented will be decided by the full council.

SUNSET ‘LOOK LIKE MOBSTERS OF ROCK  – THEY’RE ON THE NOSE, FROZEN FREO’S LIVE MUSIC SCENE’

A critic of the Sunset companies, Robby Lang, said in a comment to Fremantle Backchat: “Sunset have frozen the live music scene in Freo for the past 3 years with their inaction on the old Fly by Nite site and J shed.
“These sites should be given to people whose actions will benefit the community. Sunset is on the nose and for council to prop them up is bullshit. Unfortunately they are looking like the Mobsters of Rock, Not paying their sub contractors etc.”
Sunset have admitted to financial problems in settling outstanding debts and now wish to implement the J Shed lease on 1st July 2018. However Sunset Events are a different company from Sunset Venues but it appears that Sunset Venues, who have a lease on the old Drill Hall in central Fremantle, are not in a position to activate plans for the former location of the ‘Fly By Nite’, a popular music venue.

COUNCIL ADMIN ADVISE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET OR KILL THE LEASE

The lease is due to be activated this Saturday, 1st July. Sunset Venues have said they hope a 12 month extension before activation may trigger investment. They offer no guarantee that granting extra time will succeed in attracting investors.
Council administration have recommended an alternative suggestion to councillors which includes granting additional time but concluding that if conditions are not met : “ [by] the deadline of 1 December 2018 … the lease is terminated”.
Councillor Doug Thompson who voted against the company’s request for an extension at Council’s Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee  meeting on 14th June feels the administration’s alternative proposal is preferable. He said: “This would also mean that Sunset Venues must show they have the financial capacity to deliver the Lessee works to Council’s satisfaction. Subject to hearing the debate I have a view that an earlier date than December 2018 for conditions to be met has merit. Of course Sunset Venues would have to agree to any condition precedent being included in the lease.”

$105,000 SUBSIDY ISSUES

The issue of a $105,000 subsidy has been raised and compared to the withdrawal of $97,000 funding from the Wirrawee Woman’s Refuge. The term ‘subsidy’ was challenged by a reader on the Freo Massive Facebook page.

Whichever way this reduction in rent is considered it is a subsidy. It is designed to assist Sunset Venues establish a brewery. The  term ‘assist’ is a direct translation of the Latin ‘subsidium’ from which our language gets the word ‘subsidy’.

City Ward Councillor Rachel Pemberton explained there is no comparison between the withdrawal of Council funding from a womens’ refuge in 2015 and the funding of Sunset’s project.
She said: “The State Government significantly cut funding for Warrawee and so we decided not to tender to run the service and allow a specialist service provider take over. The operator that won the tender has taken over the management [Warrawee still exists and operates in Fremantle] and has other refuges so can  provide a better service more efficiently than we could”.
Ms Pemberton continued, “Council was committed to direct its previous funding to Warrawee to provide specialist legal advice at the Fremantle Community Legal Centre to help people, including women fleeing domestic violence, avoid becoming homeless”.

RA STEWART: ‘PRIORITY IS TO SUPPORT THE VULNERABLE : NOT IN COUNCIL’S BEST INTERESTS TO SUPPLY CONCESSIONS ON LEASES’

Mayoral candidate Ra Stewart commented: “The Warrawee Women’s Refuge provides safe, affordable and supported crisis care accommodation for women and children subjected to domestic and family violence. This service was managed by the City of Fremantle until 2015, after which time Council decided not to reapply to run the service thereby saving approximately $100,000 per annum. Given the recent focus on domestic violence at both State and Federal levels of government, and its social impact on our community, my priority would most certainly have been to continue to support these vulnerable members of our community”.
Commenting on the J Shed brewery proposal Ra Stewart said: “It is important to attract interesting and viable businesses to the City of Fremantle for the enjoyment of all, it is not in Council’s best interests, nor the ratepayers it represents, to provide concessions on lease agreements, or absorb the costs of a company’s oversight in regards to the due diligence around its commercial arrangements”.

 

Roger Garwood : Editor

editorbackchat@gmail.com

SUNSET’S J SHED SUBSIDY

SUNSET HAVE GAINED RATEPAYERS’  $105,000 ‘SUBSIDY’

In a lease approved by  Fremantle Council  for  Sunset Events ratepayers will fund a  $105,000 subsidy to help the financially troubled company to establish their micro brewery and 400 seat bar in J shed.

 

An extension of 12 months for the time in which Sunset implement the lease has been applied for and will be considered by council tomorrow, Wednesday 14th June.

In an application lodged with Fremantle Council   (7th July 2017) Benson Studio for Sunset outline a proposal which reveals a rent reduction of $105,000 in the first two years of the Sunset lease.

The rent for the lease  of the J Shed studio, situated on Arthur Head below the Round House and site for Sunset’s proposed micro brewery, is $83.950 per year. Over the first two years rent would have totalled  $167,900. Sunset are requesting they pay only $62,962 in that period. This represents a shortfall of $105,000 which effectively forces ratepayers to subsidise a private company’s startup. Several observers have commented that even without the subsidy the  rent is very cheap.

Buried deep in the 62 page lease the relevant clause states:

Item 8.       Rent: (clause 3.1)

$83,950.00 per annum plus GST

14.6     Rent Reduction

The Parties acknowledge and agree that during the period commencing from the Commencement Date and ending 24 months after the Commencement Date, the Lessee will pay Rent at a reduced rate and in the following manner

(a)        for the first year of the Term, the Lessee will pay 25% of the Rent; and

b)         for the second year of the Term, the Lessee will pay 50% of the Rent.

FINANCIAL CLOUD OVER SUNSET : ONLY ‘HOPEFUL’ THEY CAN PAY RENT

A number of  media outlets  have outlined some members of the events industry in Western Australia have had trouble paying creditors. Those businesses include Sunset who have been arranging financial settlements with their creditors.

Sunset are only ‘hopeful’ that extra time will help. The Application says: “Sunset has advised that it would be difficult in current circumstances for them to pay rent from July 2017 without the approvals they require to trade effectively. Sunset are hopeful that once approvals are gained, it will trigger investment and the ability to cover the rent and finalise the “Lessee Works”.

COUNCILLORS ADVISED  ‘REJECT EXTENSION ‘

The application for the extension also says: “Sunset Venues have had ample time to gain required approvals and that the lease considers the scenario in which approvals have not been granted by the lease commencement date. Therefore, it is recommended that the request for an extension until 1 July 2018 be rejected.”

Council officers state the proposed leasing arrangements may continue in a state of ‘frustration’. They say “In the event that the approvals are not granted, the lease will continue in a state of ‘frustration’ where no outcome is achieved other than activation …”

WHY SHOULD WE SUBSIDISE THEM?

Sunset’s management admit they are financially frustrated. Is it reasonable for ratepayers to subsidise them?

There has been considerable  angst among residents in the area of J Shed.  The issue of this lease and the request for a $105,000 ‘startup subsidy’ may have a strong influence on the outcome of council elections in October this year.

A number of councillors and organisations have been asked by Fremantle Backchat to comment.

North Ward  councillor Doug Thompson explained his considerations. He said: “Councillors are required to take into account a range of information before making a decision and to have an open mind  about decisions. My general approach to decision making is to give primacy to the information contained in the report and to the officers’ recommendation”

He continued:  “I keep an open mind ( as I am required to) in relation to information provided during a meeting and the issues raised in debate. In relation to your specific questions the decision in relation to the lease arrangements has already been made and is not being reconsidered. What I think about specific elements of the lease is irrelevant. The good governance recommendation by the Department of Local Government, and the Local Government Act,  requires me to support decisions made by Council, regardless of whether I, as an individual Councillor supported those decisions at the time.”

Ra Stewart, a mayoral candidate in the City’s October electoral said: “I am supportive of the officer’s recommendation to reject the extension of the lease commencement date. It would appear that Council has been fairly generous up to this point in time.”

‘KICKING THE CAN AROUND’

The Mayor and City Ward Councillor Rachel  Pemberton have declared a conflict of interest and feel in that circumstance they are not in a position to comment.

Maryrose  Baker and Robert Mehan of Fremantle Inner City Residents Association declined to comment saying:  “FICRA is currently preparing a formal response for Council re the latest Sunset Events J Shed proposal.  We don’t intend to issue any statements on the matter as an Association nor as individuals right now”.

John Dowson was asked to comment as  President of the newly amalgamated Fremantle Society and the Fremantle Residents’ & Ratepayers’ Association but chose to make a personal observation: “In terms of the J Shed lease Sunset may have a lot on their plate financially. Sunset and the Mayor may not want the lease to be a major election issue, raising again the question of the $5000 election donation from Chitty’s brother, and kick the can down the road until the October election is over”.

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM A MAJOR ELECTION ISSUE?

If council approve the application for a delay the controversial elephant in the room may  be given a lease of life.  If they do not Sunset will need to implement the lease from 1st July this year, complete with the already agreed $105,000 rent reduction but still under their admitted financial difficulties.

It does seem likely that the J Shed lease and Sunset Events will become an election issue which will need to be addressed by all candidates, particularly those for City Ward and for the position of mayor.

 

Lutton Underlines Fremantle’s Angst: Public Meeting

Opposition having little impact

There is underlying angst among  a broad sector of Fremantle’s residents. Dissatisfaction with aspects of council’s direction in the city’s management has led to many small groups forming and voicing opposition to various plans and the effect those decisions may have on lifestyle.

While opposition appears to be gaining pace it is not gaining strength and has little impact on elected members.

Disparate groups need to pool common goals. 

The principle problem with the disparate groups is they have lost sight of their common interest – that of ensuring Fremantle offers a lifestyle which suits all residents. Unless these groups pool  common interests they are unlikely to influence changes.

Two bodies are now taking the high ground. The Fremantle Inner City Residents Association (FICRA ) and Fremantle Ratepayers and Residents association (FRRA).

Sadly the Fremantle Society, a once respected body, is virtually ignored and suffers from floundering management, dwindling membership and a lack of connection with the public which was its most valuable attribute.

Failure to communicate with public

These groups  fail to recognise that effective opposition can only be achieved by regular, widespread,  correspondence outlying constructive solutions to the city’s future. It is likely this can only be achieved by extensive use of social media. This has been effectively demonstrated by groups who support the Youth Plaza and Skateboard Park. Use of social media saw these groups literally swamp meetings with supporters and out-voting any opposition.

Like it or not that is one way rapid and effective communication operates in the 21st century.

Groups virtually inactive … but crying ‘foul’

Other groups and the precincts seem to be virtually inactive. All cry foul in the face of council’s unpopular decisions, implying the members have no mandate for many of their decisions. They do a have case. Many changes being made were never placed before voters. There is also evidence to suggest that council manipulate numbers in relation to petitions and may have a cavalier approach to the actual location of residents and ratepayers. However, with a 40% voter turnout (very high for council elections and the highest in WA) and any opposition slam dunked into oblivion, it is small wonder elected members have taken on the mandate mantle. But members should not forget they act on behalf of all residents, whether they voted or not.

Major issues have surfaced … public forum called

In the immediate past weeks two major issues have emerged. That of the resignation of Dr Linley Lutton from the council’s Design Advisery Committee (DAC) and the continued notion the area around J shed will host a large bar with a license for 850 and 10-15 concerts per year on Arthur Head for 1500 ticketed patrons. The public expectation was for a small bar.

Former Deputy Mayor John Dowson,  a leading advocate of medium rise development and high quality architecture, has spearheaded discussions about several Fremantle issues.

Dowson and his colleagues have now organised for FICRA to host a public forum to debate Fremantle’s future. He has invited Dr Linley Lutton to speak saying:  “Dr Lutton is ideally placed to help the community understand the consequences of intended developments”.

The invitation to the meeting,  open to the public, promises Dr Lutton will outline why the community must re-engage with the city’s planning process; whether the planned developments for Fremantle are realistic and the future of the principle developments in the CBD.  These include Queensgate and Myer, King’s Square, Spicer Site, Point Street and the proposals related to Victoria Quay.

‘I watched a crisis develop …’ 

It will be no surprise if social media is used to muster vocal opposition to Dr Lutton. In the past couple of weeks there has been a “He said, they said” exchange between Lutton, Fremantle Council and the chair of the DAC, Geoffrey London on behalf of the DAC committee. They have refuted his claims.

In his “Thinking Allowed” (The Fremantle Herald 1st Feb 2104) Dr Lutton took a broad approach, not naming names or specifics.  He said:

“I watched a crisis develop as projects being pushed by the council failed to meet acceptable design standards … Inevitably they were dealt with by the planning committee in a way which suited certain pro-development agendas”

London: ‘DAC relations  with city professional and respectful’

Professor Geoffrey London, Chair of the DASC, in a letter to The Fremantle Herald (Letters: 8th Feb) refuted these claims. In a letter supported by the DAC committee he said:

“In my view, relations between the city and the DAC have been supportive, professional and based on mutual respect. I believe the DAC is working effectively to bring about significant improvements in the design of projects …”.

Backchat asked Dr Lutton to expand on his comments. He emphasised it is important to understand the majority of Fremantle’s elected members are working for the good of their constituents. He went on to say:

“A new group of elected members have come to power wishing to see Fremantle change and they believe that this can happen through property development. The means they use is to change the planning regulations to attract developers.

Lutton: ‘Intentions good but results fail’

“What inevitably happens is that the people pushing for change put things in motion which are difficult to stop and a considerable reputational [sic] and material investment starts to occur. The intention can be good but so often the result fails. There are many examples where this approach fails. I have been involved in several such exercises where no change has occurred years after these intervention tactics are devised”.

Dr Lutton  supplied an extract of a letter sent to Fremantle Mayor Dr Brad Pettitt. He said, in part:

“An experienced Councillor attended several DAC meetings when the DAC first commenced and on one occasion briefed the DAC members on the importance to the City of a  major project we were just about to review. I am sure his attendance will have been recorded. I complained at the time asking why he was attending our meetings. “We can’t stop an elected member attending DAC meetings” was the response by a senior council officer. This of course is incorrect. At Victoria Park, no elected members are permitted in DRC meetings”

Dr Lutton explained the ‘major project’ he mentioned was the EG [Coles Wool Stores] development.

Councillors asked to be ‘nice’ to developer

“The Councillor effectively asked the DAC to be ‘nice’ to EG. I was the only DAC member to raise serious concerns about the project at EG’s presentation, which was attended by a large group of people. At the end of the presentation the DAC chair summarised the views of the DAC members, all of whom had spoken, but left out my concerns. I had to interject publicly and state that building heights of 17 or so floors was a major concern to me and could my concerns please be recorded. I recall at this meeting that Ian Alexander [Former President of The Fremantle Society] expressed major concerns and asked why the COF was so intent on pushing for such major change. The DAC chair responded saying something to the effect that he was desperate for change to happen in Fremantle – this was hardly an objective position for a chair to take. I was later berated in private by him for my comments”.

Lutton contined:

“The project being reviewed [Coles Wool Store] was the biggest being proposed in Fremantle and the proponents were favoured by the City. I had serious problems with the project but the DAC minutes failed completely to record the strength of my concern”.

In his letter to The Mayor Dr Lutton explained:

“There are three significant projects I will attest to where the DAC had very serious reservations and these projects have continued to go through the system at COF. At Victoria Park, projects causing major concern to the Design Review Committee would mostly be rejected. I sent this email in August 2013 regarding two projects. I have no idea if my concerns were properly recorded. The views are strongly expressed in this email but are consistent with the DAC committee discussions on both projects”.

‘Projects among the worst … set poor precedents’

8 Packenham Street and  85 Queen Victoria Street

“These two projects are among the worst I have evaluated in many years. Each suffers from gross over development of their respective sites. In both cases the proponents have been uncooperative and have attempted to chip away with minor revisions without attempting to resolve the major problems.

“What concerns me most is why both proponents felt it appropriate in the first instance to present such overdeveloped solutions. What message are they being given when they start the process? Why would a proponent think five storeys on the corner of Packenham and Short Street would even be a possibility?

“Both projects set poor precedents and if approved there will be no stopping others.

“Unlike the DAPs, our role goes well beyond simply facilitating development. I understand the development happening but not at any cost, surely!

“I am not able to support either project in their current forms”.

In his letter of resignation from the DAC Dr Lutton said, in part:

“There are three significant projects I will attest to where the DAC had very serious reservations and these projects have continued to go through the system at COF. At Victoria Park, projects causing major concern to the Design Review Committee would mostly be rejected. I sent this email in August 2013 regarding two projects. I have no idea if my concerns were properly recorded. The views are strongly expressed in this email but are consistent with the DAC committee discussions on both projects”.

‘London’s letter a standard political responce’

The public forum could be very lively. In his response to Backchat Dr Lutton contradicted Professor London’s letter saying:

“I regard London’s letter as a standard political response. It certainly does not reflect the true dynamics of working on the DAC. On numerous occasions in DAC meetings I voiced loudly my sense of futility and regularly expressed concerns that the DAC was not being taken seriously. At one meeting I clearly recall one DAC member stating that ‘the COF needed to be more respectful of the DAC’. This statement was made as part of a discussion about the DAC being disbanded, a prospect raised by a senior council officer. The Chair seemed concerned at this prospect and raised the idea of a meeting with the CEO, the Mayor and others to sort out some important areas of concern. If things were going so well with the DAC, why would there be a suggestion that it be disbanded after only 3 years of operation? I am also sure other DAC members must have heard the comment made by the council officer that “councillor X was editing DAC reports”. I reacted so strongly to the comment that anyone in the room should remember it.

‘I would strongly refute London’s tone that the DAC is effective’

“I argued on many occasions that the DAC be stronger in its opinion and be less ambiguous. I urged them to take a stronger stand on poor design projects in which the COF was involved. One other DAC member also urged the DAC members to be clearer about their concerns At one stage I said I was actually proud,  at long last, to be part of the DAC due to their strong words voiced in the committee meeting about Point St. I was therefore stunned to hear that the DAC had signed off on the project.

‘Development … there were no positives’

“On one memorable occasion I raised concerns about a project only to be told by the Chair that he would assure the proponent that he did not share my concerns. This was a very concerning comment by the Chair and I told him so. It not only implied that he regarded his opinion to be more important than mine but it also undermined my ability to say anything further in the committee meeting.

“On another occasion the Chair asked me in particular to focus on the positives about a certain project. I eventually stated that I couldn’t think of any.

“A great weakness of the DAC process has been that recommendations and minutes are not signed off or agreed by the whole committee. The Chair and a council officer write the report and I have never, in just over three years, seen or had direct input into a single report. To me, the process was completely opaque and I had no idea what was actually being reported and by whom– hence my concerns about what the reports contained. I have never been part of a review committee which operated this way.

“The Point Street project, which is on COF land and is one of the largest contemplated in the city, is an interesting case. Firstly, when the COF asked for expressions of interest to develop this site they only had one response (I was told by a senior officer).The DAC met for many months to review this project because we had so many problems with it. I recall, at my last DAC meeting, a committee member saying that the problem is that this project is beyond the capacity of the architect. Other members agreed and we discussed how to deal with it. I even suggested another workshop. Shortly after this meeting I learnt that the DAC had signed off on Point Street. This was a remarkable development considering the depth of concern previously being expressed. My reading of this is that the DAC signed off because they had no real choice. I can recall so clearly in one meeting a DAC member saying words to the effect ‘ how can we deal with this and still keep the credibility of the committee in tact’.

‘Planning committee: Very large projects should be dealt with by full council’

“I suggest one problem in Fremantle is as follows. The COF has for many, many years only had to deal with planning applications of a small to medium nature. Fremantle is not known for major developments occurring in recent time. I can understand therefore that a planning committee was established to deal with these applications rather than involving the full council. This structure still exists however now, the planning committee is trying to deal with very large and complex projects. These  should be dealt with by the full council as they are in most local governments. The Planning and Services Committee has too many members who are pushing for development in the City. This gives the impression, to me at least and I suggest many others, that there is a perceived conflict of interest where pro-development councillors will support projects which they are actually initiating. Examples of this are Point St, Myer, Queensgate and the Spicer site. The Heritage Council  is an example where a committee member must declare a perceived conflict of interest. One member I know on the Heritage Council is also CEO of the Committee for Perth which is a strong pro-development lobby group. When she sits on the Heritage Council, she must declare a perceived  conflict of interest on any projects for which the Committee for Perth has been an advocate. The Council will decide if she is allowed to vote.

Huge Changes Promised

“The Mayor came to power promising change. He and a few other councillors embarked on a strategic sites review and they decided to increase heights in the inner city area as a means of attracting developers. I was employed to help facilitate this strategic sites review process and I saw firsthand how the pro-development councillors and the business lobby group dominated the views of others. The Mayor then assured the concerned community that high design standards would be maintained through appointment of a new DAC. High quality design standards have not been maintained as the Mayor admits in this email a few days ago”.

Backchat asked The Mayor and Councillor Andrew Sullivan, who was the the chair of the Planning Committee until recently, for their opinions. Councillor Sullivan responded:

“I did attend some of the early DAC meetings, but only when they were discussing DAC processes and establishing design principles. There may also have been occasion when DAC was discussing Amendment 49 where I was present to provide the Council’s perspective about that process, although I’d have to check the record to be able to state that categorically one way or the other. I was never present when DAC discussed individual applications as this was specifically prohibited. There was at least one DAC meeting (maybe 2 or 3 even) where their agenda included general discussion about process and principles, followed by consideration of a development and it may well have been the Woolstores Shopping site development as the timing makes perfect sense. From memory, that development process started before DAC was properly formed and so there may have been some general comment about where Council had got to with Amendment 49 and strategic sites owners like EG Funds as a way of providing background information before DAC got stuck into their consideration. It is important to understand that I had been heavily involved in chairing the Strategic Sites Working Group that was then followed by the Amendment 49 process. Hence discussions with EG Funds had been  considerable as theirs is probably the most strategic site of all. I had been saying that quite regularly and quite publicly for almost two years.

Sullivan: “A sad reflection on his [Lutton’s] understanding of the situation”. 

“If Linley believes that by stating an important matter of fact, i.e. that this was one of the most important sites in Freo and was one of the “strategic sites” identified through a robust planning process, can somehow be construed as trying to bully a committee of five professionals into making prejudiced recommendations, then that is a very sad reflection on his understanding of the situation. Indeed, the emphasis I had at the time was that it was critically important that we achieve the highest quality architecture on that site as this would be the landmark building(s) in that area. I don’t want a building approved on that site at any cost, I want a building that Fremantle can be proud of for centuries to come, and I wanted him and his DAC colleagues to help deliver that. The desire for design excellence is why I called for the DAC to be established in the first place and I made it very clear in public forums that I wanted the DAC to help deliver great outcomes.

‘Maybe his opinions were consistently in the minority …’

“I don’t think Linley’s resignation and public outbursts have anything to do with the general operation of the DAC. It may simply have been the case that his opinions were consistently in the minority and that his colleagues reached consensus recommendations that he didn’t support. Perhaps more telling is that Linley consistently argued against what he calls high-rise development, or anything over about five storeys (hardly high-rise but whatever). That was certainly his right to have a minority view but the Council writes the planning rules and after an extensive process the Council settled on heights that Linley is fundamentally opposed to (or has at least been opposed to in recent years – he wasn’t opposed to these earlier in his career). My sense is that in having to assess taller developments ever since, he has felt compromised.  His fundamentalism on this matter is breathtaking and I suspect he has invented his own version of ‘reality’ to deal with his confliction with the planning rules that were fairly mandated by the Council”.

Mayor Pettitt responded:

‘Meeting possibly an open joint presentation … I have not attended any DAC meetings’

“From memory the meeting Linley refers to was not a DAC meeting at all but a open joint presentation by EG on their site that all Councillors, DAC member s and planning staff were invited to.

“I am not sure of exact date but I’d say the last time we met EG to discuss a development was in 2011 – in the very early days of DAC. The question then for Linley is why did it take more than 2 years for him to resign if there were no issues with Councillors attending since then.

“I have not attended any DAC meetings and I am reliably told no Councillors have in the last few years where a specific development application was being considered. This is how it should be and I’d be surprised if he had evidence to the contrary”.

Graeme MacKenzie, The CEO of Fremantle Council, was asked if guidelines for councillors existed in relation to contact with the DAC but at the time of publishing Backchat had not received a reply.

LINLEY LUTTON : PUBLIC MEETING

The meeting will be held in the University of Notre Dame Medical Lecture Theatre, 38 Henry Street. 7pm Tuesday 18th February.

Declaration: The author is a member of the Fremantle Society