The Royal George Hotel and Roofing 2000 Site
The Fremantle Society works with similar groups outside Fremantle when it can, and we have campaigned with Friends of Royal George for months on the issue of the rezoning the Royal George site, and the shocking deal with Saracen that gives them the magnificent hotel for just $576,000 plus GST in return for not doing any of the restoration so far that was supposed to be completed within 36 months, but giving them a massive bonus of up to 7 storeys of apartments on the site.
Then there is the Roofing 2000 site on the corner of Stirling and Canning Highways where the owner is seeking 80 to 100 apartments on a relatively small plot of land.
Submissions are due TODAY by 11.50pm, and its really easy to go to the East Fremantle Council website and make a brief, or lengthy, submission.
The top photo of a possible outcome on the Roofing 2000 site is borrowed from the Friends of Royal George facebook page and shows the obscenity of the current push by government and developers to allow high rise totally out of keeping with local character.
The second photo is from the Town of East Fremantle website and shows the negative impact of 6 storeys on the hotel, not 7 as approved by Lisa Saffioti.
Few people have read the full conservation plan for the Royal George Hotel, but the Fremantle Society has. It outlines the huge social and historical importance of the Royal George Hotel, including the rarity of the rear under building stabling, probably unique in Western Australia and described by one architect as like being in a small cathedral.
That value alone should be enough to ensure no large apartment block is allowed right up next to the hotel.
The Fremantle Society attended a town hall meeting on these two issues last week and asked why the heritage precinct listing for the Royal George Hotel and George Street disappeared some years ago, when the hotel is obviously an important landmark heritage building and George Street is good enough and important enough to have a heritage listing. Council is looking into it.
Below is what Genevieve Hawks has written on the Friends of Royal George facebook site:
Royal George Hotel (No. 15) and Roofing 2000 (No. 14) submissions:
In brief, East Fremantle Council’s two amendments (Scheme Amendment No. 15 [Royal George Hotel], passed by the Council in June 2018; and Scheme Amendment No. 14 [Roofing 2000], passed by the Council in April 2018) both gave upper height limits to any future developments on those sites. The State Minister for Planning is seeking to modify those amendments in several ways, and we are being asked whether we support those modifications (hence our submissions). ON BOTH SITES, HEIGHT LIMITS HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE MINISTER’S MODIFICATIONS. In the case of the Royal George Hotel, the Minister’s modifications cap development at seven storeys, but the height of each storey is OPEN, so potentially the development could be higher than the hotel spire. (This would not be possible under the Council’s original amendment.) In the case of the Sewell Street site (Roofing 2000), the Minister’s modifications potentially allow a 16+ storey building (this would be the tallest building in Fremantle).
The NUMBER OF FLATS that can be built in each development doesn’t really vary that much between the Council’s original amendments and the Minister’s modified amendments: so the choice is basically between shorter and bulkier, or taller and narrower buildings.
If your main concern is HEIGHT, you can state in your submissions that you support the Council’s original amendments (Scheme Amendment No. 15 [Royal George Hotel], passed by the Council in June 2018; and Scheme Amendment No. 14 [Roofing 2000], passed by the Council in April 2018).
If you have ongoing concerns about the impact on the neighbourhood (heritage, amenity, traffic, parking, overlooking, overshadowing, development precedent, local school catchment, etc.) list all of those concerns as well. You may oppose ANY large-scale development on either of those sites (for reasons that you outline) and there is still some value in stating that in your submission. (See GR’s submission on Scheme Amendment No. 14 below [posted by me on 17 February] – it’s a good example of what you might say.)
Sorry for the short notice, but you can do it!