The City of Fremantle has opposed plans to rezone approximately 23 hectares of industrial land near Port Beach in North Fremantle for future residential and mixed-use development, raising concerns about coastal erosion, transport infrastructure and insufficient community consultation.

Councillors voted to submit a 51-page report to the Western Australian Planning Commission outlining several matters they believed needed to be resolved before the land could be rezoned for urban development.

The decision followed an earlier unanimous council vote opposing the removal of the land's urban deferment.

The report, prepared by Councillor Andrew Sullivan, argued that allowing development to proceed without adequate planning could result in long-term problems for the proposed North Fremantle urban precinct and the adjoining Port Beach foreshore.

In 2024, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage had supported the creation of a mixed-use and residential precinct, with the City of Fremantle also supporting the proposal on the condition that appropriate planning was undertaken beforehand.

However, councillors argued that several commitments had not been adequately addressed.

Among the concerns were the absence of a comprehensive transport strategy for the Leighton Peninsula, uncertainty surrounding future coastal protection measures and limited public consultation about the proposed foreshore reserve.

The council called for confirmation that Port Beach and Leighton Beach would remain wide, continuous sandy beaches as the surrounding area was developed.

It also reiterated its support for relocating Port Beach Road so that the proposed foreshore reserve could connect directly with the beach without being divided by a major road.

Another concern involved possible changes to the State Government's approach to managing coastal erosion.

Previous planning for Port Beach had generally favoured managed retreat, involving the gradual relocation of infrastructure away from areas threatened by erosion.

However, more recent proposals referred to protective engineering works, potentially including seawalls and concrete or steel groynes.

Councillors questioned whether these structures would adequately address erosion and warned that they could affect the appearance, accessibility and recreational value of the coastline.

Sullivan said the community had previously expressed strong opposition to major coastal engineering structures, particularly groynes, and argued that further consultation was necessary before any such measures were adopted.

The council's report also questioned whether the proposed engineering works could fully address the area's history of coastal erosion.

Councillor Ingrid van Dorssen said the council was not opposed to developing the land but wanted a more orderly planning process before the rezoning proceeded.

Councillor Jemima Williamson-Wong also raised concerns about climate change and the need to ensure that future residential developments remained viable over the long term.

The council requested that the WA Planning Commission and relevant State Government agencies address the outstanding transport, coastal management and public consultation issues before progressing the rezoning.

As of October 2026, the proposed rezoning remained unresolved, with no final decision reported on the future urban development of the 23-hectare site.