THE divisive $350 million redevelopment at Fremantle Harbour by ING Real Estate has hit another stumbling block, with the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing an application for an extension to the project’s development approval.
THE divisive $350 million redevelopment at Fremantle Harbour by ING Real Estate has hit another stumbling block, with the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing an application for an extension to the project’s development approval.
ING applied on June 23 this year to extend the date of commencement of the 30,000 square metre project to August 9, 2013.
Despite vocal opposition from locals, ING was originally granted conditional approval to construct a mixed-use retail, office and residential development in December 2007.
But a review by the SAT saw the construction starting date changed to March 16, 2009. Part of that approval was a condition that substantial commencement of the development had to take place within two years.
In its submission to the SAT, the Western Australian Planning Commission described the application by ING to extend the original approval as an “abuse of process”.
SAT president John Chaney acknowledged that dismissing ING’s application to extend the project starting date to March 2013 might put the Victoria Quay project in doubt.
“I am mindful ... that a failure to extend the time for substantial commencement of the development might put in jeopardy a development of regional significance and result in millions of dollars of wasted expenditure,” Justice Chaney said.
ING Victoria Quay project manager Brynn Chute told the SAT that ING sought an extension for the proposal because the effects of the GFC had impacted funding proposals and decreased its capacity to attract prospective tenants.
The development had also been delayed by complex negotiations with the Fremantle Port Authority over soil contamination in the vicinity of one of the buildings in the centre of the site that was identified in August 2008.
A remediation program was commenced by the FPA in December 2009, and post-remediation ground water monitoring is expected to be completed by February 2011.
Mr Chute told the tribunal that ING would require some certainty in regards to the success of the remediation of the site before it could commit to construction documentation.
But Justice Chaney said it was apparent in December 2009 that if the proposed long-term ground water monitoring plan was to be implemented, the prospect of substantial commencement of the development by March 2011 was “bleak if not unachievable”.
“Notwithstanding that, ING did not commence the present proceedings seeking leave until June 23, 2010, some six months later,” Justice Chaney said.
“Given that the applicant elected not to seek a review of the requirement as to substantial commencement when it brought the matter to the Tribunal in early 2009, and given the delay of six months from the time when it must have been apparent that achieving substantial commencement by March 2011 was at best highly unlikely, the applicant’s reasons for delay do not favour the grant of leave so long after the original decision was made.”
ING has already spent $17 million on the project, and Mr Chute told the SAT a further $10 million is required to progress the development to the construction stage.
The development was part of the Fremantle Waterfront Master Plan endorsed by the WA Planning Commission in November 2001.
