‘Elegant’, ‘handsome’ – but not for South Beach: Controversial five-storey apartment plan rejected

A “premature” proposal to build an “elegant” five-storey apartment building overlooking South Beach has been rejected following a lengthy planning debate over the future development of Fremantle’s coastline.

The Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel unanimously refused the 242 Marine Terrace proposal on Wednesday afternoon, which would have seen a 13-metre-high building with four apartments on a vacant lot near South Beach, surrounding restaurants, pubs and the Sealanes fishing precinct.

The development, designed by Melbourne-based Dan O’Donovan Architects and lodged by Urbis, sparked objections from residents concerned it could pave the way for taller buildings along the popular coastal locale.

A community submission in the agenda warned: “Please don’t set a precedent as they will spread like a rash.”

However, a submission in favour of the proposal argued: “It will set a good precedent for further investment interest … the City of Fremantle should not miss the opportunity for new positive growth in luxury apartment living.”

Fremantle councillor and panel member Andrew Sullivan warned approving the project could create a “de facto structure plan” for the area.

“It is a really challenging one. It is a very elegant building.”

Panel member Andrew Sullivan

Urbis planning consultants, on behalf of their client, argued the building would not dominate the coastal landscape, pointing out the pine trees at nearby Wilson Park reached about 40 metres tall.

They also argued the development had already been reduced from six storeys to five.

Panel member Peter Lee said the project had positive design elements but ultimately did not meet planning requirements.

“As an architect looking at this site, there are a lot of difficulties,” Lee said.

“I think there are lots of good things about it … but I can’t bring myself to approve the proposal.”

Presiding panel member Clayton Higham also acknowledged the design had merit, noting a design advisory committee had described it as “a handsome building”.

However, Higham said the committee also raised concerns about the development’s wider impacts.

“The design advisory committee said it satisfied amenity for the occupants, not necessarily for those around it,” he said.

In closing the debate, Sullivan said the proposal might reflect the type of development that could eventually occur in the area.

“It is a really challenging one. It is a very elegant building,” he said.

“But I think this is the sort of development we will probably see on sites like this in the future. It’s just premature.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.