THE controversial five-storey development at 47 Pakenham Street returned to the Development Assessment Panel on Tuesday, seeking further amendments to the development approved in June 2025.
For me, as the resident living immediately beside the site, there are serious concerns about the direct impact of the amendments on my home.
But I also believe there is a much broader question for Fremantle: what does this development, and the way it continues to evolve after approval, mean for the future character of the West End?
An approval that was never clear-cut
The original development was highly contested.
Fremantle council opposed the proposal 7–2.
The City’s Design Advisory Committee expressed concern about the additional height and the imposing character of the upper storeys.
JDAP itself deferred the application in April 2025 for further consideration of height, neighbouring amenity and possible design modifications.
The applicant subsequently chose not to materially redesign the proposal.
When it returned to JDAP in June, the five-storey development was ultimately approved 4–1, following extensive discussion about its impact on adjoining properties.
This was therefore never an uncontroversial planning outcome.
What does it mean for the West End?
Collective scale
The West End derives much of its heritage significance not simply from individual heritage-listed buildings, but from the collective scale, streetscapes and surviving 19th and early 20th-century building fabric that make the precinct distinctive.
The five-storey development at 47 Pakenham Street was permitted through the exercise of substantial planning discretion over height.
The latest application now seeks further changes to that approved building, including replacement of some approved terracotta masonry with profiled fibre-cement cladding.
That raises an important question:
If additional height is permitted in a highly sensitive heritage precinct partly on the strength of the architectural quality of the proposed building, how much should its design and materials subsequently be allowed to change?
The amendment also changes the arrangements for public art on the prominent southern elevation.
I understand that the artwork currently illustrated is indicative and that the final artwork will be separately considered by the City’s arts team.
The issue is therefore not whether one particular mural is liked or disliked.
Rather, public art should enhance high-quality architecture and contribute meaningfully to the West End— it should not become a substitute for quality in the underlying building itself.
There is also a longer-term issue for Fremantle.
While this approval does not establish a binding legal precedent for other sites, developments of this scale can inevitably become reference points when future proposals seek similar height and bulk.
The risk is incremental: an exceptional five-storey approval today can become part of the argument for another substantial development tomorrow.
The immediate impact on my home
The current amendment increases the mechanical car parking system from 17 to 28 bays and involves a deeper and larger excavation.
My bedroom, living area and private courtyard at Unit F, 49A Pakenham Street are only a few metres from the development.
The northern boundary of my courtyard is an old limestone rubble wall believed to date from the mid-19th century.
I am concerned about protecting this historic fabric from ground movement and vibration during demolition and excavation.
I am not claiming that damage will occur.
I am asking for the engineering evidence and monitoring necessary to demonstrate that it will not.
There is also a long-term question about the noise and vibration generated by a substantially enlarged mechanical parking system operating only metres from my bedroom and living area.
The issue extends beyond one neighbouring property. It is about how Fremantle accommodates new development while protecting the scale, character and historic fabric that make the West End worth protecting in the first place.
by KATE PEARSON