Comments on the proposed development of Kings Square

Agnieshka Kiera


My comments are limited to the likely impact of the proposed development on urban design and function of Kings Square as the only essential public space left in the heart of the city. In doing so I acknowledge that there are many other equally important aspects of the proposed development, which I don’t feel sufficiently informed or skilled to comment on. However in order to dismiss any likely criticism of limitations of my comments let me preempt my comments with the following notes:


In order to dismiss the City’s claim that it is prudent economic consideration and responsible financial management that demands maximising the proposed redevelopment of the square, I note the long-standing and publicly-raised objections to CoF selling $50 million of CoF investment property to Sirona for $29 million. Should the project proceeds as currently planned, it will erode the ratepayers’ asset base which has been built up over generations by close to $40 million. In my view this type of economic rational undermines any potential argument that reinstatement of the originally designed, proper city square, would come with a ‘hefty price tag’;


I note the City’s argument that “there is a need to achieve a significant increase in office workers in the city centre and to reinvigorate and tighten the retail core of Fremantle” (whatever it means). As countless research and examples around the world demonstrate, a properly designed town square contributes more to reinvigoration of the city centre than any maximisation of the already half empty places for rent and filling up the precious public space with brick and mortar. Should the Government Department of Housing relocated to the Fremantle’s site currently available for a compatible redevelopment in a proximity to Kings Square this goal would have been achieved without overdeveloping and commercialising the square;


I note but don’t buy the often raised ideological argument that “the Kings Square proposal plans to reinstate and reinforce the historic alignment of High Street through the square”. The reasons for extending High Street through the square are long expired and are dead (the trams, the need for parking next to the Town Hall, the horse drawn traffic). The original full square, like the urban design of the whole city, was a strategic urban design solution based on centuries-old European tradition, and the acquired knowledge of what makes cities work, as well as anticipation of the sufficient population increase in the long term future that would eventually make a good use of the sizeable square in the heart of the city. So the 20th century decision to cut the square in two triangles and filling up one of the triangles with brick and mortar has proven to be a short-term and mistaken solution, as the ensuing replacement of the historic buildings with the 1960s replacements indicates. The only lesson that can be drawn from the past mistakes is that the fragmentation and overdevelopment of the square has been a major cause of the failure for the misshapen, small size left over spaces to work properly as a square.

Objection to the current redevelopment plan

So let me focus on the core subject of my comments, the reasons why in my view the proposed redevelopment of the square represents yet another short-term and short-sighted solution, which can potentially become the ultimate nail in the coffin of Fremantle’s future as a vibrant and successful historic port city and a unique and well planned alternative to all other mixed bag regional centres of Metropolitan Perth.


The size of the square relative to the projected long term increase in population of the city is essential to the proper functioning of the evolving community ‘living room’ and a drawcard for visitors. What is often referred to as ‘activation’ of a public square includes many functions and complex activities involving social theatre, daily encounters and rituals, a meeting place and the place for public gatherings, civic functions, relaxation and pleasure and much more. So doing business is only a relatively small part of activating a public square as the countless local gurus and others from around the world, including Ian Gehl, Ruth Durack, Adrian Fini, Richard Weller, Dominic Snellgrove, Ian Molyneux, Linley Lutton, the Fremantle Society and many more, including myself, have argued as the reasons for reinstating the original layout of Kings Square in Fremantle. There are also countless examples elsewhere, but let me pick up only one, which I know intimately: the main square of Krakow laid down in 1410, at the time the largest square in Europe. It wasn’t designed to serve the then population of some 10,000 residents. It was designed to function as the heart of the city for centuries to come, and this is exactly what has happened. Almost a millennium later, the Main Square of Krakow remains largely intact in terms of its original layout and historic redevelopment and still functions as the heart of the so expanded city. It remains one of the most successful public spaces in Europe, not only in terms of activation of the civic functions, community activities etc but the viability and vibrancy of the city centre, serving some one million residents and matching number of visitors a year.

As the two photos below demonstrate, the square functions 24/7, 365 days/year and has indisputably contributed to the economic success not only of the world heritage listed historic core of Krakow, but the surrounding inner city areas, the satellite local centres and the economy of Krakow as a whole. Equally, it was prudent for the Royal surveyor to design the layout of Fremantle with a large square in its centre with the visionary, long term planning at its core. So it makes sense to ensure that Kings Square is returned to its originally planned size and is properly restored and upgraded/enhanced as the major public space of the city with St John’s Church and the original Town Hall as its major features and places for communal activities.


The current decision-makers didn’t even have to work hard to follow the conventional path of Claremont, Joondalup or Armadale to proceed with its shortsighted plans to maximise the development by filling up the square with brick and mortar and predominantly commercial activities. Ten years ago, the City commissioned Local Identity and Design Code for Fremantle and the Urban Design Centre’s study as the basis for the best outcomes for inner city and Kings Square. And the new Council of 2010 promptly rushed to ignore both and came with the globalised, conventional vision for central Fremantle to become high-density and high-rise instead. Yet, the Centre’s report concludes that Fremantle deserves: “a true urban square – of appropriate size and dignity to anchor the heart of Fremantle … this is the concept that speaks to the City’s confidence in its future … and refuses to bow to the short term exigencies of a conservative marketplace”. The current decision-makers have instead chosen to abide by the conventional solutions that elsewhere have produced, at its best, mixed bag outcomes, or, at worst, failed, at least as far as a truly sustainable redevelopment of heritage cities demonstrate all over the world (see Donovan Rypkema or Dennis Rodwell).


Town Hall and its clock tower, like the Round House, has been Fremantle’s symbol as a city and a landmark since it was built. Visible from many vantage points it served the community as the reminder of time; allowed visitors to orient themselves around the city; proudly projected and maintained Fremantle identity; and has been associated with many historic and community events that have taken place in the Hall. Its 1980s and 2010s conservations of the interiors and the facades respectively won the WA awards. Yet gradually its landmark quality has been eroded by such degrading developments as Johnson Court (dwarfing the Town Hall views from Fremantle Park) or Myers building (from High Street east). The planned construction of the new Council building and redevelopment of the whole block of Newman/ Queen/William Streets with the bulky, 5-7 story tall, massive square blocks would further dwarf and downgrade the remaining qualities and role of the original Town Hall as a symbol of Fremantle. The planned top floor of the new building will intrude on the architectural view of the clock tower on the approaches to the City, particularly in the closer perspectives from William, Adelaide and Queen Streets.


The ill-conceived split of Kings Square in two triangles would be reinforced by the new Council building. Despite the dismissal of the opponents to the proposed development by at least one of the EMs, as being ‘hopelessly fixated on geometry as if all great squares are actually “square” in shape’, the same EM contradicts his own argument by admitting that: “the very earliest plan for Fremantle was for a square shaped area that had the original St John’s church in the middle”. More importantly, the originally shaped square has had plenty of room for growth and activation, gradually reinforcing its civic role and public use with the Town Hall and St John’s church as its major focus of its public function. The several majestic and magnificent Moreton Bay figs planted some century ago were meant to adorn the square and to provide shade and respite, both being two of the square’s many public functions. The Moreton Fig trees, contrary to the view-blocking/space-fillers/weed-like London planes, are urban trees with the sculptured trunks and sculptural branches and high canopies permitting the views to be seen at the pedestrian level and providing shade and respite from the hot, limestone built buildings and pavements. All of which in the harsh WA climate has been an essential component of the wise planning of an urban space. Instead the current split of the square into triangles, reinforced by the new Council building, would reduce the precious space currently available for planting trees, while the awkward shaped building of useless internal spaces (for example the sharp corner of Newman and High Street) would take up the area of the square that is otherwise still available for trees and public space.


The countless cases of the successful squares elsewhere fly in the face of the argument by one of the EMs, who has defended the current plan as: “most good urban designers know that it is better to have a smaller space fully activated rather than a massive Roman forum devoid of humanity”. It is a baseless argument and we shouldn’t search far to see its false premise. As the very success of the reconstructed Bathers Beach and the restored and upgraded Old Port area of Arthur Head A class Reserve demonstrates, it is all about the quality of design and considerate upgrade that makes a public space successful. In case of Arthur Head it was both, the quality of design and actual upgrade, based on the values of the local context and heritage as a driver of both, that ultimately has attracted the public. In addition the restoration and upgrade of the Old Port area has successfully activated the adjacent commercial activity of the former Fishermen Co-op building. It has happened without introducing any commercial activity to the area except permitting the local artists to continue working in Fremantle by providing the workshop space with public access for them in J-shed. As the result the former port depot that indeed was ‘devoid of any humanity’ before has evolved into the much loved public reserve, where the restoration of the dunes, vegetation and modest development of paths and boardwalks with gentle introduction of heritage interpretation, have become the basis and a drawcard for activation. These days it includes the daily sunset watchers, joggers and walkers, art lovers, visitors to Fremantle, artists, swimmers, diners and divers alike, complementing and mutually reinforcing attraction of the Fishing Boat Harbour. So the more appropriate quote for Cr Sullivan’s argument should be one of the Roman emperor’s saying: ‘build it and they will come’. The secret is in the appropriate, contextual, people orientated and creative urban design of the public spaces to serve people, not cramming it with brick and mortar and adding more excluding uses to the already oversupplied eateries and half empty commercial spaces in Fremantle.


Finally, considering the many places of cultural significance providing context to the square, including the Town Hall and the nearby heritage buildings of William and Adelaide Streets, why the proper process of heritage evaluation and heritage considerations hasn’t been adhered to in the current redevelopment plan? Has the Conservation Management Plan been prepared prior to calling design competition for the new Council building? Has the Heritage Impact Statement prepared for the City of Fremantle been done with due professional integrity, essential to an objective evaluation? The urban design guidelines begin with a principle, which states that the heritage values of the area must be maintained and complemented, yet by the end of the document, it is obvious the heritage values have been in large part ignored in the proposed redevelopment. The new Council building has nothing in common nor does it pay any respect to ‘the fine example of Victorian Free Classical style civic architecture’ of the Town Hall or the ‘Gothic revival style’ of the Anglican St John’s Church or the Victorian character of the western and northern ‘walls’ to the square. On the contrary, surrounded by the oversized, voluminous, buildings of unrelated architecture, these fine examples of Fremantle and WA heritage, will be dwarfed, overshadowed and relegated, just like many of the Perth heritage buildings, into insignificance.


For all of the above reasons, the current plans for redevelopment of Kings Square should be abandoned and start afresh with due consideration given to both Urban Design Centre’s study and Design Code for Fremantle. This is the last chance for Fremantle to build on its assets, with the relevant local context as its core objective and with heritage as a driver for reinstating and urban refinement of the originally designed square, based on the fundamental principles for sustainable redevelopment. As all successful examples around the world demonstrate, new redevelopment of a historic city needs to have a tangible relation to the genius loci of its place, to its spirit and its DNA. The design of new infill cannot be translated from the one place to another and should be specific, complementary and reflective of the local place while creatively integrating old and new. The locally specific urban vision and good architecture work well for historic cities. And contrary to the much of modern development, the old cities are already compact, pedestrian, sustainable, ecological, efficient and need only local solutions to become better.

The current plans for redevelopment of Kings Square are contrary to these principles by introducing the conventional, largely commercial, short-sighted and unrelated to Fremantle type of over development of the oversized new administrative building, turning the square into a claustrophobic triangle surrounded by more large, un-Fremantle like buildings.

Agnieshka Kiera, 21 January 2019

Your Square, soon to be a Triangle? New Campaign Launch

Your King’s Square

The Fremantle Society has launched another campaign to save King’s Square. We want change – for the better. ie a true Town Square. We will send you the full page ad we have just launched in the Fremantle Herald.

We would like to share with you some more of the drone shots we commissioned of King’s Square, now that the administration building has been removed.

Few towns in Western Australia have a town square. Fremantle’s King’s Square has never been implemented as a town square. Over the years it has been over-filled with buildings and clutter.

Council commissioned experts to advise on the BEST outcome for King’s Square.

The $60,000 report was helped by Adrian Fini (Mirvac), Geoffrey London (then Government Architect), Dominic Snellgrove (green building specialist), Patric de Villiers (ex CEO of Fremantle), and Richard Weller (Head of Landscape Architecture at UWA).


They said: “This is the concept that speaks of the City’s confidence in its future, that recognises the enduring value of public space, and refuses to bow to the short term exigencies of problematic social elements and a conservative market-place. It celebrates the original structure of the space.”

Please go and look at the space and tell us if you agree with the experts.

John Dowson
The Fremantle Society


God at One End Looking at the Devil at the Other

Your High Street

In the 1800s the Anglicans had a church plumb in the middle of their King’s Square facing down High Street to the Round House Jail at the other end. God looking at the devil.

That church was demolished to make way for the current St John’s Church and to allow the Fremantle Town Hall to be built. High Street was extended through the Square and, at the other end, the Round House stopped functioning as a jail and became a tourist attraction. God no longer was keeping an eye on the devil.

Pity, because High Street at the moment needs a lot of help. At the King’s Square end, the “Green” council has just flattened a solid 50 year old building in order to spend $50 million it doesn’t have building a new one no-one in the community asked for. Rumour has it that because council has never paid their peppercorn rent in King’s Square to the church, that is why the church is seeking Victoria Hall for just $1.

At the other end of High Street, after wasting years trying to turn Arthur Head, where the Round House sits, into an alcohol venue, council is now faced with serious issues about the current state of the area due to a lack of maintenance. The scaffolding there gives some indication of just how much work, time and money is going to be needed to get Arthur Head back into good condition.

Meanwhile High Street itself is suffering jaundice from the yellow lines of Felice Varini. Whatever fun and joy was generated by spending $150,000 putting  yellow lines over the buildings in High Street, the resultant mess that is still to be cleaned up is not good for trade, tourists, or heritage. The cleanup will be done by one painting company working its way slowly down High Street, one building at at time.

Council has allocated $115,000 to clean up private buildings, but that amount will increase if any owner is unsatisfied with the standard of repairs and demands more. The amount will increase if owners succeed in legal action. One owner is taking the council to court, as a trial. Offered $6,000 by council to remove the yellow lines, the owner’s view is that a simple patch and repair will not work, and that the whole building needs repainting, at a cost of over $40,000. Ratepayers will wear the cost of the court case, and any decision against council.

Out of this catastrophic immaturity in civic affairs down the length of High Street between King’s Square and the Round House, some good could possibly come – if council held off the building of a new administration centre, and if High Street got some serious restoration and not just patchwork as a result of the  yellow line debacle. Look at 7 High Street pictured above. Underneath the plastic paint sits a dramatic tuck pointed building. If all the paint was removed from the building, it would never have to be painted again, and the result would be a sharp, original and dynamic gem on a prominent intersection, not just another heritage building covered in plastic paint.

This is the time for council to go beyond the bare minimum, and seek to have good heritage outcomes where possible down High Street in partnership with the owners. The aim should be to get the best possible result with each building affected by the yellow lines, and to have our premier street looking as good as possible, and significantly better than it was before the fiasco.

But, better results in Kings Square, High Street and at Arthur Head will not come unless ratepayers ask for them. It is Christmas after all. Santa’s email is busy, but the mayor and councillors can be reached at:

Twin Towers of Good Governance -Transparency and Accountability

(the photo at the top is from the Warders Cottages development proposal which goes to JDAP this Friday at 9.30am in the Fremantle Council Chamber – see below)

Fremantle Council issued a press release today headlined “Last Hurrah for Council Chambers.”

The mayor noted that in its 50 years the chamber had seen “memorable moments” like the huge crowd when the Esplanade Skate Park Plaza was voted through, the Kings Square plans and Amendment 49 (to allow developers to have high rise in Fremantle).

Ironically, these examples selected by the mayor were three highly controversial decisions of council – the skate park was contrary to council’s own Masterplan for Esplanade Park, upset locals, and should have been built in the car park and not on the green space of the park. The Kings Square Business Plan, like the controversial Markets Lease the mayor supported when he was a councillor, did not go out for public tender,  and there has never been a demand from the community for a new administration building. And, the MAJORITY of the community did NOT support the heights proposed in amendment 49.

The twin towers of good governance – transparency and accountability – have gone down, like the admin building, with the actions of Fremantle Council.

They will not rise again unless the community asks more questions and seeks better quality outcomes.

Warders Cottages

(Councillors meet ahead of their planning meetings and seem to formulate a ‘team’ view then of what outcomes should be for important planning agenda items. They seem to ignore the Fremantle Society view, as being one that is a ‘nuisance’ or ‘irritant’ to them, as though the Fremantle Society view is simply a narrow viewpoint. In formulating views and submissions on this isssue the Fremantle Society has consulted widely and has informed members of key aspects, as it has worked through the issues. We have consulted three staff at the National Trust, several staff at the Heritage Council, a conservation architect, the neighbors to the proposal, a former mayor, a senior retired architect, TV and print journalists, the former Premier of WA, and the Heritage Minister. The community is given very little time to respond to major issues, and to ensure transparency council should give much more notice of key developments).

The Warders Cottages issue is another example of a lack of transparency and accountability. The cottages, of national importance, have been poorly handled from day one, when council voted to support strata titling and privatisation of the cottages, contrary to expert advice and obvious best outcome being ownership remaining with the prison or another body like the National Trust.

At last week’s planning meeting, despite the officers admitting they had never seen the key guiding document for all the cottages – the 2016 Conservation Management Plan, the meeting proceeded, and not one councillor took any notice of the submission of the Fremantle Society. Councillors had no interest in discussing heritage, just how many patrons could fit into the beer garden.

The mayor states in today’s West Australian that tourists will flock to the cottages when the rear gardens have been totally eradicated and the rear aspect of the cottages ruined and obscured by second storey walkways.

It doesnt help that the Heritage Council, the ‘owners’ of the site and the decision makers about it, put a bulldozer through the rear gardens, aware that a proposal was before them for a beer garden.

For over 150 years these inner city cottages had their own inner city sanctum – a private garden, making them rare and highly important. But not one councillor stood up for the gardens. They should be reinstated.

The cottages are magical and have survived in good shape after 167 years. Any development of the site should be highly sensitive in order to keep the authenticity of the cottages and their gardens. THEN tourists will have something to salivate over.

The Fremantle Society and affected neighbours will make submissions on Friday to JDAP. There are six key issues with the current proposal:

a) Failure to address November 2016 Conservation Management Plan: The conservation plan has around 180 clear policies and the properties are sold subject to a Heritage Agreement which binds purchasers to follow the Conservation Plan. Policy 171 for example clearly states that only essential one storey structures can be erected in the historically important rear gardens, but two storeys are proposed.

b) Damage to nationally significant  British military colonial warders usage and garden significance: Based on previous work by the same applicant (Hougoumont Hotel), not enough sensitivity to the enormous heritage of the site will be shown in the works intended. The essence of the Heritage Act, in particular 11(3) states that “A decision making authority shall not take any action that might (whether or not adversely) affect to a significant extent a registered place or a place which is the subject of a Heritage Agreement”, but considerable changes are being sought.

c) Misjudgement of Heritage Council in stating that proposed works are ‘reversible’. The works are clearly designed to be for long term use and are not temporary.

d) Lack of car parking provided: Given that council is rapidly selling off its own car parks there is a need for cash in lieu to be paid if car parking is not to be provided.

e) Failure of Fremantle Council to properly assess proposal: Council’s Design Advisory Committee, which gives adivce on major developments, did not give comment on this proposal. Council’s own staff admitted at the planning meeting they did not know of the existence of a key document: the November 2016 Conservation Management Plan. Councillors did not discuss the heritage of the buildings and the site, but focussed on the size of the beer garden.

f) Adverse effects on residential neighbours of a 475 person capacity beer garden.

The Fremantle Society will request that the application be refused or modified to protect the heritage values of the cottages and their individual gardens.

John Dowson
The Fremantle Society

Warders Cottages/AGM/Kings Square Urban Space

Warders Cottages Disgrace

(Above: important inner city gardens of Warders Cottages now destroyed)

Last night at Fremantle Council’s planning meeting, councillors voted through the proposal for a hotel and bar for up to 500 people in the rear gardens of the Warders Cottages, despite officers admitting they did not know of the existence of the 2016 Conservation Management Plan which clearly states that two storey tavern proposals like the one put forward are not allowed. Only Cr McDonald voted against the proposal.

The Fremantle Society presented relevant excerpts from the conservation plan to all councillors, but no councillor made any reference to the heritage of the cottages (except Cr Lang in a passing reference) in their deliberations, focussing on the alcohol issue and how many patrons could fit in the small space in the rear (former) gardens. And, these cottages are of NATIONAL importance.

The lack of interest in heritage and the gardens and  the lack of due process was astonishing, and a disgrace.

A boutique hotel may well be a good fit for the site, but again councillors were falling over themselves to do favours for a developer, one who already has a 5 storey approval in the West End, where 5 storeys are not allowed, and who has not yet committed to buy the cottages.

The issue will go to JDAP next week.


Reminder that the AGM is today Thursday 7 December 6.30 at the Fremantle Tennis Club.

Contact: 9335 2113 or 0409 22 36 22. Bring your friends.

Submissions due Thursday 8 December on Kings Square Urban Space

To help you with your submission, conservation architect Dr Bremen has kindly provided the following notes:

Notes on Kings Square: urban play space

Where is the up-to-date conservation plan for Kings Square that sets out what is significant and what should be protected in any changes made to the place? I do not mean the conservation plan for the Town Hall, or the Heritage Impact Statement for the new Council buildings, but a comprehensive conservation assessment and protection of the Square as a whole place, its definitions, its key buildings, its boundaries (streets and surrounding buildings), its landscape features and its open spaces. We all know it has been left out of the West End listing in the Heritage Council assessment, and we know perhaps why, to remove constraints from development in the area including Kings Square.

Such a conservation plan would include consultation with all stakeholders, including primary schoolers, and would lead to policies for change that protect and enhance the cultural values that the place already has, while planning for changes that are seen to be necessary, not just fashionable and suited to a small proportion of the users of the Square. No changes should be made to the Square without first testing them against the requirements for the retention of significance; a section always included in a good conservation plan for that purpose. (See Australia ICOMOS Burra charter, conservation planning processes and JS Kerr The Conservation Plan 2013).

Notes for a draft conservation management plan were prepared for Kings Square by Rob Campbell in 2015 and further developed for the use of students of conservation architecture as part of their course in 2016 and 2017. On the basis of that draft I can offer the following:

1.  The key to the children’s responses appears to be the mature shade trees; I presume they mean the Moreton Bay figs. These are highly significant items in Kings Square, with historic, aesthetic and social value. There are at least three that look sick. I hear that Council has sought advice on their care, and they should be saved. If they cannot be saved, they should be replaced with similar species, but it will take at least 20 years for any replantings of this species to become as large and attractive climbing and shady trees. Surely all efforts should go into the health of these significant trees first, rather than any new play space or elements. Similarly it is important that if they do become more actively used for children’s play, that this is carefully considered by horticulturalists to ensure that the trees are not damaged in the process.

2. Water play is fine in a private secured back yards, but ponds and play spouts in a public area are a known health problem (see Betty’s Jetty experience), not respected by people who do not have children playing in them, and they become filled with debris by accident or on purpose. This is going to happen to the ponds in the new basement library. Any water should be used to keep the trees and lawn alive, not for public playground amusement. Open water bodies are not part of this traditional town square, even though fountains were tried in the 1970s, these were always a problem and were removed. The only water play types that might be suitable would be temporary water points, more like drinking fountains with secure taps. Perhaps a horse trough for multiple users, doubling as a memorial, and removable if it does not work. What about pop-up water plays?

3.  The Square is bounded by four streets and contains two historic structures and six historic Moreton Bay fig trees. It is already full of statues and memorials, which add something to the social value and interpretation of people and place in the Square, perhaps they could become play structures if necessary. There is no room for new play structures.
The only open space left in the Square after the new Council buildings are erected will be in the St John’s Triangle, which is also their churchyard. Any new structures will crowd it still further and may not be appropriate for their uses of their land. I presume they are being consulted on all of this. If they are not comfortable with these developments, in the end, they will move out of the Square and leave the Square and the building for the rest of us to look after, and the significance of the Square will be reduced by the loss of its earliest and longest continuous user. It should be remembered that the church can also redevelop their land if they want to, having been given a marvellous precedent by the Council.

4. Play types that require safety or security fencing are not appropriate in this now confined public space; it further segregates and limits the people who can use the space as well as being visually intrusive. This is the only civic square of its type in WA. It should not be a suburban playground. Fremantle already has transformed the Esplanade Park into a playground. Council’s new design has swallowed up the playground they had in Kings Square, and given it back as a so-called civic lawn. Consider this as a children’s playground, as it has fences on three sides already, and does not look like it will be any good for anything else.

5.  For the conservation of the cultural values of Kings Square, the landscape should be opened up, not closed in. If it must host children’s playtimes, these must be carefully scheduled into the uses of Kings Square with only temporary equipment housed elsewhere when not in use, and with close and organised parental supervision onsite, with their take-a-way coffee in their hands, and not from inside a cafe nearby, and not with fencing or other forms of policing.

Dr Ingrid van Bremen 4/12/17

Wrightsons Hairdressers

About to be Destroyed

Norm Wrightsons Hairdressers has been at 7 William Street since 1933. Prior to that the shop was home to the famous Charles Nixon photographer from 1894 to 1933. Two businesses in 120 years!

Gerard O’Brien wants to relocate the hairdresser. The hairdresser doesn’t want to go. O’Brien wants this as the entry to his new brewery and wants to strip out the shops here and demolish the rear of all the shops.

He has allowed the rear of these heritage buildings to be painted without permission of the tenants to mask the heritage values of what remains.

Look at the single storied building with the very interesting air vent – probably part of the former Swansea Bicycle factory.

Save the Magic!

The hairdressers shop is unique. It is magic. It and nos 9 and 11 William should stay. AND it should have the double storey verandah on it restored as shown above when it was  home to Fremantle’s famous photographer Nixon until Wrightsons moved in in 1933..

The development proposal covers all the Manning Estate shops that begin with these three shops in William Street (built in 1886 before the others) and continue through the Mall and down Market Street to the Newport Hotel.

The Fremantle Society is keen to see people spend money in Fremantle restoring and upgrading their properties but this developer wants to make major changes to the shops – knocking down the rear sections of all the shops (some of which have significant heritage), remove various staircases, insert a large brewery where Norm Wrightson’s is right outside the entrance to the Town Hall, and separate the second floor sections of the various shops from their ground floor sections.

Submissions due on the whole Manning Buildings development on Tuesday 28th at 5pm..

Comments to:

And, to all councillors at: