BEFORE developers are allowed to build on one of Fremantle’s last prime coastal redevelopment sites, councillors say they may have to get much tougher with state government agencies they believe have failed to do promised planning work.
The City’s planning committee this week unanimously backed a recommendation opposing the lifting of the “urban deferred” zoning over the 23-hectare North Fremantle Urban Precinct until outstanding work on coastal setbacks and transport planning is completed.
The matter will now go to full council.
The former industrial land adjoining Port Beach has long been earmarked for eventual urban redevelopment, with the city supporting the principle of housing and mixed-use development.
Developers have been ratcheting up their pressure on the Cook government to fast-track their access to the site amidst a housing crisis, but councillors say key questions remain in what has been a somewhat opaque proecess.
Planning committee chair Andrew Sullivan said the issue was no longer whether the site should eventually be developed, but whether the state had done enough work before allowing the next stage of rezoning.
“What concerns me is all the talk in the neighbourhood, in the planning circles, is that they’re just racing ahead and going to lift the urban deferment, and there has been absolutely no evidence or information provided, even to us, let alone the community, that they have done anything further than what was done at the time of approving the MRS amendment,” he said.
The committee report notes the state is considering lifting the urban deferred zoning and concurrently rezoning the land under the city’s local planning scheme despite two key planning issues remaining unresolved: confirmation of coastal foreshore reserve requirements and an integrated transport plan for North Fremantle.
Officers concluded lifting the zoning would be “premature”.
Cr Sullivan said the state appeared to be ignoring its own planning policies requiring community engagement.
“The state policy requires at all stages of developing the right outcome for a foreshore that the community be fully engaged,” he said.
“That is what is so disappointing with the process.”
He said the Future of Fremantle process didn’t complete an regional recreational assessment or integrated transport planning government agencies appeared to be assuming had been done.
“They are not following their own policies,” he said.
“They are obliged… to make a foreshore reserve that is big enough for all of the needs of the community to be still able to be provided for, at the end of the 100-year horizon.”
Mr Sullivan said if the work was not completed first, only part of the site should be released for development.
“Either they are going to have to limit the amount of lifting of the urban deferment area to only a portion of that site… or they just need to slow down and go and do the work that they said in their documents that they would do.”
He flagged stronger wording when the matter reaches full council.
“We need to point out to them where they might be erring… because to get this wrong means that we will not have a Port Beach. It’s as simple as that.”
Leighton Action Coalition member Natalie Hug urged councillors to strengthen the city’s response.
“We would like to strongly urge that the council takes a much stronger and clearer position to explicitly call for the WAPC and the minister to support proper public participation, transparency, and good policy,” she said.
Ms Hug said road and transport requirements had “not been at all satisfied, not even close” and welcomed the city’s new coastal hazard study.
“That obviously is something that should precede any rezoning, so that we know now in 2026 what the situation is going to be in 100 years’ time.”
by STEVE GRANT