Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

20 December 2011

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

20 DECEMBER 2011 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

1. Opening .............................................................................................................................. 1 

2. Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 1 

3. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................ 2 

4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 5 

5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 5 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence .................................................................................. 5 

7. Confirmation of Minutes .................................................................................................... 6 

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ........................................................ 6 

9. Committee Reports ............................................................................................................ 6 

Development Committee ................................................................................................... 7 

DV11.111 Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, Cnr Bent Street, City Beach - Two Storey 

Dwelling with Undercroft Garage - Referred Back 10 

DV11.112 Lots 70, 71 and 72 (No. 334-336) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Proposed 

Five Level Mixed Use Development (Cafe, Shops, Offices, Consulting 

Rooms and Twenty Two Multiple Dwellings) 20 

DV11.113 Lots 50 and 500 (No 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville - 

Proposed Office Building (WALGA Headquarters) 30 

DV11.114 Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade, Corner Southport Street, West Leederville 

- Mixed Use Development - Three Storey Buillding with Undercroft - Offices 

and Restaurant 50 

DV11.115 Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way Wembley - Two x Two-Storey Grouped 

Dwellings 63 

DV11.116 Lot 196 (No. 43) Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with 

Undercroft Garage 71 

DV11.117 Lot 82 (No. 25) Brighton Street West Leederville - Two Storey Dwelling 

with Undercroft 75 

DV11.118 Lot 1346 (No. 33) Ulster Road, Corner Donegal Road, Floreat - Two Storey 

Dwelling With Undercroft Garage - Amended Plans 81 

DV11.119 Lot 561 (No. 356) Salvado Road Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling 84 

DV11.120 Lot 1198 (No. 8) Dumfries Road Floreat - Additions to Single Dwelling 

(Roof Material) 89 

DV11.121 Lot 41 (No. 69) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Garage 

(Retrospective Approval) 93 

DV11.122 Lot 758 (No. 313) The Boulevard, City Beach - Ancillary Accommodation 97 

DV11.123 Lot 231 (No. 93) Empire Avenue, City Beach - Pergola 102 

DV11.124 Access and Parking Strategy - Part One Draft Report - Referred Back 105 

DV11.125 Application - Four 'Non-complying events' (concerts) in a 12 month period 

at WA Athletics Stadium, Mt Claremont 110 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A Council Front.docx 

i

COUNCIL MINUTES 

TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011 

DV11.126 Holyrood Street Heritage Design Concept Quotation 113 

DV11.127 Proposed Long Term Half Road Closure - MacEwan Street, West 

Leederville 115 

DV11.128 Proposed Scheme Amendment for Additional Use 'Consulting Rooms' 

Group - 'Dental Surgery' - Lot 353 (No 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat 118 

DV11.129 Draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville - Proposed Amendments to 

Reflect West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study 123 

DV11.130 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for November 2011 132 

DV11.131 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 135 

Community and Resources Committee 136 

CR11.153 Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) - Footpaths 139 

CR11.154 Road Asset Management and 20 Year Program For Road Resurfacing 144 

CR11.155 Road Improvement - Capital Works Five Year Program from 2012/13 149 

CR11.156 Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009 - Works Program for 2011/12 156 

CR11.157 Infrastructure Parks 2012/2013 Proposed Budget Works 161 

CR11.158 Lake Monger Reserve Water Quality Monitoring 167 

CR11.159 Station Street (Barrett Street to Creech Lane) - Parking Restriction 

Amendments 170 

CR11.160 Mindarie Regional Council Meeting - 8 December 2011 173 

CR11.161 Financial Assistance - Floreat Surf Life Saving Club - Purchase of Side-by- 

Side Surf Rescue Vehicle 177 

CR11.162 Proposed 'SIDS and Kids Sunshine Beach Run' at City Beach 179 

CR11.163 Fee Review 2011 - Wembley Golf Course 183 

CR11.164 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf 

Course Hospitality Development - Tender T37-11 Hospitality Leasing 

Specialist 192 

CR11.165 Herdsman Main Drain Stormwater - Potential Reuse Project 195 

CR11.166 

Wembley Sports Park - Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study 

Outcomes 200 

CR11.167 Delegated Authority 2011/2012 - Christmas/New Year Recess 203 

CR11.168 Naming of Building - Perry Lakes Hockey Pavilion 206 

CR11.169 Payment of Accounts - November 2011 209 

CR11.170 Investment Schedule - November 2011 211 

CR11.171 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - November 2011 216 

10. Council Reports ........................................................................................... 221 

10.1 Annual General Meeting of Electors 2010/2011 - Decisions 221 

10.2 Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities Development - Tender 

T20-11 Architectural Services 223 

10.3 Metropolitan Local Government Review - Submission 226 

10.4 Mindarie Regional Council - City of Stirling Withdrawal 229 

11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 230 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 230 

13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 230 

13.1 Chief Executive Officer - Annual Review 230 

14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 231 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A Council Front.docx 

ii

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE 

COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON 


1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley (Out at 8.50 pm) 

Louis Carr 

Sonia Grinceri 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Colin Walker 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Cr Otto Pelczar 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A Council Front.docx 1



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Questions 

Mary Russell, 422 Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 1 

Can the council please provide a progress report on what preventative measure have 

been undertaken to prevent recurring flooding? 

Response 

Preventative measures were listed for action in council report CR 11.124 October 2011 

and the following works commenced: 

Raise crossover to 119 completed in July 2011. This was effective during this 

storm. 

Clean manhole of all silt. Completed in July 2011 

Install additional soakwells in The Boulevard / Selby Street. Three of six were 

installed commencing prior to the Monday 12 December 2011 storm. 

Preliminary design of an underground sump for Selby Street has been completed 

and is under final design review and costing at the moment. It is proposed to 

present this design and cost to Council in February 2012. This is the longer term 

solution which means the vacant sump land will not require excavation. 

Sand bags have been supplied for all adjacent properties together with rubber 

humps to assist. 

Question 2 

Can the council indicate when measures will be put in place to prevent further flooding to 

422 Cambridge Street? 

Response 

The long term solution will be presented to council in Feb 2012 and when funding is 

approved works can be implemented. 

Question 3 

Can the Council provide information on what compensation is available to owners for 

damage to their properties and furnishings? 

Response 

As advised by Council's liability insurers, No compensation is available for owners for 

storms which exceed original stormwater design assumptions. 




Verbal Questions 

Pamela van der Muelen, Jukes Way, Wembley 

Re: Item DV11.115 - Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley 

Question 

Will Council consider approving one crossover instead of two crossovers at Lot 24 Jukes 

Way? 

Response 

Mayor Withers advised that the application for Lot 24 Jukes Way is on the agenda for 

consideration at tonight's meeting. 

Steven Beckett, 22 Bent Street, City Beach 

Re: Item DV11. 111 - Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach 

Question 1 

What is the statutory timeframe for neighbours' to respond to plans new or revised? 

Response 

The Residential Design Codes of WA require consultation where an application seeks the 

approval of Council under the performance provisions of the Codes. Where neighbours 

considered by Council to be affected by the proposal are consulted, they are to be given 

at least 14 days to comment. 

The Codes go on to require any comment received by the Council to be passed back to 

the applicant who then has a further ten days to respond. In this case, the submitted 

plans were amended in response to the neighbour comment received. 

The Codes do not require any further consultation, however, the neighbours raising 

concerns about this application were advised of the amended plans and given the 

opportunity to provide further comment. This consultation included a site meeting with Mr 

Beckett and Manager Development. 

Question 2 

Why was I given short notice outside of the statutory time frame to assess and respond to 

revised plans for 2 Adori Place? 

Response 

This is addressed in Question 1 above. 

Question 3 

Are you aware that the revised cone of vision plan submitted by Webb and Browne 

Neaves is incorrect? 

Response 

The cone of vision drawings submitted by the applicant were part of the applicant's 

justification and are difficult to verify, however, such drawings can only indicate a view 




from one particular point and as such, are of limited use in assessing the overall effect of 

this proposal on neighbours. 

Question 4 

Is the Council aware that the overheight issue has not been addressed? 

Response 

Amendment to the plans relate to boundary setbacks. The applicant is still seeking 

assessment under performance criteria regarding building height. 

Question 5 

Will Council defer the item so that the issue with Cone of Vision and over height of the 

dwelling can be correctly assessed by the Town's planning department and that further 

consultation between the Town, the applicant and myself can take place? 

Response 

Mayor Withers advised that this matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. 

Anne Kordic, 32 Barrett Street, Wembley 

Question 

When can I get a written reply to 7 questions asked at the last month's Council meeting? 

Response 

It is confirmed that there has been no written response provided to Ms Kordic and this 

can be provided in the next two to three weeks. It is noted that the response provided at 

the last Council meeting is included in the minutes of that meeting and that the Manager, 

Development has met on site with Ms Kordic since the last meeting to discuss the 

concerns she has raised. 

Sasha Schweikert, 23 Jukes Way, Wembley 


Question 1 

Has a proper traffic assessment study been undertaken? 

Response 

Infrastructure Services have assessed the plans and determined that they meet the 

Town's access/crossover requirements. 

Margaret Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley 

Question 1 

Re: DV11.112 - Lots 70, 71 and 72 Cambridge Street, Wembley 

Ms Putt made reference to a perspectives sketch of the proposed development for 334- 

336 Cambridge Street, Wembley. Ms Putt questioned whether Council was aware that 

this drawing did not provide a full impression of the building. 




Response 

The drawing referred to specifically focuses on the view from Jersey Street, in particular, 

illustrating the proposed driveway and pedestrian access from the development to Jersey 

Street. 

Kim Doepel 


Question 1 

Is it possible to ask the applicant to remove the crossover to the front unit and turn the 

garage sideways to allow access from the common accessway serving the rear two 

units? 

Response 

This would result in the front setback of the front property being almost entirely paved or 

built upon allowing very little opportunity for garden area and thereby detracting from the 

appearance of the development within the overall streetscape. As such, it would not be 

supported from a planning point of view. 

Mr Jim Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley 

Question 1 

Why is the question that I asked at Development Committee not recorded in the minutes? 

Response 

It was accepted that this was an omission and that it would be rectified. 

4. PETITIONS 

A petition signed by 371 residents of City Beach was submitted by Wendy Appleyard, 14 

Lentara Crescent, City Beach calling on the Town to "fund and establish community 

security patrols as soon as possible. To be presented at the Town's Community and 

Resources Committee meeting 12 December 2011." 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received 

and referred to the appropriate Committee. 

Carried 8/0 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 




7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Walker 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22 November 2011 

be confirmed. 

Carried 8/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

Nil 

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 

Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the 

meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything 

they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They 

were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any 

matter that they may have before the Council. 

Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the 

exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. 

Development: Items DV11.111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121 

and 126 

Community and Resources: Items CR11.153, 155, 160 and 168 

Declarations of Interest: 

Item DV11.119 - Cr Carr- Impartiality Interest 

Item CR11.155 - Cr MacRae - Proximity Interest 

Item 13.1 - Chief Executive Officer - Financial 

Interest 




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on 13 December 2011 was submitted 

as under: 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.03 

pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.03 pm 8.52 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.03 pm 8.52 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.03 pm 7.48 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.03 pm 8.52 pm 

Cr Louis Carr (Deputy) 7.48 pm 8.52 pm 

Observers: 

Mayor Simon Withers 

Cr Louis Carr 

Cr Colin Walker 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.52 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


John Chadwick, Treasurer, Wembley West Leederville Residents Association 

Re: Item DV11.112 - Lots 70, 71 and 72 Cambridge Street, Wembley 

Question 

Will Council undertake and implement a comprehensive traffic plan for streets in proximity 

to this development which takes into account expected increased traffic flows and street 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 7



parking in the area associated with the development and the proposal that vehicles will 

exit the development's car park directly opposite the entry/exit of the existing IGA etc 

shopping precinct and within 40 metres on the Cambridge/Jersey Streets traffic lights? 

Our question/request is predicated by the strong belief that without the proper planning 

and implementation of a traffic plan, this will be a very unsafe area for both occupants of 

motor vehicles and pedestrians. 

Response 

The application was accompanied by a traffic management plan and reviewed by the 

Town's traffic engineers and it confirms that the development will not duly impact on traffic 

in the area. 

Pamela van der Meulen, Jukes Way, Wembley 

Re: Item DV11.115 - Lot 43 (No 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley 

Question 

Last month, 24 residents of Jukes Way submitted a petition asking the Council to enforce 

its own rules with regard to separation, setback and spacing of buildings. These rules are 

designed to prevent property development by one land holder from harming the 

investment and lifestyle of their neighbours. Does the Council intend to enforce these 

rules without deviation in Jukes Way? 

If not, what does the Council say to the neighbour whose investment and lifestyle is down 

graded by the Council granting special favours to another individual? 

Is the local community given a voice in this matter? Or is this decision made exclusively 

by persons who don't live in the street and don't have to live with the outcome. 

Finally, would the Council consider eyebrow treatment for the verge? 

Response 

This item will be discussed at tonight's meeting. 

Mr Jim Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley 

Re: Phasing of Traffic Lights at Jersey Street, Wembley 

Question: 

Has the Town received a copy of a Main Roads WA letter sent to myself regarding traffic 

signal light timing at the pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Jersey/Cambridge 

Street? 

Response 

Director Infrastructure advised that he had not received a copy of the letter from Main 

Roads WA but would follow it up with Mr Putt tomorrow. 




4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item DV11.112 

Item DV11.113 

Item DV11.114 

Item DV11.115 

Item DV11.119 

Item DV11.120 

Item DV11.121 

Item DV11.128 

Trevor Legg, neighbour 

Mark Jeavans, on behalf of applicant 

Peter Kartsidimas, on behalf of applicant 

Carlo Mencetti, owner 

Sacha Schweikert, neighbour 

Geoff Cooper, neighbour 

Alan Ariti, applicant 

Anthony Rechichi, applicant and Ray Paolucci, owner 

Kim Doepel, on behalf of applicant 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 

Tuesday 15 November 2011 as contained in the November 2011 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Item DV11.119 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest 

7. REPORTS 




DV11.111 LOT 249 (NO. 2) ADORI PLACE, CNR BENT STREET, CITY BEACH - TWO 

STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE - REFERRED BACK 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To consider an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage requiring 

assessment under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in 

respect of building wall height, buildings setback from the boundary and site works. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 320DA - 2011 

LANDOWNER: 

Mr John Woolfrey & Mrs Joanne Woolfrey 

APPLICANT: 

Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted 

LAND AREA: 888 m² 

DETAILS: 

Development Description 

 

 

 

 

Subject property slopes from north to south by approximately 3 metres and from east to 

west by approximately 2 metres. 

Proposed two storey dwelling with undercroft garage utilising the level of the undercroft 

portion of the existing dwelling. 

Finished floor level (FFL) of the proposed dwelling at 12.986 is slightly higher than the 

FFL of the existing single storey with undercroft dwelling at 12.81. 

Variations are proposed for the requirements relating to building wall height, buildings 

setback from the boundary and site works. 

Delegated Authority 

The Town’s Delegation of Authority Policy delegates certain powers to the Director 

Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine minor variations to the 

acceptable development provisions. 

A variation to the planning provision regarding retaining within the primary street setback area 

on Adori Place is proposed. No objections were received from the adjoining owners during the 

neighbour consultation period and due to the topography this variation is considered to meet the 

relevant performance criteria and is therefore not discussed further in this report. 

An assessment against the performance criteria for the aforementioned variation has been 

prepared by the Administration and is available to elected members on request. 




Applicant Submission 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wall height variation unavoidable due to the heavily excavated site created when the 

original home was built. The cross fall of the site from the NE corner (RL 16.27) to the SE 

corner (RL 9.24) leaves an average level of approximately 12.75, similar to the proposed 

FFL of the new home. 

Impact of the retaining in the street setback area is intended to be reduced by greening 

the embankment with plants and utilizing stone pitching to reduce the overall use and 

impact of limestone retaining wall. 

Our view is that the overall finished result will be aesthically more pleasing than the 

existing non permeable masonary fencing facing Bent Street at present. 

The upper floor is only 150 square metres which is less than 20% of the lot size. A much 

larger upper floor area could have been proposed, having greater impact on the corner 

site. 

The new dwelling on the adjacent corner is testament to this as the upper floor covers the 

entire ground floor area and dominates the corner and creates more bulk relative to the 

site and setbacks achieved. 

Proposed dwelling "averages" out the heights of the surrounding dwellings and in fact 

long term will reduce the overall impact of No. 4 Adori. 

The impact of No. 4 Adori is accentuated by the low form of the existing under croft 

bungalow at No. 2 Adori. The proposed dwelling at No. 2 and the existing dwelling at No. 

4 Adori are worlds apart in term of their impact on the streetscape. 

We have now reduced the roof pitch in an effort to reduce the overall bulk of the proposed 

home. In addition, the ridge and overall height complies. 

Seeking a reduction to the ground floor rear setback only. Upper floor setback complies in 

relation to the rear setback. The setback to Bent Street is in excess of the minimum 

required. 

Upper floor could have been much larger and extended to the NE corner of the site. This 

has not been done to preserve the corridor of vision to the NW. 

Primary street setback well in excess of what is required. 

Primary entertaining area has been moved to the NW corner of the proposed dwelling 

little or no impact on neighbours. If the 6 metre rear setback was achieved the primary 

entertaining area would have to be located immediately adjacent to the dwelling at No. 22. 

The secondary street setback of 3.78 metres complies under council guidelines. 

The homes in the surrounding area vary and are a diverse mix of homes from several 

decades past along with newer homes and renovations. In our opinion the aesthetics of 

the home do not detract from the streetscape and may well enhance it. 

The ground floor walls on the rear elevation will be virtually unseen. The gutter level of the 

ground floor is at or below the general fence line height between the two properties. 

The upper floor wall complies with required setbacks and as demonstrated on the 

submitted diagram a corridor of vision has been maintained to the NW and SW. 

Concerted effort made to reduce the upper floor to maintain the corridor of vision to the 

NW. 

No losses of privacy to the rear neighbour as the openings to the upper floor on the rear 

elevation are minor openings. No. 22 Bent currently overlooks the existing pool at No. 2 

Adori. 

Increasing the residential privacy of No. 22 Bent by locating the primary entertaining area 

(Alfresco) to the NW corner with only a drying court at ground level. 

Sought to reduce any impact potential impact in terms of site works by the suggested FFL 

of the new home. At this level the existing pool and level along the common boundary can 

be maintained with no need for sheet piling or major works on the common boundary. 

If the FFL was to be reduced there would be an immediate requirement for major 

earthworks along the common boundary. As a responsible builder we would be seeking to 




obtain a dilapidation report by a suitably qualified professional at No. 22 before any 

demolition or site works are undertaken. 

Neighbour submission 

Submission one (No.1 Talgarth Way, City Beach) 

 

 

 

 

The finished eave height of 8.45 metres (minus roof) of the proposed dwelling far exceeds 

the permitted wall height of 6.5 metres on the south elevation facing Bent Street. 

Object to the 1 metre tiered retaining wall proposed on the Bent Street (south elevation) 

as this will effectively allow the house to be constructed on a pad that is above natural 

ground level, making the overall finished height of the house far in excess of what is 

permitted. 

The large bulky house will dominate the entire corner of Bent Street & Adori Place, which 

in turn will erode the existing residential amenity of an existing aesthetically pleasant 

street that is not dominated by large homes, therefore the house should be constructed at 

natural ground level and made to comply and setback further from Bent Street. 

The house at 4 Adori Place, which was constructed some ten years ago should not be 

used as an example or a reason for this house to be constructed in the same way. 

Submission two (No. 22 Bent Street, City Beach) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dwelling is too big and bulky and does not follow the Town's building guidelines. 

I object to the pad being above regulation height which is above natural ground level. The 

proposed dwelling should be constructed at the natural ground level. 

The overall elevation on the south elevation is 8.45 metres (with a 1 metre pad) makes 

the dwelling 2 metres above regulation height. The dwelling at 2 Adori Place is near to 10 

metres high with pad. 

The building does not comply with building guidelines concerning height & does not 

comply with the boundary guidelines. 

The dwelling at 2 Adori will impact greatly, as it is being built forward to the existing 

boundary fence at the south elevation in Bent Street. 

The dwelling at 2 Adori does not conform to the aesthetics of other dwellings in Bent 

Street. 

The occupants at 22 Bent Street will be looking at a massive wall with a loss of residential 

privacy & amenity. 

This loss of privacy to the 22 Bent Street dwelling is further compounded by the massive 

dwelling already existing at 4 Adori and now with the proposed building at 2 Adori I will be 

further loosing residential amenity and this dwelling will dominate my privacy. 

As the immediate adjoining property to the east I am objecting to this in very strong terms. 

Concern about scope of the earthworks that will be undertaken. 22 Bent Street may lose 

its boundary wall during construction of the pad & dwelling at 2 Adori. Due to the land 

being so dry this will cause land subsidence. 




Submission three (No. 23 Bent Street, No. 3 Adori Place, No. 4 Adori Place, No. 5 Adori Place 

City Beach) 

 

 

We have viewed the plans for the proposed dwelling and conclude that its development 

will not impinge on our privacy or amenity. 

We feel it is appropriate "fit" with the exiting streetscapes of both Adori Place and Bent 

Street and will not detract from the general aesthetics of the area. 

Assessment Against the Performance Criteria 

Building height 

Proposed 

Maximum wall height 8.45 metres (west and 

south elevations) 

7.0 metres (east elevation) 

Acceptable development provision 

6.5 metres 

Performance criteria: 

Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise 

the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: 

adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

access to views of significance. 

Given the excavated nature of the existing dwelling at the subject property, a wall height 

variation occurs on the Adori Place (west) elevation and the Bent Street (south) elevation as 

measured from the natural ground level. The visual impact on the primary and secondary 

streetscapes has been reduced through the use of feature walls, balcony, windows and porch 

providing horizontal and vertical articulation. These architectural features provide interesting 

facades as viewed from Adori Place and Bent Street. 

The proposed dwelling meets is compliant with the overall height limit of 9.5 metres allowable in 

City Beach. Amended plans have been received from the applicant reducing the roof pitch from 

32 degrees to 26 degrees in an effort to protect the view corridors to the south-west and northwest 

from the rear adjoining residence immediately to the east. It should be noted that even at 

32 degrees the roof height met requirements. The wall height variation on the eastern elevation 

is not considered to have an undue impact on the rear property at No. 22 Bent Street in terms of 

access of northern light to major openings of habitable rooms or active habitable spaces with 

any shadow falling on the existing pool area of the subject property at No. 2 Adori Place. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed wall height variation complies with the performance 

criteria for the following reason:- 

 

the height of the dwelling is consistent with surrounding dwellings and does not have a 

significant impact on amenity of the adjoining properties. 




Buildings setback from the boundary 

Rear setback (ground floor) 


Proposed 

1.5 - 4.45 metres to rear 

(east) boundary 


6 metres 

Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; 

provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; 

assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; 

assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and 

assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

The proposed rear setback variation to the ground is not considered to adversely impact on the 

adjoining property on the rear (east) side due to the east-west orientation of the lot. Direct sun 

to major openings and active habitable spaces will not be compromised. The proposed walls on 

the rear elevation are located adjacent to the driveway and front setback area of the adjoining 

property to the east. 

Privacy between the two properties will be protected with all windows on the rear (east) 

elevation meeting the privacy provisions of the R Codes. A significant portion of the ground floor 

will be concealed by the existing dividing fence on the eastern boundary due to this property 

being at a lower level, reducing the perception of building bulk as viewed from the rear adjoining 

property at No. 22 Bent Street. 

It should be noted that the upper floor is set back a minimum of 6 metres from the rear 

boundary. 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria for 

the following reason:- 

 

a large portion of the ground floor will be concealed by the existing dividing fence and 

therefore building bulk is minimised. 

Site works 

Retaining within 3.0 metres 

of street alignment 


Proposed 

Maximum height of 2.9 

metres within the secondary 

street (Bent Street) setback 

area 


Maximum height of 0.5 metre 

Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the 

street or other public place, or from an adjoining property. 

The impact of the proposed retaining wall within the secondary street setback area is 

considered to be reduced by the proposed landscaping of the embankment with the use of 




planting and stone pitching between the retaining and the property boundary. This treatment will 

result in the impression that the slope of the site has been maintained. 

The proposed secondary street setback area is also considered to be an improvement on the 

existing solid wall/fence located on the southern property boundary with the front setback area 

being more open, consistent with the adjoining property immediately to the east. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed height of the retaining wall within the secondary 

street setback area complies with the performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other 

public place, or from an adjoining property. 

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: 

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed 

against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning Scheme 

No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

There are no financial implications related to this report. 

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: 

Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the 

priority area 'Planning for our Community'. 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: 

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for 

consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, 

Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage submitted 

by Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place as shown on the plans dated 

4 November 2011 subject to the following condition: 

(i) 

a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type of vegetation, to the 

satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence. 




Committee Meeting 15 November 2011 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- 

(ii) 

the fencing on top of the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be wrought iron or 

clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required. 

Amendment carried 4/0 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES 

the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage as submitted by Webb & Brown- 

Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 4 

November 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 


satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence; 

the fencing on the top of the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be wrought iron 

or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required. 

Council Meeting 22 November 2011 

During discussion, Cr Langer considered that the dwelling height had a negative impact on the 

outlook of the neighbour to the east and the streetscape and therefore recommended that the 

application be referred back to the Development Committee. 

COUNCIL DECISION: 

That the item relating to Lot 249 (No.2) Adori Place, City Beach be referred back to the 

Development Committee to enable amended plans to be submitted which reduce the height of 

the dwelling and the amount of fill in the Bent Street frontage. 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 22 November 2011) 

The applicant has met with the Administration and discussed the proposal and submitted 

amended plans on 6 December 2011. The amendments included:- 

Minimum ground floor setback to rear (east) boundary increased from 1.510 metres to 

3.959 metres. 

Minimum upper floor setback to rear (east) boundary increased from 6.0 metres to 8.297 

 

metres. 

Minimum ground floor setback to Bent (secondary) Street increased from 3.780 metres to 

5.202 metres. 

Minimum upper floor setback to Bent (secondary) Street increased from 3.780 to 5.202 

metres. 




It is considered that the amended plans submitted address the concerns raised in the 

November Council meeting regarding the negative impact on the neighbour to the east and the 

streetscape. The setbacks on the ground and upper floor to Bent Street have been pushed back 

well in excess of the required 3.75 metres to a minimum setback of 5.202 metres. This has not 

only reduced the impact of the proposed dwelling on the Bent Street elevation but has also 

protected the outlook of the eastern neighbour to the south-west. 

The ground and upper floor setbacks to the rear (east) boundary have also been increased to 

3.959 metres and 8.297 metres respectively. To protect the amenity of the rear neighbours, as 

well as the Bent Street streetscape, the dwelling has been centered on the lot creating 

significantly larger open areas between the proposed dwelling and the east and south side 

boundaries. In addition, the proposed retaining wall on the Bent Street elevation has been 

staggered, breaking up the length of the wall and providing visual articulation as viewed from 

Bent Street. 

It should be noted that at the time of writing this report the neighbours who have objected to the 

development have not been notified of the amended plans but will be contacted prior to the 

committee meeting. Any comments raised by the neighbours will be presented at this meeting. 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES 

the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage as submitted by Webb & Brown- 

Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 6 

December 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 


satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence; 

the fencing on the top of the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be wrought iron 

or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required. 

Committee Meeting 13 December 2011 

During discussion, Members remained concerned that the matter of building height had been 

satisfactorily addressed and, as such, were not prepared to adopt the recommendation at this 

stage. 

The Administration was requested to provide further information on how the floor plan has 

changed and its effect on the height of the dwelling prior to the next meeting of Council. 

It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. 





Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King 

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Scheme No. 1, Council 

APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage as 

submitted by Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as 

shown on the plans dated 6 December 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type of vegetation, 

to the satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a building 

licence; 

the fencing on the top of the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be 

wrought iron or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required. 

During discussion, Members agreed that, in order to address some of the concerns raised by 

the neighbours, the setback to both upper and ground floors to Bent Street should be increased 

by a minimum of 0.5 metres. 

Amendment 



(iii) 

the setback to both the upper and ground floors to Bent Street being increased by a 

minimum of 0.5 metres. 


During discussion, Cr Bradley suggested that the item be referred back to the Development 

Committee to enable further discussion to be held with the applicant and neighbours. 

Moved by Cr Bradley 

That the item relating to Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach be referred back to the 

Development Committee for further consideration. 

Refer Back lapsed for want of a seconder. 


That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Scheme No. 1, Council 

APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage as 

submitted by Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as 

shown on the plans dated 6 December 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type of vegetation, 

to the satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a building 

licence; 

the fencing on the top of the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be 

wrought iron or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required; 




(iii) 

the setback to both the upper and ground floors to Bent Street being increased by a 

minimum of 0.5 metres. 

Carried 7/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Walker 

Cr Bradley 




DV11.112 LOTS 70, 71 AND 72 (NO. 334-336) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - 

PROPOSED FIVE LEVEL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (CAFE, SHOPS, 

OFFICES, CONSULTING ROOMS AND TWENTY TWO MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) 


To consider an application for a three storey mixed use development containing shops, offices, 

cafés, consulting rooms and twenty two multiple dwellings, seeking variations to the 

requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1) Policy Manual with respect to plot ratio. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 

LANDOWNER: 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

LAND AREA: 

74DA-2010 

Nurburgring Pty Ltd 

Fringe Architects 

TPS 1: Local Centre 

Office - "AA" (Planning Approval required) 

Shop - "AA" (Planning Approval required) 

Consulting rooms (group) - "SA" (use not permitted 

without Council approval following public consultation) 

Dwelling (multiple) - "SA" (use not permitted without 

Council approval following public consultation) 

3066 square metres 

The applicant submitted an application for a four storey mixed use development in March 2010 

which was assessed and subsequently advertised for public comment during September 2010. 

That application had a shortfall of 67 car bays and a plot ratio of 1:1.86. Approximately 20 

submissions were made plus a petition with 12 signatories. The main concerns raised included 

the provision of only one entry/exit point off Jersey Street, insufficient car parking, increased 

traffic in the locality and the scale of the development. 

As a result of the submissions received, the applicant redesigned the proposal to address the 

issues raised. Amended plans were received in August 2011 and have been readvertised. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject site has frontage to Cambridge Street and a 5.0 metre wide access let to Jersey 

Street. 

Vehicle entry is via Cambridge Street and vehicle exit is via Jersey Street. 

There is a basement of carparking, some parking at ground level, and a level of 

carparking between the office level and the multiple dwellings. 

22 multiple dwellings are proposed made up of 18 two bedroom units and 4 one bedroom 

units. 

8 ground floor retail tenancies totalling 935 square metres of nett lettable area. 

20 first floor office tenancies totalling 1630 square metres of nett lettable area. 

3 consulting rooms. 




 

 

The proposal is split into two buildings - 'Green Space North' (facing the residential zone 

to the rear) and 'Green Space South' (facing Cambridge Street). The rear building is 4 

storeys high; the front building is 5 storeys high. 

The upper two floors of Green Space South are set in from Cambridge Street. The upper 

floor setback of the residential dwellings to Green Space North meet the acceptable 

development provisions for the R40 residential density coding. 


 

 

 

 

 

We believe the mixed use building satisfies the intent for new development for the 

Wembley town Centre. The development proposes to add a range of uses to the ground 

floor retail strip fronting Cambridge Street that either replaces existing uses or adds new 

and improved uses for the community. 

The site has been clearly divided into two major buildings - a four storey mixed use rear 

(north) building and a five storey mixed use front (south) building. Both buildings are 

joined by a full width east/west green space and overhead walkways and balconies. 

The building has been designed so that upper residential floors are significantly setback 

from the primary street frontage so that the building reads as a predominantly three storey 

commercial building from Cambridge Street. 

The building to the rear has been designed to meet R40 residential density standards and 

has been carefully screened to prevent overlooking into adjoining residential properties. 

The proposal meets car parking standards for all of the proposed uses. 

Neighbour Submission 

Multiple dwellings and Consulting Rooms (group) are classified as 'SA' uses under the Local 

Centre Zone. Under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme such uses are required to be 

advertised for before Council determines the application. 

The application was advertised to all owners within 100 metres of the development site along 

Cambridge Street as well as residential properties to the north of the subject site. 

Eight submissions were received during the advertising period and are attached in a schedule 

of submissions with responses to the issues raised provided by the applicant. 

The basis of the submissions were as follows:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Concerned with the increase of traffic into the area. 

Concerned with the location of the exit point onto Jersey Street and its proximity to the 

entry/exit to the shops (IGA etc) on the eastern side of Jersey Street. 

Concerned that the height of the development is out of context with the locality. 

Location of ramps, parking areas will create a disturbance to the residential area at the 

rear. 

Proximity of residential units to abutting residential properties will result in a loss of 

privacy. 




Comment 

Land Use 

The subject site is zoned 'Local Centre' under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and falls within the 

Wembley Planning Precinct. Policy 6.4 of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual prescribes 

the development standards for all commercial development in this precinct and has been used 

to assess the application. The Wembley Centre has a range of uses and would best be 

described as a commercial strip or town centre. The uses proposed are precisely what is 

expected in the area and considered compatible to surrounding land uses and the intent and 

function of the centre. The inclusion of shops and cafes at the ground floor level will provide a 

continuation of retail activity along this portion of Cambridge Street and a link to the notion of a 

town centre. The consulting rooms reintroduce a medical practitioner into the town centre (lost 

when the Post Office Medical Centre site was redeveloped). The twenty two proposed 

dwellings will provide 24 hour occupancy of the site and add to the vibrancy of the centre. 

Building Design 

The proposed development comprises two buildings separated by a green space. The front 

(southern) building is five storeys high with the fourth and fifth storeys comprising residential 

apartments. These are set back from the Cambridge Street frontage so that the building reads 

as three storeys at street level. The building has a glass façade facing Cambridge Street and a 

canopy protruding over the footpath. The ground floor will contain shops and cafes facing onto 

Cambridge Street as well as incorporating an alfresco laneway through to the rear of the 

development and along the access way to provide a pedestrian route through to Jersey Street. 

The rear (northern) building is four storeys with the fourth storey having six residential 

apartments. These are set back from the rear boundary in accordance with setback provisions 

for residential buildings at an R40 density coding. Along the side boundaries, the building will 

be constructed boundary to boundary. 

Adjoining neighbours to the rear have raised concerns over the potential loss of privacy from 

the proposed residential dwellings at the rear of the development. It is noted that these 

dwellings meet the requirements of the R40 density coding with regard to setbacks and privacy 

provisions. The main living areas of the apartments have been set back further than required 

by the R Codes to further aid visual and acoustic privacy. It is considered that additional 

acoustic sound dampening could be incorporated into the privacy screens as a condition of 

planning approval which the applicant has agreed to. In addition, screening of the vehicle 

ramps and the provision of a 2.4 metre high solid wall along the northern boundary would also 

contribute to reducing the impact of the development on the adjoining residential properties to 

the north. 

The overall height of the building is approximately 17 metres (five storeys at Cambridge Street). 

A height limit is not stated in the precinct policy, however, the policy states that new 

development should be built up to the street boundary and be of a height and scale similar to 

the majority of existing buildings. At present, the majority of existing buildings in the locality are 

single or two storey but recently there has been a move towards more intense development 

with a range of building heights within the centre. Recent develops such as the mixed use 

development on the corner of Simper and Cambridge Streets, 339 Cambridge Street (cnr 

Jersey Street) and the 'Activ' building are examples of development that contribute to the 

changing streetscape. 

In addition, Council granted approval for a five storey mixed use development directly opposite 

the subject property at No. 343 Cambridge Street at its meeting on 25 May 2010 ((Item 

DV10.40). 




Plot Ratio 

Policy 6.4 of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual states that all development located in 

Cambridge Street between Pangbourne and Simper Streets shall have a maximum plot ratio of 

1.0:1.0. The applicant proposes a plot ratio of 1.62:1.0. 

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with desired planning outcomes for 

the area for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

 

 

The existing buildings on the site are ageing, small in scale and have limited presence on 

the streetscape. The proposal presents an opportunity enhance the streetscape and 

provide an interesting mix of uses along Cambridge Street. 

The Wembley Town Centre is increasingly becoming more intensive in use and services 

more than just the day to day needs of local residents. In addition, there has been 

significant interest for larger scale redevelopments among landowners in locations within 

the immediate locality of the subject lot. The town centre presents an ideal location for 

many of these proposed uses and contains the necessary infrastructure to support such 

development. The opportunity therefore exists for the centre to be utilised as a mixed 

precinct of some significance. 

The State Planning Policy 4.2 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel' has identified the 

Wembley Town Centre as an activity 'district centre' which should be developed with a 

mix of commercial and residential uses given its proximity to public transport. 

The State Government "Directions 2031" strategic plan for Perth identifies the need for all 

local government areas to provide for additional housing and housing choice within their 

localities. Development within an activity centre and with good access to public transport 

should be encouraged to provide medium density with a range of housing types available. 

The proposed development provides twenty two single and two bedroom residential units 

thus providing greater housing choice within the Wembley Precinct. 

The proposal is consistent with the plot ratio of recently developed and approved 

development within the area (the five storey mixed use development opposite the subject 

site was approved with a plot ratio o1.64:1.0. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will improve the streetscape and is in line with current 

interest for redevelopment in the locality. Further, the existing intensity of activity in the area is 

conducive with the scale and bulk of the proposed development. The variation to plot ratio 

requirements it therefore supported. 

Traffic and Car Parking 

The applicant has provided a traffic statement by a traffic engineer as part of the application. 

This demonstrates that the application provides car parking for the development in accordance 

with the Town Planning Scheme Policy 6.1 with 162 bay being provided and 160 bays required. 

A copy of the Transport Statement is provided as an attachment to the agenda. This statement 

has been examined by the Town's Infrastructure Services and is considered to address of 

concerns previously identified by the Town's Engineering Consultant. The analysis of the traffic 

generated by the proposed development is seen to be able to be readily accommodated within 

the practical capacity of the surrounding streets. 

With regard to the additional traffic exiting onto Jersey Street and the potential conflict with 

traffic from the nearby IGA complex, the transport statement notes the following:- 

 

The centre to centre distance between the two exit points is approximately 8-9 metres. 

This stagger is considered adequate for the safe operation of the crossovers. 




 

 

 

 

The right turning traffic from the proposed development exit will introduce a slight increase 

in the opposing traffic flow that a vehicle from the IGA complex will need to negotiate. 

This increase is estimated to be less than 17 or 38 vehicles in the am and pm peak hours 

ie less than 1 a minute. It should be noted that at present vehicles would be exiting this 

crossover. 

The crossovers are located approximately 30 to 40 metres from the traffic signals on 

Cambridge/Jersey Street intersection which will assist in providing regular gaps for exiting 

vehicles to enter the traffic system. 

The crossovers are located within a low speed environment of 50 km/hour or less due to 

the proximity of the signals. 

The IGA complex has a second access onto Pangbourne Street which provides an 

alternative exit should drivers not wish to use the Jersey Street exit. Traffic will naturally 

find an equilibrium between the two exit points provided. 


The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No.1, the 

Town's Policy Manual, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and Draft 

Parking Policy. 




Consideration of this application is consistent with the Towns Strategic Plan 2009-2020, 

specifically priority area “Planning for Our Community’ and the goals of ‘attractive and diverse 

shopping and business areas’ and ‘transport choice’. 




SUMMARY: 

The proposed land uses are consistent with the local centre zoning of the site. The proposed 

development encourages activity along Cambridge Street and provides for a number of services 

for the local community. 

The provision of twenty two multiple dwellings within the development provides for greater 

housing choice within the Wembley precinct and takes advantage of the site's proximity to a 

public transport route. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development, notwithstanding the neighbours 

concerns, is consistent with the objectives of the Town Planning Scheme and with the future 

planning for the Wembley Planning Precinct and therefore subject to appropriate conditions to 

address concerns raised, is supported. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Schedule of submissions. 

2. Transport Statement prepared by Donald Veal Consultants Pty Ltd. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to vehicular access/egress for the 

site, in particular, the exit point onto Jersey and the potential conflict with traffic from the IGA. 

The Administration was requested to provide further traffic engineering advice in relation to 

proposed road treatments on Jersey Street and how this would be affected by the proposed 

development. Further, advice was requested on whether there are measures that can be taken 

in relation to overall site access that would improve traffic conditions at the Jersey Street exit 

point. 

Developer contribution towards the provision of public art for the development was raised and 

the Administration was requested to provide advice on an appropriate contribution prior to the 

next meeting of Council. 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 December 2011) 

To facilitate the implementation of public art throughout the Town, a percentage of development 

costs for private developments could be allocated to the provision of public art. In this regard, a 

request 1% of development construction costs is generally consistent with other local authorities 

where public art planning policies have been adopted. 

Public art is defined as an artistic work that is created and located for public accessibility and is 

work that has been designed by an artist for enhancement of a particular public realm. The 

developer could either provide the public art to the satisfaction of the Town or pay a contribution 

in lieu of providing public art. 

The introduction of a Public Art Policy is currently being drafted for consideration by Council. 

However, to ensure successful implementation of a public art planning policy, the preparation of 

supporting documentation, such as guidelines and strategies will also be required. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 



Council APPROVES the application for a five storey mixed use development as 

submitted by Fringe Architects at Lots 70, 71 and 72 (No. 334-336) Cambridge Street, 

Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 22 September 2011 subject to the 

following conditions:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the amalgamation of the lots prior to the issue of a building licence; 

a Parking Management Plan being submitted prior to the issue of a building licence 

detailing the operation of the car park, including the management of tandem bays, 

staff, residential and visitor allocation and general traffic flow; 

the operation of, and adherence to the Parking Management Plan; 




(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

preparation and implementation of a Bin/Waste Management Plan indicating the 

storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a building licence to the 

satisfaction of the Town; 

any signage on site being subject to a separate development application; 

a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction of 

the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding 

area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the 

subject site for the parking of worker's vehicles on site and how traffic 

management will be undertaken. The Construction Management Plan shall be 

submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of a building licence; 

all commercial car parking bays being made available to staff and customers at all 

times during the business day; 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a 

building licence, showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and 

lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping areas as shown on the 

approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of the 

building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the parking ramp to level 2 being enclosed, incorporating sound dampening 

devices to the ramp-way and to provide screening from headlights to the adjoining 

residential property to the north; 

a 2.4 metre high solid wall to be constructed along the northern boundary to the 

adjoining residential properties; 

the proposed balconies to the six residential units facing the rear boundary to 

incorporate sound dampening devices within the privacy screening. Details to be 

provided at building licence stage. 

Footnote: 

The applicant is advised that the proposed development should be designed and 

constructed in such a manner so that existing and possible future noise levels 

associated with the surrounding commercial uses, that could potentially affect future 

occupiers, are reasonably successfully attenuated. 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr MacRae 


(l) 

public art up to a value of one percent of the cost of the development be 

incorporated in the development, or, in lieu of the applicant being unable to provide 

this to the satisfaction of the Town, a contribution of one percent of the cost of the 

development be made to the Town, prior to the occupation of the building, for 

expenditure on public art in the near vicinity of the development. 


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer 

That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- 

(b) 

(n) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the access point on Cambridge Street being altered to allow vehicles to exit (left 

turn out only) as well as enter from both directions. Suitable signs are to be 

provided to direct vehicle movements accordingly and a 2.5 metre deep by 2 metre 

wide truncation be provided on the tenancy adjacent to the driveway of the street 

boundary. 

the solid wall to be built on the northern boundary to be reduced to no higher than 

0.75 metres for a distance of 3 metres from the Jersey Street property boundary. 

Any infill panels above this section of wall can be nothing more than metal palings 

which allow a clear view through to the footpath on Jersey Street. 

further to the above approval, the applicant be advised that, at Building Licence 

stage, Council is prepared to assess the ground floor café/restaurant and retail 

tenancies at a rate of 1 bay per 30 square metres of floor area if the 17 bays on the 

second floor along the frontage onto Cambridge Street are converted to office 

space; 

in relation to (ii) above, Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to 

approve amended plans which satisfy those requirements. 



That:- 

(i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, 

Council APPROVES the application for a five storey mixed use development as 

submitted by Fringe Architects at Lots 70, 71 and 72 (No. 334-336) Cambridge 

Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 22 September 2011 subject 

to the following conditions:- 

(a) 

(b) 

the amalgamation of the lots prior to the issue of a building licence; 

the access point on Cambridge Street being altered to allow vehicles to exit 

(left turn out only) as well as enter from both directions. Suitable signs are to 

be provided to direct vehicle movements accordingly and a 2.5 metre deep by 




2 metre wide truncation be provided on the tenancy adjacent to the driveway 

of the street boundary. 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

a Parking Management Plan being submitted prior to the issue of a building 

licence detailing the operation of the car park, including the management of 

tandem bays, staff, residential and visitor allocation and general traffic flow; 

the operation of, and adherence to the Parking Management Plan; 

preparation and implementation of a Bin/Waste Management Plan indicating 

the storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a building 

licence to the satisfaction of the Town; 

any signage on site being subject to a separate development application; 

a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the 

construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the impact 

on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is 

provided within the subject site for the parking of worker's vehicles on site 

and how traffic management will be undertaken. The Construction 

Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the 

issue of a building licence; 

all commercial car parking bays being made available to staff and customers 

at all times during the business day; 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted prior to the issue 

of a building licence, showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs 

and lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping areas as shown on 

the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation 

of the building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction 

of the Town; 

the parking ramp to level 2 being enclosed, incorporating sound dampening 

devices to the ramp-way and to provide screening from headlights to the 

adjoining residential property to the north; 

a 2.4 metre high solid wall to be constructed along the northern boundary to 

the adjoining residential properties; 

the proposed balconies to the six residential units facing the rear boundary to 

incorporate sound dampening devices within the privacy screening. Details 

to be provided at building licence stage. 

(m) public art up to a value of one percent of the cost of the development be 

incorporated in the development, or, in lieu of the applicant being unable to 

provide this to the satisfaction of the Town, a contribution of one percent of 

the cost of the development be made to the Town, prior to the occupation of 

the building, for expenditure on public art in the near vicinity of the 

development; 




(n) 

the solid wall to be built on the northern boundary to be reduced to no higher 

than 0.75 metres for a distance of 3 metres from the Jersey Street property 

boundary. Any infill panels above this section of wall can be nothing more 

than metal palings which allow a clear view through to the footpath on Jersey 

Street; 

(ii) 

(iii) 

further to the above approval, the applicant be advised that, at Building Licence 

stage, Council is prepared to assess the ground floor café/restaurant and retail 

tenancies at a rate of 1 bay per 30 square metres of floor area if the 17 bays on the 

second floor along the frontage onto Cambridge Street are converted to office 

space; 

in relation to (ii) above, Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to 

approve amended plans which satisfy those requirements. 

Footnote: 

The applicant is advised that the proposed development should be designed and 

constructed in such a manner so that existing and possible future noise levels 

associated with the surrounding commercial uses, that could potentially affect future 

occupiers, are reasonably successfully attenuated. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.113 LOTS 50 AND 500 (NO 168-170) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - 

PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING (WALGA HEADQUARTERS) 


To consider an application for a multi storey office building to be occupied by the Western 

Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) for their new headquarters that was 

previously approved under Clause 45 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 subject to further 

approval of details. 

BACKGROUND: 

DA REFERENCE: 

LANDOWNER: 

72DA-2011 

Qube Railway Parade Pty Ltd and Western Australian 

Local Government Association (WALGA) 

HASSELL 

Commercial 

Office, Restaurant - 'AA' (Council approval required) 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

LAND AREA: Lot 500 - 1,111m 2 , Lot 50 - 3,137m 2 

(Combined Area - 4248m 2 ) 

Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval of details' 

In the 12 year life of the Town Planning Scheme, WALGA was the first to request for 

consideration of a development proposal under Clause 45: Approval subject to later Planning 

Approval of Details. 

Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval of details' states:- 

1. Where an application for planning approval is for a development that includes the carrying 

out of any building or works, the Council may grant approval subject to matters requiring 

the subsequent approval of the Council. These matters may include the siting, design, 

external appearance of the buildings, means of access or landscaping. 

2. The Council may decline to deal with an application requiring later approval of details or 

call for further details if it thinks fit. 

3. Where the Council has granted approval subject to matters requiring the later approval of 

the Council, application for approval of those matters must be made not later than the 

expiration of two years from the date of the first planning approval. 

Council Meeting - 22 March 2011 (Item DV11.11) 

WALGA submitted a concept plan showing a six/seven storey office building with two levels of 

basement parking. The concept plan included pedestrian access in the form of a wide 

landscaped area with a centrally located pedestrian path situated along the eastern boundary, 

connecting Nicolson Street and Railway Parade. 

Council considered the application for a multi storey office building to be occupied by the 

Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) for their new headquarters under 




Clause 45 'Approval Subject to Later Planning Approval of Details' of Town Planning Scheme 

No.1 and decided: 

That Council declines to deal with the application (dated 17 February 2011), requiring a later 

approval under Clause 45 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1: Approval Subject to Later 

Planning Approval of Details submitted by the Western Australian Local Government 

Association (WALGA) for an office building on lots 50 and 500, 168/170 Railway Parade, West 

Leederville for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the application does not meet the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme in 

relation to plot ratio and on-site parking provision; and 

the proposal put forward in the letter from WALGA dated 15 March 2011 does not 

offer the ceding of a 6.0 metre wide strip of land across the rear of the site for a road 

reservation free of cost. 

Council Meeting - 24 May 2011 (Urgent Business Item 11.1) 

Following the Council decision in March 2011 above, a request was received from WALGA for 

the matter to be reconsidered. WALGA offered to cede a full 6 metre strip of land free of cost 

to the Council for access purposes and also reaffirmed their undertaking to provide the 

pedestrian access. Council reconsidered the application and decided: 

That in accordance with Part 4 of Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the 

application for approval subject to later planning approval of details under Clause 45 of the 

Scheme submitted by the Western Australian Local Government Association dated 17 February 

2011, and subsequent submission dated 20 May 2011 for the development of Lots 50 and 500 

(Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville for a multi level office building with basement 

parking, be approved subject to:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the conditions set out in paragraph 1; and 

the matters set out in paragraph 2 requiring the subsequent approval of the Council. 

1. Conditions 

The application is approved subject to the following conditions, each to be satisfied in a 

manner, form and substance satisfactory to the Town:- 

1.1 The building to include no more than 5,100 m² of commercial office floor space 

and up to a further 1,000 m² of floor space to be used for incidental purposes. 

1.2 The building to include an undercroft carpark yielding a minimum carparking 

provision of 162 car bays, which is accepted by the Council as being sufficient for 

the volume of floor space specified in condition 1.1 subject to the following:- 

(a) 

To offset the reduced provision for on-site car parking, as it relates to the 

Town's Parking Policy (up to 41 bays), the following measures must be put 

in place to facilitate and encourage the use of alternate transport modes to 

access the office development:- 

(i) 

Provision of suitable end of trip bicycle facilities to include bicycle 

parking, lockers and showers with associated change room facilities 

to the satisfaction of the Town; and 




(ii) Preparation of (and subsequent adherence to) a transport 

management plan for staff and visitors to the building (the plan is to 

include incentives for use of alternate modes including cost subsidy 

for public transport fares and priority parking for car pooling); and 

Note: If these conditions are not met, parking will have to be provided 

in accordance with the Town's parking policy or cash-in-lieu paid at a 

rate of $7,500 per bay. 

1.3 The building height is to be of no more than seven storeys above existing ground 

level (six storeys of office space plus a ground floor area with the capacity for a 

café/restaurant and other services and facilities). 

1.4 Building setbacks from all boundaries and Railway Parade to be generally as 

proposed in the concept drawings and site plan submitted by the applicant with 

the application. 

Note: The land area within the ROW (see condition 1.6 below) is to be included 

in the calculation of any setback that may be required in any future development 

of the rear of the site. The width of the ROW is considered a sufficient setback for 

buildings up to three storeys in height. 

1.5 An agreement being entered into between the Town and the owner of the site, 

under Clause 49 of the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path 

through the site. 

The pedestrian path must: 

(a) Provide for unrestricted public access (except for occasional closure 

necessary to prevent the establishment of an easement by prescription) 

connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade; 

(b) 

(c) 

Be a minimum of 5.3 metres in width; and 

Be constructed and maintained generally along the alignment shown on the 

plans submitted with this application. 

Notification of this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site land 

under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act. 

1.6 An agreement being entered into between the Town and the owner of the site 

under Clause 49 of the Scheme under which the owner agrees to cede to the 

Town without compensation for the purpose of a future ROW a strip of land six 

(6) metres wide across the northern boundary of the site. This strip of land is to 

be subdivided from Lot 50 at the time Lots 50 and 500 are amalgamated (to 

accommodate the development) and ceded free of cost to the Town at that time. 

1.7 The amalgamation of Lots 50 and 500 prior to the commencement of any 

development. 

2. Matters requiring later planning approval of details 

The application is approved subject to the later approval of the Council to the following 

matters:- 

2.1 Siting of the buildings. 




2.2 The means of access to the building and through the site. 

2.3 The landscaping of the site. 

2.4 Such other matters as are normally the subject of Council consideration of a 

detailed application for planning approval which are not covered in paragraph 2. 

Note: The following specific matters are raised for the attention of the owner 

when preparing building design: 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

The traffic analysis accompanying the application has been undertaken on 

the basis of 152 bays being provided on site. Should the detailed design 

propose more than this number, further traffic analysis will be required. 

Traffic engineering design issues have been raised in the assessment of 

the application in relation to access at both Nicholson Street and Railway 

Parade. These matters will require further assessment and have to be 

satisfactorily resolved at detailed planning stage. Any resulting works 

required in the streets must be at the owner's cost. 

Adequate on-site turn-around provision must be made to accommodate 

rubbish trucks and any other large service vehicles that may have reason 

to visit the site. 

DETAILS: 


The subject lots are located on the north side of Railway Parade and are surrounded by 

commercial developments to the east and west and residential properties to the north. Vehicle 

access is currently taken from Railway Parade, however, the rear of Lot 50 adjoins the 

Nicholson Street road reserve. 

WALGA and Qube Railway Parade Pty Ltd propose to develop both lots and the application 

submitted for further approval of details show:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Four storey office building above two ground floor tenancies (one to be occupied as a 

café) with a total floorspace of 6,100m 2 and combined total height of 5 storeys. 

157 bays over two levels of basement parking and 5 bays provided at-grade to the rear of 

the development (162 bays in total). The two levels of basement parking are not 

internally linked, with the upper basement accessed from Railway Parade and the lower 

basement accessed from Nicholson Street. 

A minimum front street setback of 5.5 metres from Railway Parade and a rear setback 

from Nicholson Street of 45 metres. 

Nil and 3 metre setbacks from the western boundary and 3 metre and 10 metre setbacks 

from the eastern boundary to allow for light and ventilation to the building and a minimum 

setback at ground level of 11.3 metres to accommodate the pedestrian access way along 

the eastern side of the property. The roof extends to the eastern boundary. 

Pedestrian access in the form of a wide landscaped and paved area along the eastern 

boundary providing for a public pedestrian connection between Nicholson Street and 

Railway Parade. 




The proposed development is also seeking to achieve a 5-Star Green Star Office rating from 

the Green Building Council of Australia. 

Also accompanying the application is a Development Application Summary Report, a Traffic 

Impact Assessment Report, a Landscaping Concept Plan and a Waste Management Plan. 


In conclusion the Applicant provides: 

The proposed development of the WALGA office of 168-170 Railway Parade, West Leederville 

will significantly contribute to realising the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study 

objectives. The development will vastly improve built form within the area, public spaces, 

increase concentration of offices, cafes and create a permanent pedestrian link between 

Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. 

The proposed development complies with the Town Planning Scheme No.1, Policy 6.5: Precinct 

P5: West Leederville and the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study relevant to the 

site, highlighting the value the development brings to the precinct and the benefits it will bring to 

surrounding sites. 

Development of the site will promote environmental principles, increase accessibility between 

public transport and enhance the pedestrian activity within the area. 

The WALGA development will greatly improve the character and amenity of the area with a 

compliant scheme that:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aims to provide a 5-Star Green Star building, minimising greenhouse gas emissions and 

maximising efficiency through design; 

Activates two street frontages by landscaped forecourt, courtyard, café and restaurant; 

Provides a high quality contemporary and sustainable architectural solution that will lead 

and influence future developments within the area; 

Provides safe and accessible public spaces that are comfortable for pedestrians to use 

both day and night; 

Provides passive surveillance for pedestrians moving throughout the site; 

Provides excellent facilities for cyclists and takes advantage of access to public transport 

to minimise the use of private vehicle trips; and 

Increase connectivity of the local transport network. 

COMMENT: 

Council when previously considering the application for the subject lots (submitted in the form of 

a concept plan) outlined a series of conditions to be met, as well as matters requiring the further 

approval of details. Each of these conditions and matters are commented on below, under their 

respective headings in relation to the development application submitted. 

Conditions 

1.1 5,100 m² of commercial office floor space and up to 1,000 m² of floor space for 

incidental purposes 

The plans submitted show a combined floorspace of 6,100m 2 which is proposed to be 

allocated for use as office, café and incidental purposes, meeting the above condition. 




The café is located on the ground floor near the Railway Parade frontage, providing 

activation along the street and pedestrian access way. 

1.2 Undercroft carpark yielding a minimum carparking provision of 162 car bays 

Council supported the provision of 162 car bays (being a shortfall of 41 bays as required 

under the Scheme) subject to the following measures being put in place to facilitate and 

encourage alternate transport modes:- 

 

 

Provision of end of trip bicycle facilities (bicycle parking, lockers and showers and 

associated change room facilities); and 

Preparation of a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the building. 

In absence of these above measures being put in place or if less than 162 bays are 

provided, cash-in-lieu for parking is required at a rate of $7,500 per bay. 

The development provides for 157 bays over two basement levels and an additional 5 

bays at-grade to the rear, providing a total of 162 bays. It is noted that out of the bays 

provided, 37 (23%) bays are marked for 'small cars only'. The Australian Standard allows 

for the provision of small car bays (2.3 metres by 5 metres) and as such these bays can 

be supported. The development also provides for 5 disabled parking bays. 

No parking bays, at this stage, have been set aside (and marked as such) for the use of 

service and delivery vehicles. Prior to the building occupation, provision of service and 

delivery vehicle parking should be included as part of the preparation of the transport 

management plan (which is discussed further below). 

To encourage alternative transport modes, bicycle end of trip facilities are provided in the 

upper basement level. The facilities provided are considered adequate for the size of the 

building and include 12 enclosed bicycle lockers, a number of open bicycle racks, six 

showers with associated change rooms (male and female) and secure clothing lockers. 

Also, the design of access ways to the end of trip facilities allow sufficient manoeuvring for 

people with bicycles. 

In regards to the preparation of the transport management plan, the applicant has 

provided an undertaking to comply with this condition. Some initiatives raised in the traffic 

impact assessment report (which accompanied the application) include public transport 

information boards, the provision of end of trip facilities and the operation of a car pooling 

scheme with parking spaces reserved for this purpose. 

It is considered appropriate to maintain as a condition of approval the preparation of (and 

subsequent adherence to) a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the 

building to the satisfaction of the Town. The transport management plan should be 

lodged with the Town prior to occupation of the building. This will allow future tenants to 

be party to the preparation of the plan. The transport management plan should also 

include service and delivery vehicle needs, the marking and management of the small car 

parking bays and maintenance of the bicycle end of trip facilities. 

1.3 Building height is to be of no more than seven storeys above existing ground level 

The plans show a five storey building, however it is noted that there is a slight step up 

from Railway Parade (approximately 0.7 metres) and the ground floor has a ceiling height 

of 4.8 metres. 




1.4 Building setbacks from all boundaries and Railway Parade to be generally as 

proposed in the concept drawings and site plan 

The building achieves similar setbacks from Railway Parade, the western and eastern 

side boundaries and from the rear boundary (Nicholson Street) to that of the previous 

concept plan considered by Council in May 2011. 

1.5 An agreement being entered into between the Town and the owner of the site, 

under Clause 49 of the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path through 

the site 

Council requires the provision of a pedestrian path (minimum width of 5.3 metres) 

connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade and being generally located as shown in 

the concept plans. 

The applicant proposes a permanent 11 metre wide landscaped access way to provide 

unrestrictive access through the site between Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. The 

pedestrian path runs along the eastern side of the building and connects to a serpentine 

universal access path and a terraced lawn area leading to Nicholson Street. 

The applicant advises that the process to enter into an agreement with the Town under 

Clause 49 of the Scheme has been initiated. This condition therefore needs to be 

retained until the agreement is finalised prior to the occupation of the building. 

1.6 An agreement being entered into to cede to the Town without compensation for the 

purpose of a future ROW a strip of land six (6) metres wide across the northern 

boundary of the site 

The plans show a section of land (6 metres wide) at the rear of the property set aside for 

future rights of way (ROW). 

This six metre strip of land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at the time Lots 50 and 500 are 

amalgamated in order to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant 

advises that the process to enter into an agreement to ensure this land is ceded to the 

Town without compensation has been initiated. Again this requirement should remain as 

a condition of approval and should be finalised prior to the building licence being issued. 

The landscaping plan submitted to accompany the application shows the land to be ceded 

for the ROW will be constructed with concrete paving to allow for vehicle and pedestrian 

access to the site, as well as the eastern section being landscaped. It is considered this 

treatment is an appropriate interim measure until the ROW is needed. 




1.7 Amalgamation of Lots 50 and 500 prior to the commencement of any development 

The applicant advises that the process to have the two lots amalgamated has 

commenced, however since the amalgamation is yet to be finalised this should remain as 

a condition of approval. 

Matters requiring later planning approval of details 

2.1 Siting of the buildings 

The proposed siting of the building is similar to that which was shown in the concept plan, 

albeit the design of the building has changed. The siting of the building is consistent with 

the Railway Parade street setbacks identified in the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study, allows for the provision of a safe, accessible and attractive pedestrian 

access way through the site and the large rear setback minimises the impact of building 

bulk and height on the adjacent residential properties along Nicholson Street. 

2.2 The means of access to the building and through the site 

Vehicle Access and Traffic Impact Assessment Report 

In regards to vehicle access, Council requires further traffic analysis to be undertaken if 

more than 152 parking bays are proposed on site and also for the applicant to 

satisfactorily resolve the traffic engineering design issues raised in relation to access from 

both Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. It was noted that any resulting works to 

resolve these matters are to be at no cost to the Town. 

Access from Railway Parade 

Access to the upper level basement car park (which contains 76 car bays) is provided 

from Railway Parade, which represents that 47% of vehicle traffic associated with the 

development with access the site from Railway Parade. This equates to:- 

 

 

 

 

53 arrivals in the AM peak 

6 departures in the AM peak 

14 arrivals in the PM peak 

47 departures in the PM peak 

It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 318 vehicle 

movements per day onto Railway Parade, distributed east and west, representing an 

increase in traffic volumes of less than 2%. The traffic impact assessment concludes that 

the proposed development will have no material impact on the operation of Railway 

Parade, as the additional traffic is within daily fluctuation levels. 

To facilitate right hand turn movements into the development it is proposed to provide a 

2.7 metre wide painted median to allow vehicles to store whilst waiting to turn into the 

development. This treatment will avoid traffic along Railway Parade queuing behind 

turning vehicles and possibly impacting on the roundabout at Southport Street. Details of 

the above proposed road treatment should be provided to the satisfaction of the Town 

with the building licence application. All associated works would be at the expense of the 

applicant. 

The proposed ramp from Railway Parade has a maximum gradient of 1 in 4 and was 

raised with the applicant as a concern. In response, the applicant contends that the ramp 

gradient meets the Australian Standards 2890.1; however take note of the steep queuing 




areas and advise that this issue will be further considered when the operational aspect of 

the parking is finalised. 

Further, the barriers proposed adjacent to the vehicle access to avoid pedestrians falling 

into the void, will be designed to avoid interfering with sightlines and could, as a 

suggestion, be constructed from transparent materials. Plans showing the final barrier 

design are to be provided with the building licence application. 

Access from Nicholson Street 

Access to the lower level basement car park (which contains 81 car bays) is provided 

from Nicholson Street. It is also noted the 5 at-grade bays are also to be accessed from 

Nicholson Street. This represents that 53% of vehicle traffic associated with the 

development with access the site from Nicholson Street. This equates to:- 

 

 

 

 

59 arrivals in the AM peak 

6 departures in the AM peak 

16 arrivals in the PM peak 

52 departures in the PM peak 

It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 359 vehicle 

movements per day onto Cambridge Street and Nicholson Street. This will increase 

traffic volumes on Nicholson Street to 500 vehicle movements per day and represent less 

than 2% increase in traffic volumes along Cambridge Street. 

The Traffic Impact Assessment Report and associated SIDRA analysis identifies that 

queuing of vehicles will occur along Nicholson Street during the PM peak period and 

vehicles will experience delays entering onto Cambridge Street, particularly for vehicles 

heading eastwards. 

To accommodate the queuing of vehicles, the applicant has requested that the Town 

consider modifying parking signage to indicate 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm 

weekdays for the section of Nicholson Street on the western side between Cambridge 

Street and Bromham Lane. Currently, the parking signs allow for two hour parking 8am to 

6pm weekdays, with the exception of residential permits. 

Further traffic issues, associated with accessing the site via Nicholson Street are still 

being resolved with the applicant and further advice will be provided in regard to this 

matter at the Development Committee. 

Pedestrian Access 

In regard to the design and location of pedestrian access through the site, it is considered 

that this meets the intent of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and 

provides for improved connectivity between Railway Parade and Cambridge Street. The 

design accommodates universal access, is adequately landscaped and paved and has 

decorative features to make it attractive and inviting for pedestrians. The proposed café 

and lobby area will assist with activating the pedestrian access. 




2.3 The landscaping of the site 

The applicant has provided a landscaping and paving concept plan to accompany the 

application. 

The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study requires green forecourts along 

Railway Parade to soften the overall visual impact as viewed from the street. The 

landscaping concept plan shows the inclusion of planter boxes located around the front 

elevation of the building, breaking up the areas of paving. The main pedestrian entry, and 

similarly, the location of the café are oriented towards Railway Parade. Both these 

activities require their adjacent areas to be paved to allow for pedestrian movement and 

seating. Further, it is noted the inclusion of the basement car park, limits the level of 

landscaping that could reasonably be accommodated. On balance, it is considered that 

the inclusion of the planter boxes meet the intent of the study and provide green relief 

along the front elevation. 

It is considered with the inclusion of planter boxes, located around the front elevation of 

the building, provides for this desired 'green' forecourt. 

The rear of the site (as viewed from Nicholson Street) is proposed to be landscaped, with 

terraced lawn areas and a winding universal access pedestrian path leading up to the 

building. A landscaping strip is also provided for the length of the pedestrian access way 

along the eastern boundary, screening the adjacent commercial building, which is 

currently constructed to the boundary. 

Different paving treatments are also proposed to provide interest and to break up the 

different pedestrian areas. 

The layout of landscaping and paving is generally supported as shown in the concept 

plan, however further details of plantings and a reticulation plan should be submitted with 

the building licence application for approval. On-going maintenance of the landscaping 

would also be required. 

2.4 Other matters 

Waste Management 

The applicant proposes to engage a private waste service provider to collect waste and 

recycling once the building is operational, as follows: 

 

 

For the offices: 

General waste and paper collected minimum 3 times per week 

Recyclables collected weekly 

Organic waste collected twice weekly 

For the café: 

General waste collected minimum 3 times per week 

Cardboard and recyclables collected weekly 

Used cooking oil collected on request 

A bin storage area is provided to the rear of the development next to the driveway to enter 

into the basement car park from Nicholson Street. The bin storage provided is considered 

adequate in size to contain both the bins for the development and also room for the 

manoeuvring of bins. 




It is proposed that the waste/recycling vehicles will enter the premises from Nicholson 

Street by turning left into land ceded for the new ROW and reverse to park next to the 

waste compound. The doors to the bin storage area face towards the ROW to allow for 

easy access. The applicant has provided a swept path representation to demonstrate 

adequate turn-around area is provided to accommodate the waste vehicles or any other 

large service vehicles that may have reason to visit the site. 

Also, to minimise the disruption to residents along Nicholson Street, waste and recycling 

vehicles should only access the site during the hours of 7am to 7pm. 

Previous neighbour comments 

Whilst there was no specific requirements under the TPS to advertise the proposal, 

owners and residents of property abutting the development site were invited to view the 

concept plans when they were first submitted in February 2011. Three submissions were 

received from residents of Nicholson Street, which outlined the following concerns: 

Vehicular access from Nicholson Street; 

Details regarding access for service vehicles and rubbish collection; 

Storm water management 

Opening hours for the restaurant 

Disruption and vibration during building construction (in the event of approval) 

Vehicular access from Nicholson Street and waste management are discussed above. 

In regards to operating hours of the café, the applicant advises that the café initially will 

only operate during business hours (7am - 6pm) on weekdays and will predominantly 

service the office and possibly surrounding neighbours and businesses in the vicinity. 

Should the hours of operation change, further approval would be sought and information 

provided regarding the availability of basement parking for customers. 

Information regarding future storm water and construction management is provided at the 

building licence stage for approval. To assist with the preparation of these plans, the 

owner can be advised of the above residents concerns. 


The proposal was assessed against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the 

objectives and intent of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 and 

Priority Area 'Planning for Our Community' in regard to the goals for 'attractive and diverse 

business areas' and 'transport options'. 





The requirements for consultation are provided for under the statutory provisions of the Town 

Planning Scheme. Whilst there were no specific requirements under the TPS to advertise the 

proposal, an invitation to view the plans was sent to owners and residents of properties abutting 

Nicholson Street, as well as, the adjoining properties owners at 164-166 and 172 Railway 

Parade when the application was lodged with the Town in February 2011. Comments received 

where reported to Council in March 2011. 

SUMMARY: 

Council approved the concept plan for a multi level office building with basement parking on the 

subject lots under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval of details' subject to a 

number of conditions, as well as matters requiring the further approval of details by Council, 

being satisfactorily met. 

A number (i.e. most) of these conditions and matters have been satisfactorily met with this 

application. However, the traffic issues raised in relation to access from Nicholson Street are 

still being resolved with the applicant and further advice regarding this matter will be provided at 

the Development Committee. 

At this stage, however, the applicant requests, in order to accommodate queuing of vehicles 

during the PM peak period, the Town consider modifying parking signage to indicate 'no 

parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays for the section of Nicholson Street on the western side 

between Cambridge Street and Bromham Lane. Modifications to the signs are to be at the 

expense of the applicant. 

Other matters not yet resolved are to continue to be a condition of approval. Those matters to 

remain a condition of approval are:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preparation of (and subsequent adherence to) a transport management plan for 

staff and visitors to the building. 

An agreement being entered into between the Town and the owner of the site, 

under Clause 49 of the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path 

through the site. 

An agreement being entered into to cede to the Town without compensation for 

the purpose of a future ROW a strip of land six (6) metres wide across the 

northern boundary of the site. 

Amalgamation of Lots 50 and 500 prior to the commencement of any 

development. 

Details of the proposed road treatment for Railway Parade to be provided to the 

satisfaction of the Town. All associated works are to be at the expense of the 

applicant. 

Submission of a detailed landscaping plan including specification of plant types 

and installation method and a reticulation plan. 

The application for a 5 storey office building with a ground floor café tenancy (WALGA 

Headquarters) is recommended for approval, subject to various conditions addressing matters 

raised in the body of this report and further advice being received on traffic issues in relation to 

Nicholson Street. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


That:- 

(i) 

further to Council's approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval 

of details' of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on 24 May 2011, 

Council APPROVES the application for approval of further details for a multi level office 

building with basement car parking and a ground floor café tenancy submitted by 

HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville as shown 

on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the following conditions: 

(a) 

an agreement being entered into between the Town and the owners of the site, 

under Clause 49 of the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path through 

the site, prior to occupation of the building. 


1. provide for unrestricted public access (except for occasional closure 



2. be a minimum of 11 metres in width; and 

3. be constructed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted with this 

application. 

Notification of this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site land 

under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act; 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

an agreement being entered into between the Town and the owners of the site 

under Clause 49 of the Scheme, under which the owner agrees to cede to the Town 

without compensation for the purpose of a future ROW a strip of land six (6) metres 

wide across the northern boundary of the site, prior to the issue of the building 

licence. This strip of land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at the time Lots 50 and 

500 are amalgamated (to accommodate the development) and ceded free of cost to 

the Town at that time; 

the amalgamation of Lots 50 and 500 into one lot on the certificate of title prior to 

the issue of the building licence; 

the preparation of a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the building 

to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the occupation of the building; 

The transport management plan is to include incentives for use of alternative modes 

of travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority parking for car 

pooling, service and delivery vehicle parking, management of the small car bays 

and maintenance of the bicycle end of trip facilities; 

(e) 

(f) 

the operation of, and adherence to, the transport management plan; 

submission of detailed construction plans at the building licence stage, for the 

approval of the Town, of the proposed 2.7 metre wide painted median to be 




provided within the Railway Parade road reserve to facilitate right turn movements 

associated with the development. All associated works are to be at the expense of 

the applicant; 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

submission of details of the proposed barriers adjacent to the vehicle access to 

Railway Parade to provide for adequate vehicle and pedestrian sightlines to the 


submission of a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan, prior to the issue of a 

building licence, including the specification of plant types and installation methods to 

the satisfaction of the Town; 

the landscaped areas, as shown on the landscaping plan, to be installed and 

reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the 


details of any signage on site being the subject of a separate development 

application; 

(k) implementation of and adherence to the Waste Management Plan dated 1 

December 2011 submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the Town's 

Infrastructure Services. Waste and recycling vehicles are only to access the site 

during the hours of 7am to 7pm; 

(l) 

submission of a Construction Management Plan detailing how the construction of 

the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding 

area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the 

subject site for the parking of construction vehicles and for the storage of building 

materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the surrounding road network. The 

construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Town prior 

to the issue of a building licence; 

(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours of 

operation outside these times will require the approval of the Town; 

(ii) 

Parking restrictions on the western side of Nicholson Street between Cambridge Street 

and Bromham Lane be introduced during the PM peak period. The parking signs be 

modified to 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays. Associated costs with these 

modifications are to be at the expense of the applicant. 

Footnotes: 

The applicant be advised that:- 

1. Crossovers that are not required to access the development shall be removed and the 

footpath and kerbing reinstated. 

2. Stormwater must be contained on-site. 

3. Adjacent residents along Nicholson Street have raised concerns of disruption and 

vibration during building construction and are to be taken into consideration during the 

preparation of the Construction Management Plan. 





During discussion, Members agreed that visitor parking for the building be confined to the upper 

basement level. 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That clause (i)(d) of the motion be amended by adding the words "All visitor parking to the 

building is to be provided on the upper basement accessed from Railway Parade." 

That a further footnote be added as follows:- 

4. Access from Nicholson Street may be closed in the future when the east and west right of 

way to Abbotsford Street and Southport Street is achieved. 


FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 December 2011) 

To facilitate the implementation of public art throughout the Town, a percentage of development 

costs for private developments could be allocated to the provision of public art. In this regard, a 

request 1% of development construction costs is generally consistent with other local authorities 

where public art planning policies have been adopted. 

Public art is defined as an artistic work that is created and located for public accessibility and is 

work that has been designed by an artist for enhancement of a particular public realm. The 

developer could either provide the public art to the satisfaction of the Town or pay a contribution 

in lieu of providing public art. 

The introduction of a Public Art Policy is currently being drafted for consideration by Council. 

However, to ensure successful implementation of a public art planning policy, the preparation of 

supporting documentation, such as guidelines and strategies will also be required. 



That:- 

(i) 

further to Council's approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning 

approval of details' of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on 

24 May 2011, Council APPROVES the application for approval of further details for 

a multi level office building with basement car parking and a ground floor café 

tenancy submitted by HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, 

West Leederville as shown on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the 

following conditions: 

(a) 

an agreement being entered into between the Town and the owners of the 

site, under Clause 49 of the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian 

path through the site, prior to occupation of the building. 









3. be constructed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted with 

this application. 

Notification of this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site 

land under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act; 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 


under Clause 49 of the Scheme, under which the owner agrees to cede to the 

Town without compensation for the purpose of a future ROW a strip of land 

six (6) metres wide across the northern boundary of the site, prior to the issue 

of the building licence. This strip of land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at 

the time Lots 50 and 500 are amalgamated (to accommodate the development) 

and ceded free of cost to the Town at that time; 

the amalgamation of Lots 50 and 500 into one lot on the certificate of title 

prior to the issue of the building licence; 

the preparation of a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the 

building to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the occupation of the 

building; 

The transport management plan is to include incentives for use of alternative 

modes of travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority 

parking for car pooling, service and delivery vehicle parking, management of 

the small car bays and maintenance of the bicycle end of trip facilities; 

All visitor parking to the building is to be provided on the upper basement 

accessed from Railway Parade. 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 


submission of detailed construction plans at the building licence stage, for 

the approval of the Town, of the proposed 2.7 metre wide painted median to 

be provided within the Railway Parade road reserve to facilitate right turn 

movements associated with the development. All associated works are to be 

at the expense of the applicant; 

submission of details of the proposed barriers adjacent to the vehicle access 

to Railway Parade to provide for adequate vehicle and pedestrian sightlines to 


submission of a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan, prior to the issue 

of a building licence, including the specification of plant types and installation 

methods to the satisfaction of the Town; 


reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to 





(j) 


application; 


December 2011 submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the 

Town's Infrastructure Services. Waste and recycling vehicles are only to 

access the site during the hours of 7am to 7pm; 

(l) submission of a Construction Management Plan detailing how the 



provided within the subject site for the parking of construction vehicles and 

for the storage of building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the 

surrounding road network. The construction management plan shall be 


(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours 

of operation outside these times will require the approval of the Town; 

(ii) 

Parking restrictions on the western side of Nicholson Street between Cambridge 

Street and Bromham Lane be introduced during the PM peak period. The parking 

signs be modified to 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays. Associated costs 

with these modifications are to be at the expense of the applicant. 

Footnotes: 


1. Crossovers that are not required to access the development shall be removed and 

the footpath and kerbing reinstated. 



vibration during building construction and are to be taken into consideration during 

the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. 

4. Access from Nicholson Street may be closed in the future when the east and west 

right of way to Abbotsford Street and Southport Street is achieved. 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr MacRae 


(iii) public art up to a value of one percent of the cost of the development be 







That:- 

(i) 

further to Council's approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning 

approval of details' of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on 

24 May 2011, Council APPROVES the application for approval of further details for 

a multi level office building with basement car parking and a ground floor café 

tenancy submitted by HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, 

West Leederville as shown on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the 


(a) 

an agreement being entered into between the Town and the owners of the 

site, under Clause 49 of the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian 

path through the site, prior to occupation of the building. 






3. be constructed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted with 

this application. 

Notification of this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site 

land under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act; 

(b) 

(c) 


under Clause 49 of the Scheme, under which the owner agrees to cede to the 

Town without compensation for the purpose of a future ROW a strip of land 

six (6) metres wide across the northern boundary of the site, prior to the issue 

of the building licence. This strip of land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at 

the time Lots 50 and 500 are amalgamated (to accommodate the development) 

and ceded free of cost to the Town at that time; 

the amalgamation of Lots 50 and 500 into one lot on the certificate of title 

prior to the issue of the building licence; 




(d) 

the preparation of a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the 

building to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the occupation of the 

building; 

The transport management plan is to include incentives for use of alternative 

modes of travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority 

parking for car pooling, service and delivery vehicle parking, management of 

the small car bays and maintenance of the bicycle end of trip facilities; 

All visitor parking to the building is to be provided on the upper basement 

accessed from Railway Parade. 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 


submission of detailed construction plans at the building licence stage, for 

the approval of the Town, of the proposed 2.7 metre wide painted median to 

be provided within the Railway Parade road reserve to facilitate right turn 

movements associated with the development. All associated works are to be 

at the expense of the applicant; 

submission of details of the proposed barriers adjacent to the vehicle access 

to Railway Parade to provide for adequate vehicle and pedestrian sightlines to 


submission of a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan, prior to the issue 

of a building licence, including the specification of plant types and installation 

methods to the satisfaction of the Town; 


reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to 



application; 


December 2011 submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the 

Town's Infrastructure Services. Waste and recycling vehicles are only to 

access the site during the hours of 7am to 7pm; 

(l) submission of a Construction Management Plan detailing how the 



provided within the subject site for the parking of construction vehicles and 

for the storage of building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the 

surrounding road network. The construction management plan shall be 


(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours 

of operation outside these times will require the approval of the Town; 

(ii) 

Parking restrictions on the western side of Nicholson Street between Cambridge 

Street and Bromham Lane be introduced during the PM peak period. The parking 

signs be modified to 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays. Associated costs 

with these modifications are to be at the expense of the applicant; 




(iii) public art up to a value of one percent of the cost of the development be 





Footnotes: 


1. Crossovers that are not required to access the development shall be removed and 

the footpath and kerbing reinstated. 



vibration during building construction and are to be taken into consideration during 

the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. 

4. Access from Nicholson Street may be closed in the future when the east and west 

right of way to Abbotsford Street and Southport Street is achieved. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.114 LOT 1 (NO. 156) RAILWAY PARADE, CORNER SOUTHPORT STREET, WEST 

LEEDERVILLE - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - THREE STOREY BUILLDING 

WITH UNDERCROFT - OFFICES AND RESTAURANT 


To consider an application for a mixed use development requiring assessment under 

Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 0445DA-2011 

LANDOWNER: 

Odgaard Industries Pty Ltd 

APPLICANT: 

Michael Little Designs 

ZONING: 

Commercial 

USE CLASS: 

Office - 'AA' (Planning Approval required) 

Restaurant - 'AA' (Planning Approval requiredl) 

LAND AREA: 718 m 2 

DETAILS: 

Proposed net floor area: 1172m 2 

Development description 

 

 

 

 

 

The subject site is on the corner of Railway Parade and Southport Street. Currently 

situated on the site is a single storey commercial building occupied by Odgaard Jewellers. 

A small parking area is located in front of the building facing Railway Parade. 

The site slopes down approximately 2.8 metres from the south-western corner (Railway 

Parade) to the north-eastern corner (Southport Street). 

The proposed development comprises:- 

o 

o 

o 

Undercroft: six car parking bays directly perpendicular to, and accessed from, a 

widened driveway easement adjacent to the rear/north boundary of the site. This 

driveway easement is accessed from Southport Street. 

Ground floor: One tenancy (proposed café) fronting Railway Parade with alfresco 

dining in the Railway Parade street frontage, and the main car parking area (13 car 

parking bays and bicycle racks), accessed from a new driveway off Southport 

Street. 

First floor: three office tenancies ranging in size from 113m 2 to 278m 2 , end of trip 

facilities, and a cleaner’s room. 

o Second floor: three office tenancies ranging in size from 113m 2 to 278m 2 , end of trip 

facilities, and a cleaner’s room. 

There is a total of 1172m 2 of commercial net floor area, which equates to a plot ratio of 

1.63:1 for the site. 

19 car parking bays are proposed. Cambridge's parking policy requires a total of 58 car 

bays. Shortfall is 67%. 




Applicant's submission 

The applicant has provided the following information in relation to the proposed development, in 

particular the car parking shortfall: 

A road widening scheme has seen a sacrifice of approximately 3 metres from the rear of 

the site to accommodate the widening (an existing 3 metres on the right-of-way off 

Southport Street). This presented some challenges to site coverage and vehicle parking 

for the design as the site is only 15 metres wide. 

Parking area was crucial and resulted in 19 premium bays to be allocated to the seven 

tenants proportionately. We believe allocating 2 or 3 bays per tenancy to be sufficient in 

an area on 2 main transport lines for train and bus routes. The varying modes of 

transport to work are met by an end of trip facility. This negates the need of a cash-inlieu 

basis for the cost of bays as there is no proposal or servicing of any public parking 

lots in the immediate area. The majority of staff could easily use public transport to ride 

into work. If a cash in lieu policy was suggested by Council, the only economically 

viable option would be to remove Tenancy 1 on the ground floor and replace it with on 

site parking. This would create an entire ground floor of parking to service the two floors 

above. 

The current Parking Management Plan would be as follows:- 

Tenancy 1 

Tenancy 2 

Tenancy 3 

Tenancy 4 

Tenancy 5 

Tenancy 6 

Tenancy 9 

3 bays 

3 bays 

2 bays 

3 bays 

3 bays 

2 bays 

3 bays 

Railway Parade is fast becoming a series of new developments with café provisions 

linked into their proposals. This site is no different with a proposal for a modern café to 

lease the ground floor Tenancy 1. This will transform the corner site into a vibrant 

meeting place within the front setback area. This area has also been adequately 

covered by awnings over the footpath of Southport Street and the landscaping on 

Railway Parade. 

In closing, this is a landmark development along Railway Parade. Due to the contours, 

dimensions and access to this site, there must be careful consideration given to the 

underlying factors, to achieve a high level of design for a unique location. 

Neighbour’s submission – No. 7 Southport Street 

The proposed development requires the utilisation of the laneway/easement located over No. 7 

Southport Street to the rear of the subject site, to access the six undercroft parking bays. This 

easement is used by No. 7 Southport Street, No. 158 Railway Parade, and No. 160 Railway 

Parade to access their rear car parking areas. 

The owner of No. 7 Southport Street has provided the following comments: 

We as owners of 7 Southport Street, West Leederville accept that the owners of Lot 156 

Railway Parade, West Leederville are able to utilise the laneway/easement in respect to 




their proposed development on the attached plans that I have dated and signed on the 

18 th of November 2011. 

However, this is subject to the owners of the adjoining property to the back of 7 

Southport Street, West Leederville who also use the easement confirming that they 

accept the development proposal and that there may be a period when the easement is 

unavailable for a short time when it is replaced during construction. 

Also the above acceptance is conditional on the replacement and construction of the 

existing easement in its full length with a suitable material to our satisfaction as the 

owners of 7 Southport Street, West Leederville. 

In response to this comment, the applicant is seeking letters of support to the proposed 

development from the owners of No. 158 Railway Parade and No. 160 Railway Parade who 

also use the easement. 

Comment 

General 

The subject site is zoned Commercial under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and is located within 

the West Leederville Precinct (sub-area Southport Street Commercial Area) under Policy 6.5: 

Precinct P5 - West Leederville. This policy has guidelines for plot ratio, vehicular access, 

building height and setbacks, which are used to assess developments in the precinct. 

The subject site is also located within the study area for the West Leederville Planning and 

Urban Design Study, more specifically the Southport Street Node. Council, when adopting the 

West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study in December 2010 decided that until such 

time as the requisite Scheme amendments are in place, Council will use the study as a guide 

when assessing development proposals, in particular where Council discretion is sought. This is 

consistent with Clause 38 of the Scheme which states the Council is to have regard to any 

approved planning study, amongst other considerations. 

In this regard, the proposal has been considered against the provisions of Town Planning 

Scheme No.1 (in particular Policy 6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville), and also the intent, 

objectives and proposed development controls of the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study (specifically for the Southport Street Node). In addition, some reference has been 

made to the report in this agenda proposing amendments to Policy 6.5 to reflect the West 

Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

Land use 

Under a Commercial zoning, the land uses proposed (office and restaurant) require planning 

approval. The proposed offices would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and the 

proposed cafe would be a benefit to both workers and residents in the wider locality. The 

Southport Street Commercial Area is currently dominated by low to medium scale office 

buildings although there is some presence of retail. There are few businesses in the locality 

which cater for workers' morning teas, lunches and the like. Council has, however, recently 

approved a nine storey mixed use development comprising offices, multiple dwellings, a café 

and a newsagent at Nos. 3-5 Loftus Street, West Leederville (see DV11.23 - 19/04/11 Council 

minutes). 

In addition, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study identifies offices and cafes, 

especially with alfresco facilities, as preferred uses for the Southport Street Node. 




Plot ratio 

For the Southport Street Commercial Area, a plot ratio of 1:1 is permitted under Town Planning 

Scheme No. 1 (see Policy 6.5: Precinct 5: West Leederville). This equates to 718m 2 of net floor 

area. The plans show a net floor area of 1172m 2 , or a plot ratio of 1.63:1, which is 454m 2 more 

net floor area than the Scheme requirement. 

Council has discretion under the Town Planning Scheme to approve additional office floor 

space outside the above policy requirement. As with the previous recent approvals in the area 

(eg. No. 3 Loftus Street), the increased plot ratio can be supported, being in keeping with 

desired planning outcomes for the area for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

The prominent corner location of the site warrants individual consideration. The subject 

site is a key site in Cambridge, being situated on the corner of Railway Parade and 

Southport Street; 

The proposed development will result in a widened easement that is used to access the 

rear car parking areas of Nos. 158 and No. 160 Railway Parade and No. 7 Southport 

Street and will also be used by No. 156 Railway Parade; 

The proposed development meets the proposed development controls for the Southport 

Street Node outlined in the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan, including building 

height, street setbacks, design elements, and parking and access. 

In relation to the last dot point, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study does not 

specifically address plot ratio, but rather, deals with built form: building height and setbacks. 

However, it should be noted the proposed changes to the West Leederville Precinct Planning 

Policy (Policy 6.5) to incorporate the provisions of the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study includes provisions for bonus plot ratio in the Southport Street Node. The draft 

policy identifies a bonus plot ratio of 0.2:1 for ceding of land (or secured via an easement) to 

sufficiently allow effective widening of rights of way to allow for two-way vehicle traffic, and a 

bonus plot ratio of 0.2:1 for placing parking for the development in car parks located behind 

street front tenancies allowing for active street frontages. Therefore assessed against the draft 

policy, the plot ratio requirement for this development could be 1.4:1 rather than the current 

policy requirement of 1:1. The maximum permissible net floor area under the draft policy would 

be 167m 2 less than what is proposed. 

It is considered that a consistent approach to plot ratio is desirable and therefore the maximum 

plot ratio for this site should be limited to 1.4:1 meaning the applicant would have to reduce the 

net floor area of the building by 167m2. A reduction of this amount would have a consequential 

effect on car parking by reducing the required bays by 5. 

Building design, height and setbacks 

Policy 6.5 (Precinct P5: West Leederville) of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual states 

that corner buildings should be at least 9.0 metres in height to promote strong urban form and 

that facades should be contemporary in design, articulated and detailed in order to provide 

variety and interest. Entrances are to be distinct and clearly identifiable within the building 

façade. Awnings are also to be provided with preference that they extend over the footpath to 

protect pedestrians from the elements. In addition, the policy states that in order to promote 

strong urban form, buildings should be built up to the street alignment and side boundaries. 




For the Southport Street Node, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study outlines 

a number of proposed development controls. The development controls relevant to this 

proposal are:- 

Minimum 2 storeys, preferably 3 storeys, maximum 8 storeys; 

Maximum 3 storeys along street frontages, with any additional height to a maximum of 8 

storeys to be set back; 

Ground floor to first floor height: a minimum of 3.2 metres; 

Minimum 4 metre setback from Railway Parade to preserve and/or reinforce the "green" 

character of the node. Ground level setback to be set aside as quality landscaped space; 

New buildings on Southport Street shall incorporate an awning over adjacent footpaths to 

provide weather protection to pedestrians; 

Street elevations shall be articulated to include defined street front entries which are 

clearly identifiable from the street and projections and indentations in the floor plan with 

balconies, generous window reveals, related awning and roof elements and changes in 

materials. 

As amendments are proposed to the current precinct planning policy for West Leederville 

(Policy 6.5) to reflect the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study, it is considered 

that the development controls from the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study are 

more relevant to the assessment of this proposal than the current precinct planning policy for 

West Leederville. 

The building is three storeys and set back from Railway Parade, and the ground floor to first 

floor height is over 4.0 metres. A continuous ground floor awning is proposed for almost the full 

length of the Southport Street frontage, and continues across the Railway Parade frontage, 

covering the proposed alfresco dining area. The street elevations are articulated with glazing, 

additional awnings on the upper levels, and feature panels. 

The front boundary of the site is angled, and the setback of the front wall of the building, which 

is perpendicular to the side boundaries, ranges from nil to 5.0 metres. Therefore the building 

does not achieve a 4.0 metre minimum setback as stipulated in the development controls. The 

greatest setback of 5.0 metres will, however, be adjacent to the corner (and roundabout), 

maximising sightlines for vehicles using the roundabout. 

The front setback area is proposed to be used for alfresco dining, however the plans submitted 

show a large planter box and provision for landscaping on the western side of the alfresco 

dining area. Depending on the quality and upkeep of the landscaping proposed, it may be 

sufficient to satisfy the development control objectives in contributing to the “green” character of 

the node. A condition can be included in this regard. 

With regard to defined street front entry, the plans show one main pedestrian entrance to the 

building which is located off Southport Street. The elevation and 3D perspective provided, 

however, do not clearly distinguish or identify these entrances as recommended by the above 

proposed development controls and also the current precinct planning policy, for example, 

through differences in building materials or additional height on awnings. Clearly identifiable 

building entrances are important for users and visitors to the building, and also improve the 

appearance of the building. A condition can be included in this regard to ensure that the main 

entrance to the building is clearly identifiable. 




Car parking 

Use Requirement Required 

Office Office: 1 bay/30m 2 NFA 1074m 2 = 36 bays 

Café Restaurant: 1 bay/4.5m 2 

seating area 

Total required 

Total provided 

Shortfall 

98m 2 = 22 bays 

58 bays 

19 bays 

39 bays 

The applicant is proposing a 67% reduction in the total number of car bays required under 

Policy 5.1: Off-street Parking of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. While the proposal 

does not meet the statutory requirements, it can be considered compatible with desired 

planning outcomes for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

 

 

The requirement for 22 bays for the café is not considered critical. This is due to the 

supposition that patrons to these tenancies will largely come from the offices above and 

or will walk from other commercial and residential properties in the vicinity of the subject 

site. The potential for patrons who drive in specifically to visit the café is considered 

minimal. Further, from an urban design viewpoint, these sorts of uses at pedestrian level 

are encouraged. A more appropriate calculation for this land use may be the office 

requirement of 1 bay/30m 2 NFA. 

State Planning Policy 4.2 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel' (August 2010) provides, as 

a guide, a requirement of 1 bay per 50m 2 for offices and notes that there should be 

flexibility for developers to provide less or no parking on-site and contribute cash-in-lieu 

towards facilities and services for common-use parking, public transport and alternative 

modes. 

For the recent development assessment for Nos. 3-5 Loftus Street and the WALGA 

development, a 20% discount on the number of car bays required was applied, due to the 

significant exposure the site has to public transport. The same can be applied to this site 

at No. 156 Railway Parade. The site is in close proximity to the City West Train Station 

and is also within walking distance from Leederville and West Leederville Train Stations. 

In addition bus routes run along Loftus Street and Railway Parade, with six routes also 

present on the nearby Cambridge Street. The considerable exposure to public transport 

presents an excellent opportunity to encourage alternative means of transport in line with 

the sustainability principles pursued by State Government strategies. 

The applicant has also provided a wall mounted bike rack in the ground floor car park, 

and end of trip facilities such as showers, change rooms and lockers on the first and 

second floors to encourage this method of sustainable transport. Provision of bicycle 

parking and end-of-trip facilities is considered a desirable planning outcome, which, 

together with the availability of public transport in the vicinity, could justify a reduction of 

20% of the number of car bays required under the Scheme. 

Discounts for proximity to public transport and provision for alternative transport are often 

provided for in car parking policies under Town Planning Schemes. There is a large 

move for metropolitan local governments to reduce car parking requirements with some 

Councils introducing maximum car parking requirements rather than minimums. In 




addition, reducing the on-site car parking bays would reduce the load placed on the 

existing surrounding road network which is particularly congested during peak periods. 

 

 

The desired future character of the Southport Street Node is for larger, taller buildings, to 

take advantage of the Node's close proximity to West Perth, the city centre, the 

Leederville town centre, and the three nearby railway stations, as well as good freeway 

access. In order to support this increased development intensity, consideration will need 

to be given to reducing the car parking requirements to make such developments 

commercially viable. 

The applicant has advised that the ground floor café would have to be removed from the 

development is more car parking or cash-in-lieu was required to be provided. From a 

planning perspective, the café is preferred over additional parking due to its wider social 

and economic benefits to the area and the aesthetics of the building on the streetscape. 

In view of the above comments, using the car parking ratio of 1 bay/30 m 2 NFA for the café and 

reducing the overall parking requirement by 20% due to the availability of public transport and 

the provision of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities, the total requirement for the 

development is reduced from 58 bays to bays, leaving a shortfall of 35 bays. The table below 

shows this calculation:- 

Use 

Required 

Office Office: 1 bay/30m 2 NFA 1074m 2 = 36 bays 

Café Office: 1 bay/30m 2 NFA 98m 2 = 3 bays 

Total required 

(with 20% reduction) 

Total provided 

Shortfall 

31 bays 

19 bays 

12 bays 

Policy 5.1: Off-street Parking allows Council to consider cash-in-lieu of parking where 

developments have a shortfall. The policy does not, however, specify a figure for parking bays 

or outline the means by which cash-in-lieu contributions will deliver definite results to address 

future parking needs. 

At the Council meeting held on 22 March 2011, Council adopted a scope of works for the review 

of access and parking policy for commercial areas and having particular regard for the adoption 

of a cash-in-lieu policy to contribute towards meeting future parking needs in these areas. As 

this scope of works has only just been adopted, it will be at least several months before the 

outcomes of the study are known. 

It is considered acceptable to require payment of cash-in-lieu for the shortfall identified after 

applying reductions for the café tenancy and for the site's proximity to public transport facilities 

and provision of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities (shortfall of 12 bays). Council has 

previously taken cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls at $7,500 per bay, which is simply based on 

at-grade parking cost. Based on this figure, cash-in-lieu required for this development would be 

$90,000. It should be noted that the figure of $7,500 per bay covers only the construction cost 

of an at ground car bay, and does not include any land cost. 




It should be pointed out that should the plot ratio reduction be supported the required car 

parking would be reduced by 5 car bays. If you then apply the 20% reduction the required 

number of bays would reduce from 31 down to 27 bays i.e. a shortfall of 8 bays would exist. 

The required cash-in-lieu therefore reducing also to $60,000. 

Access 

Parking and traffic are intrinsically linked. The number of parking bays and how the parking is 

managed will affect traffic to and from the site. Therefore in agreeing to the number of parking 

bays to be provided on-site, due regard should also be given to the traffic implications. 

As the development is medium scale and predominantly office use, the traffic generated by the 

proposed development can be accommodated by the standard and function of the surrounding 

road network. The crossover to the main, ground floor car park is at a sufficient distance away 

from the well-utilised roundabout on the corner of Railway Parade and Southport Street. 

Furthermore, the proposed development has good accessibility by all modes of transport 

considering the existing road network, footpaths and bicycle routes and public transport 

coverage of the subject locality and the provision of end of trip facilities will support nonvehicular 

modes of transport to the development. Of additional importance is that the proposal 

is minimising the amount of car trips by providing a lesser number of car parking bays than 

stipulated under the Scheme. 

Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual states 

that vehicular access should not be taken from Railway Parade. In addition, the development 

controls of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study state that:- 

 

 

Any on-site car parking associated with new development shall be placed in car parks 

either behind street front tenancies or fully below natural ground level, allowing level 

(universal) access to the tenancies from the street. 

New development must be set back from existing ROWs sufficiently to allow effective 

widening of the carriageway to facilitate two-way vehicular traffic. (Public access rights 

would be secured via an easement on the Certificate(s) of Title to ensure no loss of 

private development rights). 

The proposed development satisfies the first two dot points. The plans submitted show on-site 

parking behind the street front café tenancy and also in an undercroft accessed from the 

driveway easement of the adjoining No. 7 Southport Street (see details in ‘Neighbour’s 

comment’ section above). 

As previously described, the driveway easement of the adjoining No. 7 Southport Street is 

proposed to be widened from 2.66 metres to 4.66 metres to allow two way traffic flow for the full 

width of the rear of No. 156 Railway Parade. Whilst the easement will only be 4.66 metres (as 

the ground floor overhangs), at the ground level, there will be a distance of 6.2 metres from the 

north side of the easement to the edge of the undercroft bays, which is more than the minimum 

requirement for two-way traffic and will provide adequate manoeuvring out of the undercroft 

parking bays. This will greatly improve the safety of this easement, which is currently used by 

three properties and will also be used to access the proposed undercroft parking bays of the 

development. The existing crossover to this easement is also proposed to be widened to 6.2 

metres. 

One issue with the new crossover to the ground floor car park and the proposed widening of the 

crossover for the rear driveway easement is that these crossovers may result in the loss of up 

to three street parking bays on Southport Street. However it should be pointed out that the rear 

driveway easement is encouraged for the benefit of not only this site but the adjoining 3 sites for 




future redevelopment and therefore it is considered to cancel out the loss of a street bay. In 

terms of the double access off Southport Street and the impact of up to two bays it is 

considered that this can be supported given the lot constraints in providing a suitable and 

workable car park area. 



against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 


If Council accepts cash-in-lieu of a shortfall of a total of 15 bays (12 on site and 3 street parking 

bays) at a cost of $7,500 per bay, Council will receive $112,500 to be held in reserve for future 

parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. 







SUMMARY: 

The proposed land uses of office and restaurant are consistent with the Commercial zoning of 

the subject lot. 

The proposal is generally in keeping with the building design outcomes stipulated in Policy 6.5 

of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual and the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study, however, it is recommended that the design is slightly modified so that the 

building's entrances are clearly identifiable. The desire for a strong urban form, interaction with 

the streetscape, and landscaped gardens are all addressed by the height, scale and design of 

the development. A high quality of landscaping is desired and should be conditioned in such a 

way that ensures this. 

A plot ratio of 1.63 is considered to significant, however, a plot ratio of 1.4:1 can be supported 

due to the uniqueness of the site and potential for a landmark building and the character of the 

site surrounds. The widening of the easement will also provide benefits to three neighbouring 

properties. Furthermore, the desired future character of the Southport Street Node is for larger, 

taller buildings, to take advantage of the Node's close proximity to the city, Leederville, West 

Perth, three railway stations and the freeway. At a plot ratio of 1.4:1 the parking required 

including concessions is reduced to 27 bays, with 19 bays provided a shortfall of 8 bays exist. 

Cash-in-lieu for these bays is supported with a discounted rate, having regard to the exposure 

of the site to public transport as well as provision of end of trip facilities for cyclists and walkers. 

Recommended cash-in-lieu contribution is $60,000 based on the charge of $7,500 per bay. 

Overall, the application is recommended for approval, subject to various conditions addressing 

matters raised in the body of this report. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the applicant provide confirmation of a legal right of carriageway to the rear 

laneway to the satisfaction of the Director Development and Sustainability; 

subject to (i) above the application for a mixed use development (offices and 

restaurant) submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade, 

West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2011 is APPROVED 

subject to the following conditions:- 

(a) the maximum plot ratio being limited to 1.4:1; 

(b) the provision of a right of carriage way or easement in gross over the rear 2.0 

metre section of the property, for the full 15.1 metre width of the property, 

abutting the laneway as indicated on the approved plan; 

(c) the construction of the rear 2.0 metre section of the property, for the full 15.1 

metre width of the property, abutting the laneway to the satisfaction of the 

Town. Details are to be provided to the Town’s Infrastructure Services for 

approval; 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the 

approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of Town, the 19 

parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair; 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $60,000 to the 

Town, to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of 

the subject site; 

all awnings are to achieve a minimum height of 2.7 metres above natural 

ground level; 

(g) the preparation of a transport management plan for staff, visitors and 

residents of the building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan is to 

include incentives for use of alternative modes of transport including cost 

subsidy for public transport fares and priority parking for car pooling; 

(h) 





(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

the provision of special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main 

building entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction of the Town. 

This may include such elements as additional height, distinct roof forms, 

canopies, curved walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building 

licence stage. 


application; 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue 

of a building licence showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs 

and lawns to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the preparation and implementation of a Bin Waste Management Plan 

detailing the storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a 

building licence to the satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services; 




provided within the subject site or the parking of worker's vehicles off site. 

The construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the 

Town prior to the issue of a building licence. 

Footnotes: 


1. in relation to Condition (xi) above, a bin enclosure in accordance with the Town of 

Cambridge Health Local Law 2001 is required to be provided. In addition, seven 

bins as indicated on the plans, is considered insufficient to meet the waste 

requirements for a café and six offices. 

Amendment 


That a further footnote be added to the motion as follows: 

2. Council notes the amended proposal submitted on 19 December 2011 seeking a plot 

ratio of 1.49:1.0 but considers that the proposals put forward in the revised 

submission do not sufficiently justify the increase in plot ratio. It is noted that a 

further extension of the balconies along the two facades has the potential to meet 

the 1.4:1.0 plot ratio. 





Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr 

That clause (e) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(e) 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $100,000 to the Town, 

based on an 8 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for future 

parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the applicant provide confirmation of a legal right of carriageway to the rear 

laneway to the satisfaction of the Director Development and Sustainability; 

subject to (i) above the application for a mixed use development (offices and 

restaurant) submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade, 

West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2011 is APPROVED 


(a) the maximum plot ratio being limited to 1.4:1; 

(b) the provision of a right of carriage way or easement in gross over the rear 2.0 

metre section of the property, for the full 15.1 metre width of the property, 

abutting the laneway as indicated on the approved plan; 

(c) the construction of the rear 2.0 metre section of the property, for the full 15.1 

metre width of the property, abutting the laneway to the satisfaction of the 

Town. Details are to be provided to the Town’s Infrastructure Services for 

approval; 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the 

approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of Town, the 19 

parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair; 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $100,000 to the 

Town, based on an 8 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for 

future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. 

all awnings are to achieve a minimum height of 2.7 metres above natural 

ground level; 

(g) the preparation of a transport management plan for staff, visitors and 

residents of the building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan is to 

include incentives for use of alternative modes of transport including cost 

subsidy for public transport fares and priority parking for car pooling; 

(h) 

(i) 


the provision of special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main 

building entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction of the Town. 




This may include such elements as additional height, distinct roof forms, 

canopies, curved walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building 

licence stage. 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 


application; 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue 

of a building licence showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs 

and lawns to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the preparation and implementation of a Bin Waste Management Plan 

detailing the storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a 

building licence to the satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services; 




provided within the subject site or the parking of worker's vehicles off site. 

The construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the 

Town prior to the issue of a building licence. 

Footnotes: 


1. in relation to Condition (xi) above, a bin enclosure in accordance with the Town of 

Cambridge Health Local Law 2001 is required to be provided. In addition, seven 

bins as indicated on the plans, is considered insufficient to meet the waste 

requirements for a café and six offices. 

2. Council notes the amended proposal submitted on 19 December 2011 seeking a plot 

ratio of 1.49:1.0 but considers that the proposals put forward in the revised 

submission do not sufficiently justify the increase in plot ratio. It is noted that a 

further extension of the balconies along the two facades has the potential to meet 

the 1.4:1.0 plot ratio. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.115 LOT 43 (NO. 25A) JUKES WAY WEMBLEY - TWO X TWO-STOREY GROUPED 

DWELLINGS 


To consider an application for a two (2) grouped dwellings requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and the Town Planning 

Scheme Policy Manual in respect to buildings on boundary and buildings set back from the 

boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

W L Law 

APPLICANT: 

Summit Projects 

ZONING: 

Residential R30 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted) 

LAND AREA: Parent Lot: 900m 2 

Strata Lot 1 (Subject Lot): 541sqm (excl. common property) 

DETAILS: 


Unit 1: Floor Area: 256.97sqm 

Open Space: 49% (147.65sqm) 

Unit 2: Floor Area: 263.95sqm 


The proposed application consists of: 

 

 

 

 

 

Two double storey dwellings located to the forward of the dwelling that is currently under 

construction. 

The dwellings are located one behind the other with unit 1 having access to the main 

street via an exclusive driveway for its use only, and unit 2 reversing onto an approved 

common property driveway and entering the street in forward gear. 

Unit 1 proposes a parapet wall to the garage on the north-western boundary. Length of 

6.23 metres and height of 3.334 metres. 

The lot is an irregular shaped lot with an approved subdivision and a common access 

driveway to the south-eastern side. 

The property is located on the elbow of the street and borders 5 properties. 

Background 

A subdivision application was lodged by the owner with the Department of Planning on 17 

November 2009 proposing three strata lots on Lot 43 (No. 25) Jukes Way, Wembley. The 

application complied with the average and minimum lot requirements. 

The application was approved in two stages, first with the clearance of the proposed Lot 3 

and common property, and then with the clearance of Lots 1 and 2 (subject lots). 

Stage one of the clearance was issued on the 26 November 2010 and a planning 

approval for a two-storey dwelling on Lot 3 was granted on 12 October 2010. A Building 

Licence was issued on 22 February 2011. This dwelling is currently under construction. 





The applicant has provided the following justification for the roof pitch and setback variations: 

Buildings Setback from the Boundary 

 

 

We wish to maintain the side setbacks to the kitchen, dining and living rooms of unit 2 as 

we believe that this would have no adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining 

properties. 

There would be no over-looking issue and the provision of sunlight and ventilation would 

be maintained to our proposed dwelling and the dwelling on 23 Jukes Way. 

Buildings on Boundary 

 

 

 

We would ask that Council grants approval based on the fact that this would enhance 

security and privacy between 23 and 25 Jukes Way. 

Due to the height and solar orientation of the property, there would be no overshadowing 

issues. 

To minimise disruption of the boundary fence, the proposed parapet wall would be within 

the dividing lot boundary. 


A letters was sent to the adjoining owners to the north-west with regards to the parapet wall and 

reduced setbacks to unit 2. These objections are summarised below. 

Submission one (No. 23B Jukes Way) 


 

 

 

 

It would have a significant adverse affect on the amenity of our property. 

Ventilation and sunlight to our carport would be restricted. 

Direct sun to our bedrooms would be non-existent for 24 hours of the day as those are 

facing east. 

Property 23A already has a nil setback to our property on parts of its eastern border are 

we strongly object to the same happening on our eastern border with our property being 

squashed in between. 


 

 

Direct sun to major openings of our family and dining area as well as outdoor living area 

would be restricted. 

Our outdoor living area gets very hot in summer as it is protected from the breeze. The 

proposed dwelling would see our temperature rise further secondary to impaired 

ventilation by direct radiation and heat convection which would not be sustainable. 

Since advertising the applicant has met with the Administration and decided to reduce the 

amount of parapet wall on the boundary by removing the storeroom. This reduced the original 

length of boundary wall (that was advertised) from 8.99 metres down to 6.23 metres. 

It should be noted that objections were received from a number of residents of Jukes Way 

however it was considered that the proposed variations do not directly affect these residents. 

Many of their concerns relate to the development of three dwellings on the subject property, 




however this has already been approved. Objections were received from No. 23B Jukes Way, 

No. 27A Jukes Way, No. 27B Jukes Way and No. 15 Jukes Way. A petition signed by twentyfour 

(24) residents of Jukes Way was also received objecting to privacy, open space, setbacks, 

building height and infill development. 

Assessment against the performance criteria 


Unit 2 setback kitchen and 

dining room from northwestern 

boundary 

Proposed 


1.026 metres - 2.5 metres 1.5 metres 


Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 







The reduced setback to the kitchen and dining room is as a result of the angle of the boundary 

and the irregular lot shape. Only a small portion of the wall intrudes into the required setback 

and overall will have less of an impact than a compliant wall set back 1.5 metres for the length 

of the boundary. The wall is staggered to reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining 

property. The upper floor complies with all setback requirements. 

All major openings on this elevation are set back more than the required 1.5 metres from the 

boundary and therefore will have little impact on privacy between the adjoining properties. The 

reduced setback is to the northwest, and any shadow cast from these properties will be directed 

to the street and the common property driveway. 

Notwithstanding neighbour's objections to sunlight, it is considered the staggered set backs 

provided allow adequate sunlight and ventilation to their dwelling. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for the 

following reasons:- 

 

 

the reduced setback to the kitchen and dining is minor, and overall produces a better 

outcome than a compliant wall for the length of the boundary; 

the reduced setback will have little impact on overshadowing as it is to the north-western 

boundary, and the wall is staggered to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining 

property. 





Unit 1 setback garage and 

storeroom from north-western 

boundary 


Proposed 

Nil 


1.0 metre 

Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:- 

make effective use of space; or 

enhance privacy; or 

otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and 

ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining 

properties is not restricted. 

The reduced setback to the garage is to the north-western boundary and will therefore have 

little impact on access to the winter sun for the adjoining property. The wall contains no 

openings and will therefore not affect privacy between adjoining neighbours. Due to the minimal 

lot frontage, the nil setback to the garage and storeroom makes effective use of the space, and 

allows the required driveway width to the common access driveway. 

The parapet wall will be adjoining an open carport, and while the adjoining owner has raised 

concerns with regards to sunlight and ventilation to their vehicles, this is not considered to be a 

reason for objection as there will be no overshadowing of outdoor living areas or habitable room 

windows. 

Although there is a reduced setback to the garage, the remainder of the building is set back 

further than the requirements, and contains an open style alfresco area to minimise the overall 

impact of building bulk on the adjoining property. 

The reduced setback to the garage will have little impact on the streetscape as it will be setback 

in line with the adjoining carport and due to the location of the property on the 'elbow' of the 

street, will not impact on the open streetscape. 

Overall, subject to the above modification, it is considered that the proposal complies with the 

relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

will have little impact on sunlight and ventilation to the adjoining property, as it is to the 

north-western boundary and abuts a carport. 
















ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for two (2) additional two-storey dwellings submitted by 

Summit Projects at Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 29 

September 2011, subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be 

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the impact of the garage as 

proposed on the adjoining neighbour. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That further conditions be added to the motion as follows:- 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the street tree being retained; 

the garage to Unit 1 being moved 0.5 metres from the boundary and the wall height being 

reduced to 3 metres. 





Council APPROVES the application for two (2) additional two-storey dwellings submitted 

by Summit Projects at Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley, as shown on the plans 

dated 29 September 2011, subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 






(ii) 


(iii) the garage to Unit 1 being moved 0.5 metres from the boundary and the parapet 

height being reduced to 3 metres. 

Amendment 



(iv) the driveway/crossover to Unit 1 being tapered to allow an additional street tree 

between the subject property crossover and the adjoining property crossover to 

the north/west to the satisfaction of the Town. 

During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that the item be referred back to the Development 

Committee to consider alternative designs for the front unit with access being from the common 

driveway. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker 

Crs Carr and Grinceri 

Motion to Refer Back 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That the item relating to Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley be referred back to the 

Development Committee for further consideration. 

Lost 3/5 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri 

Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae and Walker 



Council APPROVES the application for two (2) additional two-storey dwellings submitted 

by Summit Projects at Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley, as shown on the plans 

dated 29 September 2011, subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

(ii) 




(iii) the garage to Unit 1 being moved 0.5 metres from the boundary and the parapet 

height being reduced to 3 metres; 




(iv) the driveway/crossover to Unit 1 being tapered to allow an additional street tree 

between the subject property crossover and the adjoining property crossover to 

the north/west to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 5/3 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae and Walker 

Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri 




DV11.116 LOT 196 (NO. 43) DAMPIER AVENUE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY 

DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE 


To consider an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft requiring assessment under 

the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to retaining/fill 

and wall height. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Stephen and Natalie West 

APPLICANT: 

Milankov Designs and Project Management 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

Total floor area 633.8m2 (including balconies and alfresco areas) 

Sites slopes down approximately 2.0 metres from front (Dampier Avenue) to rear 

boundary and approximately 2.0 metres from left (eastern) to right (western) side 

boundaries. 

The applicant proposes to level the site to the rear so that the filled ground level is similar 

to the level of the proposed residence. This requires retaining of up to nearly 3.0 metres 

at the rear of the site. 

The fall of the land towards the rear of the site means that the rear portion of the dwelling 

is overheight with a maximum height of 9.41 metres for the flat roof section. 

The dwelling has been designed with a basement garage and two storeys above this. 

The driveway to the garage is at maximum gradient and therefore the dwelling cannot be 

lowered any further. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed variations:- 

 

 

We have been in discussion with the majority of the neighbouring properties and have 

obtained their verbal approval. 

Due to the nature and topography of the site's natural ground line we calculate that we will 

be over height to the rear portion of our residence. The excess in bulk is predominately 

within the rear yard will not affect the general streetscape. No neighbouring properties 

are affected by way of overshadowing and the views from adjoining properties have not 

been affected. 




 

 

Our property is built within an upon sand dune landscape where severe and dramatic 

contour changes occur. The area in question has not been contoured and graded to iron 

out these dramatic changes as would be the case within a new estate in a present day 

scenario. 

The size of the lots within this precinct assist in lessening the impact of building form 

when considering visual bulk and scale, ventilation and sunlight and privacy matters. 


Comments were received from owner of the adjoining property to the south and is summarised 

below:- 

 

Submission one (7 Hovea Crescent) 

I wish to strongly object to the proposed height of the retaining walls as well as to the wall 

to the top of the eaves because I believe these will completely obliterate any sunshine 

falling on much of my property during the autumn, winter and spring months. In addition, I 

am afraid that this proposal will severely diminish the value of my property. 


Excavation or Fill 

Maximum filling behind street 

setback line 

Proposed 

Maximum of 2.964 metres 

along rear boundary 


0.5 metres 


Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or 

other public place, or from an adjoining property. 

The subject property slopes from front to rear and from left side to right side approximately 2.0 

metres. The adjoining property to the west has recently been developed and has filled the rear 

of the property so that there is an existing high retaining wall along the western boundary. The 

subject property shares a rear boundary with three different properties along both Hesperia 

Avenue and Hovea Crescent. Due to the slope of the land, the retaining wall abutting the 

Hesperia Avenue property ranges in height from 0 to 2.964 metres. Two retaining walls are 

proposed along the section of rear boundary abutting No. 7 Hovea Crescent. The bottom 

retaining wall (on the boundary) is 1.15 metre high with a second retaining wall being set 1.0 

metre in off the boundary to allow for a planter to be provided. This retaining wall is 1.4 metres 

higher than the first retaining wall and would have the 1.8 metre dividing fence on top of it. The 

design allows for the bulk of the wall to be broken up as viewed from the adjoining property. 

The retaining wall to the third adjoining property to the rear is 2.0 metres long and 1.9 metres as 

viewed from the adjoining property. It is noted that there is a large shed in the rear corner of the 

adjoining property which will reduce the impact of the proposed retaining wall. 

The proposed fill to the rear of the site will not impact on the visual impression of the natural 

level of the site as seen from the street. Whilst there will be obvious fill of the site as viewed 

from the adjoining properties to the rear, the applicant has attempted to reduce its impact by 

layering the retaining and using planters. It is considered that the fill and retaining will improve 




the privacy of the adjoining properties who would otherwise be overlooked by the dwelling 

sitting at the higher ground level. 

It is considered the proposal meetings relevant performance criteria and can be supported. 


Proposed 


Maximum overall height 9.4 metres maximum 7.5 metres 


Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to 

protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: 




The dwelling is a two storey dwelling with an undercroft garage. The garage level is as low as 

possible below street level and at the maximum driveway gradient. The ground finished floor 

level therefore sits higher than the natural ground level at any point on the site. The dwelling 

complies with the maximum height for a flat roof in the front left hand corner of the dwelling but 

all other parts of the building are overheight with the rear right hand corner being 9.41 metres in 

lieu of 7.5 metres due to the fall of the land towards the rear of the lot. 

On the basis that the overheight section of wall is at the rear of the dwelling which has a 

setback of 12.0 metres from the rear boundary, it does not impact on adjoining properties in 

terms of access to light and access to views of significance. 

Overall, it is considered that the height of the dwelling complies with the performance criteria for 

the following reasons:- 

 

 

allows adequate direct sun to buildings and opens spaces on adjoining properties. 

does not impact on access to views of significance. 
















ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage submitted 

by Milankov Designs and Project Management at Lot 196 (No. 43) Dampier Avenue, City Beach 

as shown on the amended plans dated 15 November 2011. 


During discussion, Cr MacRae suggested that the fill in the back yard should be reduced in 

order for the natural ground level in the south west corner to be maintained. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar 


(i) 

the natural ground level in the south western corner of the property being maintained ie 

no fill/retaining along the boundary to be above 500 mm. The rear yard in this location 

then being graded back towards the entertainment area to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Details to be provided at building licence stage. 


For: 

Against: 

Crs Carr, MacRae and Pelczar 

Cr Bradley 


(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 



Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage 

submitted by Milankov Designs and Project Management at Lot 196 (No. 43) Dampier 

Avenue, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 15 November 2011 subject to 

the following condition: 




(i) 

the natural ground level in the south western corner of the property being 

maintained ie no fill/retaining along the boundary to be above 500 mm. The rear 

yard in this location then being graded back towards the entertainment area to the 

satisfaction of the Town. Details to be provided at building licence stage. 

Carried 7/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker 

Cr Bradley 




DV11.117 LOT 82 (NO. 25) BRIGHTON STREET WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY 

DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 


To consider an application for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft requiring assessment under 

the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to buildings on 

boundaries, buildings set back from the boundary and building height. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

A J Bellatoni 

APPLICANT: 

Pure Base Living 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Floor Area: 336.88sqm 

o Undercroft: 66.07sqm 

o Ground Floor: 187.92sqm (inc. alfresco and balcony) 

o Upper Floor: 148.96sqm (inc. balcony) 


The Lot has a 10.06 metre frontage to Brighton Street and will consist of an undercroft 

garage with two storeys above. 

The property slopes upwards to the rear by 2.0 metres. 

The applicant proposes an open style fence and gate to the front of the property. 

An enclosed alfresco area is located north-western side of the dwelling. 

The dwelling is proposed to be built 'boundary to boundary' with parapet walls located on 

both the eastern and western side boundaries. 

Due to the slope of the land and the provision for an undercroft garage, the ground floor is 

approximately 1.3 metres above the natural ground level at the front of the dwelling. 


The applicant has provided the following justification: 

Buildings Setback from the Boundary and Buildings on Boundary 

We would like to justify this by making the Council aware that the width of the property is 

restricting the setback to comply with the allowed setback stated in the R-Codes. 

We have provided highlight windows to all habitable rooms and obscured windows to the 

wet areas of the upper floor. This will stop any overlooking ot any neighbouring habitable 

room windows or outdoor living areas. 

Building Height 




 

 

Due to the layout of the dwelling, we have designed the garage as an undercroft so we 

can have a habitable room to be built on top of this to allow for this room to have a clear 

view of the street. 

We have views to the northern face of the block that we would like to maximise and the 

over height only falls to the front northern portion of the dwelling which we feel will have 

no effect on neighbouring properties with regards to overshadowing or overlooking. 


The application was advertised to the two adjoining properties. One objection was received and 

is summarised below: 

Submission one (No. 27 Brighton Street) 

Setback from western boundary 

 

 

 

The proposal clearly shows that the dwelling would be built to abut the boundary on the 

perimeter of my property. 

No. 25 and No. 27 Brighton Street are both green titled blocks and currently the houses 

are clearly separate as a result of the deliberate setbacks from the boundary. The 

intended removal of this separation as set out in the proposals through the construction of 

the new residence at No. 25 Brighton Street up to the western boundary would effectively 

create 'terraced' houses, which is not in keeping whatsoever with the green titles. 

I am also significantly concerned that the proximity of the proposed new property to my 

property will significantly reduce both direct sun and daylight to habitable rooms in my 

property, and will also result in an invasion of my privacy. 


 

 

I feel that these height rules are particularly important to ensure that residential areas 

such as Brighton Street retain a degree of conformity with regard to scale whilst not 

inhibiting the rights of property owners to redevelop. 

The height of the proposed new property will also result in significant reductions in both 

direct sun and daylight to the habitable rooms along the eastern side of my property. I 

request that the height restrictions are therefore enforced and the proposal is modified in 

this regard. 

It should be noted that objections have also been received in relation to reduction of privacy, 

reduction of solar access, not fitting in with other dwellings in the street and the impact on 

further development of No. 27 Brighton Street. The issues privacy, solar access and 

streetscape have all been assessed as part of this application and are deemed to meet the 

acceptable development standards of the R-Codes in relation to the northern (front) and 

western (right) boundaries. Each property is assessed individually and on their own merits and 

should this application be approved, it will not have any bearing on any future development 

application for No. 27 Brighton Street. 






Setback balcony and theatre from 

western (right) boundary 

Setback master bedroom from 


Setback hallway from western 

(right) boundary 

Setback powder room, bathroom, 

bedroom 4 and bedroom 3 from 


Acceptable development provision Proposed 

1.5 metres 1.2 metres 





Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 







The reduced setback to the western boundary is a result of the narrow lot frontage (10.06 

metres), and makes effective use of the space. As the lot runs north to south, the reduced 

setbacks to the western boundary has little impact on sunlight to the adjoining property. 

The building has been stepped to reduce the impacts of building bulk. Although concerns were 

raised by the adjoining property to the north regarding solar access and invasion of privacy, the 

upper floor contains no major openings and the reduced setback is to the western boundary, 

therefore sheltering the adjoining property from the harsh westerly sun. The dwelling is set back 

in excess of the required front setback to the primary street therefore ensuring that the reduced 

setbacks do not dominate the streetscape, and allowing the adjoining property to not feel 'boxed 

in'. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed reduced setbacks to the western boundary meet with 

the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

little impact on overshadowing of the adjoining property as shadow will be cast to the 

south; 

privacy will be protected between the adjoining properties as there are no major openings 

on the western elevation. 


Setback garage from western 

(right) boundary 

Setback bar and laundry from 



Proposed 

1.5 metres 0 metres 

1.1 metres 0 metres 

Setback living from western (right) 1.0 metre 0 metres 




boundary 


Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: 

make effective use of space; or 

enhance privacy; or 

otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and 

ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining 

properties is not restricted. 

The parapet walls to the living, laundry and bar will be to the western boundary and will have 

little impact on overshadowing as the shadow will be cast to the property to the north. The 

parapet wall to the garage is at a maximum height of a boundary fence. The parapet walls make 

effective use of the space on a narrow lot, and are located a minimum of 11.5 metres from the 

front boundary, therefore having little impact on the streetscape. 

These rooms are non habitable and do not contain major openings which overlook the adjoining 

property to the south, therefore not affecting visual privacy to the adjoining property. Although 

the adjoining owner has objected with regards to overshadowing to the outdoor living area it is 

considered that this area, will still have access to the winter sun and is mostly shaded by 

extensive tree coverage. 

Overall, it is considered that the buildings on the boundary address the performance criteria for 

the following reasons:- 

 

 

they make effective use of the space on a narrow lot; and 

they will have little affect on sunlight or ventilation to the adjoining property to the west. 


Maximum wall height to the 

underside of the eaves for pitched 

roof 

Maximum wall height for 

flat/concealed roof 


6.0 metres 5.2 metres - 6.9 metres 



Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to 

protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: 




Due to the slope of the land and the provision of an undercroft garage, the proposed dwelling 

exceeds the maximum permissible height to the front. The applicant has reduced the ceiling 

heights and floor levels to try to reduce the overall height. The majority of the over height 

section is adjoining the property to the east who have expressed that they have no objections to 

the proposed application. 




To the rear of the property, the building measures between 5.2 metres and 5.7 metres above 

the natural ground level and will therefore have little impact on the adjoining property to the 

north. The dwelling will not affect any views of significance and is set back in 2.5 metres in 

excess of the required front setback therefore reducing the impacts of bulk to the street and 

ensuring the impact of the over height sections are minimised to the adjoining properties. 

The adjoining owner to the west has objected to the proposed height (between 0.4 metres and 

0.15 metres in excess of the permissible height on her boundary) with regards to scale and 

overshadowing. It is noted that this dwelling will be larger than many other dwellings on the 

street. Also, any shadow cast from the dwelling will be directed to the rear of the property and 

will have limited impact on the dwelling to the west. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed height meets the performance criteria for the 

following reasons:- 

 

 

the dwelling is well set back from the street to ensure that the overall bulk is minimised; 

and 

minimal impact on overshadowing or access to views of significance for adjoining 

properties. 













ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 






Council APPROVES the application for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft submitted by Pure 

Base Living at Lot 82 (No. 25) Brighton Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 

December 2011 subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the west and east to 

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in red as 

shown on the approved plan. Specifically, the bedroom 2 and sitting room windows on 

the eastern elevation having a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres above the floor level; and 

(iii) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the 

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the size of the dwelling in relation to 

the size of the lot and the resulting impact on neighbouring properties and the street. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3 

For: 

Against: 

Cr Carr 

Crs Bradley, MacRae and Pelczar 





Council REFUSES the application for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft submitted by 

Pure Base Living at Lot 82 (No. 25) Brighton Street, West Leederville as shown on the 

plans dated December 2011 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the variations to the acceptable development criteria in relation to boundary 

setbacks and building height and, as a result of the accumulation of these 

variations, it is not considered that the performance criteria of the Residential 

Design Codes are satisfied; 

the dwelling has a significant impact on the amenity of the adjacent properties and 

the streetscape; 

the neighbour on the western side has objected to the requested variations. 

Carried 7/1 

For: 

Against: 


Cr Bradley 




DV11.118 LOT 1346 (NO. 33) ULSTER ROAD, CORNER DONEGAL ROAD, FLOREAT - 

TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE - AMENDED PLANS 


To consider an amended plan for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage requiring 

assessment under the Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and 

Town Planning Scheme Planning Policies in respect of wall height. 

BACKGROUND: 


290DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

C & T Daly 

APPLICANT: 

Webb & Brown-Neaves 

ZONING: 

MRS Zoning: Urban 

Town Planning Scheme No. 1: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 

Single dwelling ‘P’ – permitted in residential zone 

LAND AREA: 911 m² 

The Council considered the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at its 

meeting held on 28 September 2010 (Item DV10.85) and approved the application with a 

maximum wall height of 6.48 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres at the front right hand side of the 

dwelling and with a reduced rear setback of a minimum of 3.07 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres. 

DETAILS: 


The applicant requested that the finished floor level of the undercroft and garage be 

raised by 400mm as the invert sewer level is higher than the level of the powder room in 

the undercroft. 

Both neighbours were contacted by the applicant with regard to the amended plan and 

both have objected to the proposed increase in floor level and height. 

The applicant has submitted a further amended plan with an amended floor level of 

12.250 metres and an amended garage level of 9.421 metres (an increase of 250mm). 

Site has a fall from the rear of the property to the front of the property of approximately 3.0 

metres. 

The front right/northern corner of the proposed dwelling is over height where the natural 

ground level is at its lowest. 


 

The finished flor level needs to be raised as the invert sewer level is higher than the level 

of the powder room in the undercroft. 




Neighbour Submission 

Submission One (No. 35 Ulster Road) 

 

 

 

 

Errors in the design of the property that were not previously identified should be resolved 

by the owners within the framework of the existing approval. The onus should be on them 

to make compromises in the design. 

It is completely unreasonable that we should be asked to approve a major change in the 

height of the building for the sake of a toilet. 

At the time of the approval the owners agreed to a lowering of the overall height of the 

property to take into account the concerns of neighbours. Therefore allowing an increase 

now would negate any consideration previously given to the objections and concerns of 

neighbours. 

The solution to the problem is to forgo the toilet in the undercroft garage. There are 

already a number of toilets throughout the house. 

Submission Two (No. 4 Donegal Road) 

 

 

The proposed house already exceeds the height allowed so an increase in its already 

oversized bulk will have an adverse impact on our property. 

The obvious solution to the builder's problem is to delete the additional toilet from the 

design. 

Following the advertising period, and as a result of concerns raised by the adjoining 

landowners, the applicant submitted amended plans which reduced the requested increase in 

floor levels from an increase of 400mm to an increase of 250mm. 

Assessment Against the Performance Criteria 

Wall Height 

Proposed 

Acceptable Development Provision 

Wall Height for pitched roof 6.73 metres 6.0 metres measured to top of 

eaves beneath pitched roof above 

NGL below wall. 

Performance Criteria: 

Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognize 

the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- 




As the proposed dwelling is a two storey structure on a sloping lot, the development proposes a 

maximum height to the top of the wall at the front right hand side of the two storey of 6.73 

metres (the applicant is increasing the floor levels by 250mm but not reducing any ceiling 

heights within the frame of the building). 

The applicant has now propsoed a finished floor level of 12.250 metres RL, which is 

approximately 850 millimetres lower than the floor level of the existing dwelling and is 850 

millimetres above the finished floor level of the adjoining dwelling to the north. Due to the 

slope of the land down the lot, the dwelling becomes a two and a half storey structure at the 




front and therefore the front northern part of the dwelling exceeds the 6.0 metre wall height with 

a maximum wall height of 6.73 metres. 

The minor increase in the wall height variation does not have any impact on surrounding 

properties in terms of limiting access to sun with the majority of overshadowing occurring over 

the subject site. As the development is back from both street frontages, any views to the park 

on the other side of Ulster Road are retained. 

It is considered that the proposal meets performance criteria and can therefore be supported. 













ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 



Council APPROVES the amended plans for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage 

as submitted by Webb and Brown-Neaves at Lot 1346 (No. 33) Ulster Road, Floreat as 

shown on the amended plans dated 24 October 2011. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.119 LOT 561 (NO. 356) SALVADO ROAD FLOREAT - TWO STOREY DWELLING 


To consider an application for a two-storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to visual privacy. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Estate of N W Gibbney 

APPLICANT: 

N Gibbney 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Floor Area: 

o Ground Floor (including carport and boat store): 330.68sqm 

o Upper Floor: 170.73sqm (inc. balcony) 


Proposes a 30sqm covered alfresco area to the north-eastern coroner of the dwelling 

which is open on two sides. 

A two-storey dwelling is proposed with a 30 degree roof pitch and a balcony that extends 

two-thirds of the upper floor as seen from the street. 

The front western side is built up by approximately 0.9 metres, while the eastern side is 

approximately level with the existing natural ground level. 

The applicant proposes a boat store which will be partially covered with posts to the 

boundary and the roofing set back 0.7 metres from the western boundary. This boat store 

will appear as a garage from the street. 

A double carport will be located forward of the dwelling, set back 0.3 metres from the 

primary boundary and 1.0 metre from the eastern boundary. 

The property slopes upwards approximately 1.0 metre from the western to the eastern 

boundary. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback and visual privacy 

variations:- 

 

 

The bedroom 1 window does not look into any other windows or overlook any usable 

space behind the front setback of any adjoining property. 

The balcony does not look into any window or overlook any useable space behind the 

front setback of any adjoining property, and I believe it meets performance criteria. 





The application was advertised to the two adjoining properties (please note that the property to 

the east is owned by the applicant). One objection was received and is summarised below: 

Submission one (No. 358 Salvado Road) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There will be significant impact on the amenity of our home. 

The extensive balcony will impact on the use of our alfresco area, barbeque area and 

main access route from the garage to the house. These are all high use areas for us and 

should be given priority in any decision making process. 

The detached study is due to be removed which will further expose our eastern boundary. 

Our open plan living area through the large French doors in the alfresco will be negatively 

impacted, as well as the pool and outdoor entertaining area. 

We believe that the balcony should be reduced in size, and the house should be setback 

further from the primary street. 

We also believe that the balcony should be screened. 


Visual Privacy 

Setback verandah from western 

boundary (ground floor) 

Setback bedroom 1 from western 

boundary (ground floor) 

Setback family (n elevation) from 

western boundary (ground floor) 

Setback balcony from western 

boundary (upper Floor) 


7.5m 3.6m 

4.5m 3.6m 

6.0m 5.2m 

7.5m 3.6m 


Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is minimised by 

building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor habitable spaces, screening devices 

and landscape, or remoteness. 

Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is 

preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. 

Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on 

residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. 

Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distance of 

the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. 

The proposed bedroom 1 window and verandah on the ground floor will have some overlooking 

to the west, however, this will predominantly overlook the carport and the roof of the pergola, 

which are built between 1.0 metre and 1.5 metres from the common boundary. The setback of 

these structures and the 1.7 metre high limestone wall will ensure that overlooking between the 

adjoining owners is not affected. The verandah is 1.5 metres wide and is unlikely to be used for 

extensive periods of time, therefore protecting privacy between the adjoining properties. 




The proposed upper floor balcony poses some overlooking to the adjoining property but again 

will be overlooking the carport roof and the outdoor areas will be screened by shade cloth. The 

adjoining outdoor living area is located to the rear of the property and to the front setback which 

contains a swimming pool. This area will be predominantly screened by the carport roof and is 

approximately 20 metres from the proposed balcony. 

The verandah, bedroom one window and balcony will not overlook any habitable room windows 

and will have little impact on privacy between the adjoining properties. 

The applicant has been asked whether they would consider screening the western side of the 

balcony, however, with the location and potential views to the parkland this is not preferable. 

Although the adjoining neighbours have objected to the proposed dwelling with regards to loss 

of privacy, it is considered that the proposed dwelling will not overlook any habitable room 

windows, and will not affect the outdoor living areas to the rear of front of the property. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed verandah, bedroom 1 window and balcony meet with 

the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

The balcony, verandah and bedroom one window will predominantly overlook a carport 

and covered pergola; 

There will be no overlooking of habitable room windows; and 

minimal impact on overlooking to outdoor living areas or habitable room windows. 













ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for a two-storey dwelling submitted by N Gibbney at Lot 




531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat shown on the plans dated 18 October 2011 subject to the 


(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; 

the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; 

the driveway to be tapered so that the crossover is a minimum distance of 1.0 metre 

from the verge tree; 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be 

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; and 

any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the 

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and 

declared as follows: "with regard to the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by N 

Gibbney at Lot 531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat, I declare that I have an association with 

Mr Gibbney due to my nature of work and as a consequence there may be a perception that my 

impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote 

accordingly." 

During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to potential overlooking from the 

upper floor balcony. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr 


(vi) 

screening being provided to the upper floor balcony to the satisfaction of the Town. 


Council Meeting 20 December 2011 

Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and 

declared as follows: "with regard to the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by N 

Gibbney at Lot 531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat, I declare that I have an association with 

Mr Gibbney due to my nature of work and as a consequence there may be a perception that my 

impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote 

accordingly." 








Council APPROVES the application for a two-storey dwelling submitted by N Gibbney at 

Lot 531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat shown on the plans dated 18 October 2011 

subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; 

the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; 

(iii) the driveway to be tapered so that the crossover is a minimum distance of 1.0 

metre from the verge tree; 

(iv) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be 

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

(v) 

(vi) 

any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the 

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated; 

screening being provided to the upper floor balcony to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.120 LOT 1198 (NO. 8) DUMFRIES ROAD FLOREAT - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE 

DWELLING (ROOF MATERIAL) 


To consider a request to use "Surfmist" Colorbond roofing material. 

BACKGROUND: 


0332DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

A D Ariti and N J Ariti 

APPLICANT: 

A D Ariti and N J Ariti 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


Open Space: 533sqm (60%) 

Existing Floor Area: 315sqm 

Proposed Floor Area: 431sqm (includes 42sqm carport) 

 

 

 

 

 

An application has been received for additions to the existing single storey dwelling; 

There is little change to the existing building footprint; 

A new loft area is proposed with a floor area of approximately 74sqm; 

The applicant proposes a new 'Surfmist' Colourbond roof to replace the existing tiled roof; 

A carport is proposed set back 1.0 metre from the western boundary and 1.5 metres from 

the front boundary. 

Background 

Local Law 43 

 

 

 

 

Local Law 43 (Building on Endowment lands and Limekilns Estate) is based on the 

Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 which was gazetted to assist the development of 

the area known as the Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate. The area comprises most 

of Floreat and City Beach. 

Local Laws were enacted under this Act, including Local Law 43. The contents of the 

Local Law reflect the development control needs and statutory processes available at the 

time of its gazettal (1950's). At that time, the former City of Perth had no Town Planning 

Scheme, and thus the Local law was necessary to control land use and introduce 

development standards for the area. 

The land use provisions have been made redundant by the Town Planning Scheme, 

which reinforces the same requirements as the Local Law. 

Clause 8 of Local Law 43 states "All buildings shall be roofed with materials constructed 

of terracotta, concrete, slate, metal or other incombustible material approved by the 

Council provided that metal roofs with a pitch of more than 5 degrees shall not be 




constructed with metal sheeting having a solar reflectivity index exceeding 40% unless 

approved by Council." 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the amendment to the development 

application. 

 

 

 

 

We seek dispensation from Clause 8 of Local Law 43 for a Colorbond 'Surfmist' roof as 

the position and location of the roof will not result in excessive glare for the neighbours or 

the streetscape. 

The house has well-established trees both at the front and rear of the property and the 

streetscape itself is one that has many mature and shady trees. These trees provide 

significant cover for the house and the roof to direct line of sight from all side including 

east-west along Dumfries Road and North Banff Road. 

Also as the house is setback, and runs at a receding angle of over 14 degrees to 

Dumfries Road, such that the adjacent houses at No. 6 and 10 Dumfries Road serve to 

obscure the roofline from view. 

We have designed the renovations for 8 Dumfries Road in an effort to achieve a 5 star 

energy efficiency rating. We have done this through a combination of best practice design 

principles and thermally efficient material, e.g. Double glazed windows and thermally 

efficient building panels. A roof colour such as Colorbond 'Surfmist' is a critical component 

in achieving high energy efficiency as it significantly reduces solar absorption. 

We note that there are other houses within our area that have roofing with >40% 

reflectivity and have included pictures and addresses for reference. 


In the course of advertising the application to surrounding neighbours, one (1) submission was 

received and is summarised below: 

Submission One (No. 7 Cromarty Road) 

 

 

 

My concern is that the reflection of sun could be onto my house and my property. 

I think it will impact on the light during the sunny days as well, which could be very 

dangerous. 

It will be great if the owner is able to change the roof colour to another one rather than offwhite. 


Roof Reflectivity 

Roof Reflectivity 


Proposed 

"Surfmist" colorbond to upper 

floor addition 


Zincalume (silver) and Surfmist (offwhite) 

colorbond are not permitted as 

they are considered to exceed 40% 

solar reflectivity index. 

Where, due to the position, location and pitch, the proposed roofing is not considered to result in 

excessive glare upon neighbours and the streetscape. 

Notes: 




1. Zincalume (silver) and Surfmist (Off White) colorbond are deemed to exceed 40% solar reflectivity 

index. 

2. Other roof materials such as polycarbonate, plastic, fibreglass or similar roofing is acceptable 

provided that the material does not have a solar reflectivity index exceeding 40% unless approved 

by Council. 

The request to allow "Surfmist" Colorbond is to improve energy efficiency of the dwelling and 

reduce the cooling required during summer. The application was advertised to eight 

surrounding properties and only one objection was received from the owners of the property to 

the northwest of the subject property. 

The Council has consistently applied the roof reflectivity requirements of Local Law 43 to 

residential development within the affected areas of Floreat and City Beach. The reflectivity of 

a roof is difficult to measure and depends on a number of variables. The Town, however, has 

considered that zincalume (silver) and Surfmist (off-white) colorbond do exceed the 

requirements of the local law. There is a wide range of colours that Council will accept and it is 

considered that a suitable match could be found within this range. The applicant's request to 

use "Surfmist" colorbond on the upper addition roof is not supported. 

The applicant has listed a number of dwellings in the area which have 'Surfmist' Colorbond. 

While some of the properties listed have 'Shale Gray' there are some which have 'Surfmist'. 

Overall, it is considered that the request to roof the upper floor with "Surfmist" Colorbond does 

not meet the performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

it is contrary to the purpose and intent of by-law 43 of the current town planning scheme. 



against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme 

Policy Manual. 









ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 








Council REFUSES the application for additions to single dwelling submitted by A D Ariti 

and N J Ariti at Lot 1198 (No. 8) Dumfries Road, Floreat as shown on plans dated 13 

October 2011 for the following reason:- 

(i) 

the proposed roof colour does not meet the requirements of Clause 8 of Local 

Law 43. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.121 LOT 41 (NO. 69) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - GARAGE 

(RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL) 


To consider an application for retrospective approval for a garage requiring assessment under 

the performance criteria of the Town of Cambridge Policy Manual (Part 3.1 - Streetscape) in 

respect to setback of garages and carports. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Mr J I Paolucci and Mr R P Paolucci 

APPLICANT: 

Rechichi Architects 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 

Background 

An application was received by the Town for additions to the existing dwelling which included 

the addition of a carport to the front of the dwelling. This carport was an open structure with 

individual piers. This application was approved on 3 August 2009, with a condition of the 

approval that the carport remains open on all sides and no solid door is to be installed. 

In December 2009, a Planning Officer and Building Surveyor went out on site and noticed a 

number of structures built in contravention to the approved plans, including the increase in the 

height of the carport. Amended plans were received on 24 February 2010. On 19 May 2010, a 

Planning Approval was issued and the builder was warned that non-compliance with these 

plans will result in prosecution A formal letter was sent to both the owners and the builder. On 

26 July 2010, a Building Licence was issued for the amended plans. Specifically relating to the 

carport (now garage) the plan indicated that the street facing elevation would be modified to 

include steel infill to the floor level, the carport door being sectional grille and the western side 

including steel infill near the carport door. The modifications were considered to open up the 

existing structure so as to fit in better with the definition of a carport and to contribute to the 

streetscape. 

On 22 September 2010, an audit was undertaken again noting issues that contravened the 

approved plans and Building Licence including glazing being installed into the openings of the 

carport. The openings which were to extend to the floor level of the garage were amended and 

now only contained small openings of approximately 3sqm. A garage door has also been 

added, contravening Condition 1 of the original Planning Approval. 

In March 2011, the Builder was prosecuted by the Town. These proceedings are still underway. 

The matter is listed for hearing on the 26 April and 27 April 2012. 





The application proposes amendments to the original Planning Approval (dated 3 August 2009), 

these include:- 

 

 

 

 

A garage roller door added to the western side; 

Windows located 800mm from the garage floor level; 

Bricking up of previously approved openings; and 

Dense landscaping between the garage and front fence 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the front setback variation:- 

 

 

 

 

The carport will attract an increase in criminal activity as a result of high degree of visibility 

generated from its intent. 

Councils imposition of the provision of a greater degree of openness as outlined on the 

planning approval serves only to achieve a planning outcome that is not relevant to the 

specific nature of the site, its topography context and history and in that regard cannot be 

relied upon to claim cause to create adverse impact on the amenity of the streetscape. 

There are concerns with security and safety to their amenity and they seek to have this 

concern alleviated by maintaining as closed and as solid a structure as possible; 

We believe that valid arguments for a more solid and robust structure that addresses the 

street in a solid and robust manner without compromise to the streetscape can be made 

given the unique nature of this particular precinct. 


Setback of Garages and Carports 

Setback of garage from front 

boundary 

Proposed 




The setting back of carports and garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of 

dwellings, or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa. 

The applicant has submitted an application for retrospective approval for the 'as built' 'carport'. 

Although the applicant has defined this structure as a carport, under the R-Codes as:- 

A roofed structure designed to accommodate one or more motor vehicles 

unenclosed except to the extent that it abuts a dwelling or a property boundary 

on one side, and being without a door unless that door is visually permeable. 

A garage is defined as:- 

Any roofed structure, other than a carport, designed to accommodate one or 

more motor vehicles attached to the dwelling. 

The structure therefore does not fit the definition of a carport, and is enclosed on three sides, 

with a garage door on the fourth side (the garage abuts a limestone retaining wall and lift to the 




south, entry and stairs to the east and contains a solid roller door to the west). The northern 

elevation contains two windows of approximately 3sqm each, equating to approximately 21% of 

the overall surface area of the northern wall as visible from Lake Monger Drive. 

The applicant states that the garage complies with the allowable setback of 3.0 metres from the 

front boundary as it is at right angles to the street alignment. This is a provision of the R-Codes, 

and not the Town's Planning Policy, which overrides the provisions of the R-Codes. A 6.0 metre 

setback is required. 

The garage is 9.9 metres in length which is substantial when a minimum internal dimension of 

5.4 metres is required. This provides a significant structure as seen from the street, and 

accounts for 50% of the front boundary. The garage is dominant and is considered to 

contribute negatively to the streetscape. 

The aim of the Town's Policy Manual is to ensure that garages, carports and other structures do 

not detract from the dominant elements of houses and landscape within the streetscape and to 

maintain an openness of streetscapes. The 'as built' garage is completely contrary to this aim. 

Overall, it is considered that setback of the garage from the front boundary does not address 

the performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

the proposed setback of the garage detracts from the streetscape. 













ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be deferred to enable the applicant to 

modify the plans to include open grilles on the garage windows facing Lake Monger Drive. 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Grinceri 




That the item relating to Lot 41 (No. 69) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley be deferred to 

enable modified plans to be submitted which include open grilles to the garage windows 

facing Lake Monger Drive, to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Lost 3/5 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley, Grinceri and King 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Langer, MacRae and Walker 





Council REFUSES the application for a Garage (retrospective) submitted by Rechichi 

Architects at Lot 41 (No. 69) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 

26 May 2011 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria of setbacks of garages and 

carports under the Residential Design Codes; 

the garage is a dominant structure which intrudes into the established development 

pattern along the street and therefore detracts from the streetscape; 

(iii) approval of the garage would establish an undesirable precedent for future 

development in the street, resulting in a further loss of visual amenity. 

Carried 5/3 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Langer, MacRae and Walker 

Crs Bradley, Grinceri and King 




DV11.122 LOT 758 (NO. 313) THE BOULEVARD, CITY BEACH - ANCILLARY 

ACCOMMODATION 


To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of setback of 

buildings generally. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Winnie Woon Hung So & Francis Hing Wah Tang 

APPLICANT: 

Summit Projects 


USE CLASS: 


LAND AREA: 943m 2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal is for ancillary accommodation at the rear of a 943m² lot. 

The existing residence occupies 218.79m² on the lot and the proposed additions will 

occupy 149.04m², with the total floor area to be 368m². There will be 66.35% open space. 

The current single dwelling built to the front of the lot will remain with the ancillary 

accommodation located to the rear of this and with an access-way to the eastern side of 

the site. 

The development has a tiled roof with a 25º pitch peaking at 4.8 metres above natural 

ground level. 

The ancillary accommodation is 2.778 metres in height from finished floor level to the 

eaves. 

It has a finished floor level that ranges between 0.95 metres and 2.35 metres below 

natural ground level at the rear boundary and between 0.55 metres and 1.85 metres 

below natural ground level at the western boundary. The finished floor level is a maximum 

of 0.4 metres above natural ground level along the eastern boundary. 

It incorporates a double garage, living room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom, study, 

bedroom, WC, store and alfresco. 

The ancillary accommodation has a plot ratio area of 80.12m² in lieu of the required 

maximum of 60m² for ancillary accommodation. 

It is setback at a minimum of 4.0 metres to the rear boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres. This 

however is increased to 4.96 metres for the garage. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback variations:- 

 

The reduction in setbacks does not restrict sunlight or ventilation to adjoining properties, 

particularly to the property on # 311 as the garage wall is setback 1.5 metres form the 

side lot boundary. In additions, the dwelling on # 311 does not have any openings within 

close proximity to the boundary. Also the rear setback of the garage is in line with the rear 




 

 

 

setback of the dwelling at # 311 so afternoon sun would not be restricted into their 

courtyard. 

As our proposed dwelling is of a single level and is positioned to the rear of the property, 

there would be no issues relating to building bulk and would have minimal impact to the 

streetscape. 

Due to the orientation of the site, there will be no overshadowing concerns. 

It is evident that the privacy of adjoining properties will be maintained as there are no 

windows within close proximity of the side and rear lot boundaries which would permit 

overlooking into habitable spaces. 


The adjoining neighbours to the south, west and east were given a 14 day advertising period to 

comment on the proposed ancillary accommodation application. One response was received 

from the eastern neighbours and the following summarises their comments:- 

 

 

When designing and constructing my new home careful consideration was given to the 

outdoor living area at the rear of our property to ensure afternoon sunlight would not be 

restricted from the area which includes a below ground spa pool. 

Our enclosed garage which backs on to the area was minimised in height by lowering the 

ground level, incorporated a flat roof and has a 5.6 metre setback from the rear boundary. 

The proposed rear boundary setbacks including the planned double garage are 4.0 

metres to 4.96 metres. As the planned garage is also higher than the natural ground level 

at our property, it would not only restrict direct sunlight to our outdoor living area but the 

proposed building bulk including a 25º pitched roof, would greatly impact on our outdoor 

living area both with regards to over shadowing and the abovementioned direct sunlight 

restrictions. 


Boundary setbacks 

Proposed 


Rear (south) setback 4.0 metres 6.0 metres 









The proposed ancillary accommodation has a finished floor level below natural ground level at 

all points on the lot. Similarly this finished floor level is below the natural ground level at the 

southern and western boundary ranging between 0.55 metres and 2.35 metres below natural 




ground level at the respective points. Further to this there are currently 1.8 metre high boundary 

fences to both sides and the single-storey ancillary accommodation development will barely 

protrude above the fence line at any point. This minimises the impact of the proposal in terms of 

building bulk and access to direct sun to the adjoining lots to the south and west. 

The location of development on the adjoining lot to the east means that the outdoor area to the 

rear of the property is largely shaded from the northern sun and the proposed ancillary 

accommodation on the subject site will have minimal additional impact on this area. In addition 

to this the main outdoor living are on the adjoining lot is located on the eastern side of the 

property and so the proposed additions will have no impact on this area. 

Given the proposed roofing projects only 1.4 metres above the fencing at the rear boundary at 

its highest point and that a minimum 4.0 metres setback is retained to the rear of the lot, the 

proposed ancillary accommodation will not have any significant impact on any adjoining 

property in terms of overshadowing. 

There are examples of similar development within the required 6.0 metre rear setback in the 

surrounding precinct, including the adjoining property to the east, and as such the proposal is 

consistent with the character of the area. 

The proposed ancillary accommodation development with a lowered finished floor level to the 

south and west, and no major openings facing the east. 

It is noted that the size of the ancillary accommodation does exceed the maximum floor area 

under the acceptable development provisions however, the development has due regard to the 

topography of the site and is designed to meet the needs of aged or dependent persons. 

In summary the ancillary accommodation improves the amenity of the development without 

having an adverse impact on the adjoining lots in terms of building bulk, access to direct sun, 

ventilation and privacy and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it is considered that the 

performance criteria are satisfied in this case. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the ancillary accommodation from the southern 

boundary complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

 

 

provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building, 

provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces, 

assists with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties, 

assists in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties, 

assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 
















ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for ancillary accommodation submitted by Summit Projects 

at Lot 758 (No. 313) The Boulevard, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16 October 2011 


(i) 

any proposed fencing or gates within the front setback area to be visually permeable in 

accordance with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2: Streetscape. All proposals 

are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the size of the proposed store room 

and suggested that it could be reduced in size to bring the area of the dwelling into line with the 

acceptable development criteria for ancillary dwelling maximum size. It was noted that the 

proposed dwelling includes a double garage which is not counted as floor space. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Carr 


(ii) 

the store room being reduced in size to 4 square metres. 









Council APPROVES the application for ancillary accommodation submitted by Summit 

Projects at Lot 758 (No. 313) The Boulevard, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16 

October 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

any proposed fencing or gates within the front setback area to be visually 

permeable in accordance with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2: 

Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town; 

the store room being reduced in size to 4 square metres. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.123 LOT 231 (NO. 93) EMPIRE AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PERGOLA 


To consider an application for a pergola requiring assessment under the performance criteria of 

the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to rear setback. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Roger and Kimberley Walpot 

APPLICANT: 

Pitched Pergolas 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

Pergola structure located within the rear setback of dwelling, south-western corner of lot. 

Structure is to be 2.4 metres high in total, and positioned on an existing raised paving 

area approximately 400mm high. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback variation:- 

 

 

 

Our proposed structure will have a western boundary setback of 2.0 metres which is more 

than the usual 1.5m required. The structure will be located on an existing raised paved 

area approx 400mm above lawn level and will be approx 2.4 metres high . 

There is already partial lattice fence screening on the boundary fence, and the landscaper 

intends to plant screening trees starting at approx 1.8-2.0 metres high along the 2.0 

metres wide western and southern boundary garden beds, which should provide 

adequate screening to deal with any ‘privacy/noise’ issues. 

The other two affected neighbours, to the south and south-east, have both signed off on 

the plan and the property owner feels that the objection by the western neighbour is 

unjustified because he appears to be ‘upset’ by the noise of kids having fun in the 

swimming pool. 


Comments were received from owners of the property to the western side and are summarised 

below: 

Submission one (91 Empire Avenue) 

 

The proximity of this structure to our back patio corner - approx 4 metres - is likely to 

impact negatively on our outdoor living and relaxation, due to increased noise from so 

close. We become the victims and the affected and this is unfair. 




 

However, if additional screening is added to the final plan e.g. lattice screen with a beige 

or green shade cloth and is installed either on the adjoining fence or on the neighbours' 

side of that fence we will reconsider what we believe are fair and reasonable objections. 


Buildings setback from the boundary 

Proposed 


Rear setback 2.0 metres to pergola Minimum 6.0 metres 









The proposed pergola is a structure with a flat roof and total height of 2.4 metres. The structure 

is to be situated on an existing raised paved area approximately 400mm high within the southwestern 

corner of the lot. The neighbour to the rear/south at 6 Malton Place does not object to 

the proposed structure. Overall, notwithstanding neighbour concerns in relation to privacy and 

noise, it is considered that the setback of the pergola from the rear boundary meets the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to be available to all properties concerned 

due to the flat roof and open style of the pergola and the structure's relatively low overall 

height of 2.4m. 

privacy between adjoining properties will not be affected due to the low height of the 

proposed structure, existing lattice screening on the boundary fence, 2.0m side/western 

setback and the proposed vegetation to be planted along the boundary fence. 
















ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





Council APPROVES the application for a pergola submitted by Pitched Pergolas as 

shown on the plans dated 1 November 2011 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type of vegetation, to 

the satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a building license. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.124 ACCESS AND PARKING STRATEGY - PART ONE DRAFT REPORT - 

REFERRED BACK 


To report to Council on part one of the Access and Parking study and obtain endorsement to 

proceed to part two of the study. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Access and Parking study forms part of an on-going review of the Town's Town Planning 

Scheme. 

Development applications over recent times have highlighted the need to review current parking 

policy. Car parking is increasingly becoming the critical issue in the redevelopment of existing 

commercial areas and determination of development applications. Applicants have sought 

Council discretion to allow shortfalls in on-site parking provision, and in a number of cases, 

Council has required the payment of cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls. However, this has not 

been consistently applied and there is no clear plan for the use of this money for providing 

alternative parking/access facilities. 

In response, a consultant brief was prepared to undertake a detailed examination of future 

parking and access needs for the four main commercial centres along Cambridge Street, 

namely Southport Street Commercial Area, Cambridge High Street Node (West Leederville train 

station), Medical Precinct (around St John of God Hospital) and Wembley Town Centre. The 

proposed consultant brief was presented to Council on 22 March 2011 (Item DV11.18) where it 

was decided that:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Scope of Works, outlined in the attached Request for Quotation, be APPROVED as 

the basis for seeking requests for quotation to undertake an access/parking review and 

prepare a strategy to serve the future needs of the Town's commercial areas; 

the cost for undertaking the study be charged to the Town Planning Scheme Review 

Budget. 

Requests for quotations to undertake the study were sought during April/May 2011. Luxmoore 

Parking Consulting (a division of ARRB Group Ltd) was the successful applicant to undertake 

the Access and Parking Study on behalf of the Town. Luxmoore's submission also included 

sub-consultants from Planning Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, Team Architects Australia Pty Ltd 

and Sinclair Knights Merz (SKM). 

DETAILS: 

The Access and Parking Study is being undertaken in two parts. Part one involved developing 

an understanding of the actual and perceived issues associated with current access and 

parking policies, examining possible options and solutions, and developing short, medium and 

long-term recommendations. Also, to inform the first part of the study, future parking demand 

(based on potential development yield for the four centres over a 20-30 year timeframe) was 

assessed and impacts on future traffic volumes examined. 




Part 1 - Access and Parking Strategy Report 

The report, produced from part one of the study, provides for long-term strategic direction for 

future parking management. The report also incorporates a detailed analysis of cash-in-lieu 

contribution schemes and the land, construction and operational costs of supplying new car 

parking facilities. 

A summary of the Part 1 - Assess and Parking Report is attached. Copies of the report are 

available on request. 

Generally, the report recommends moving away from the traditional 'predict and provide' 

approach to parking supply towards a 'demand management approach' to parking. Parking 

demand management involves a suite of management tools, and may include:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pay parking; 

education programs; 

cash-in-lieu; 

maximum and minimum parking standards; 

parking surveys to monitor parking occupancy and assess effectiveness of parking 

supply/management; 

shared parking; 

pedestrian improvements; 

alternative modes of transport; and 

monitoring of compliance. 

Part Two of the study will focus on the future access and parking requirements and policies for 

the four defined centres and deliver practical Precinct Parking Management Plans accompanied 

with detailed guidance on how to implement the strategic direction over a 5-20 year timeframe. 

A 14 week timeframe is anticipated for the completion of the second part of the study. 

COMMENT: 

The first part of the study draws attention to the fact that if the level of development potential 

envisaged for the four commercial centres along Cambridge Street is to be achieved, there will 

need to be a change in the way parking is supplied and managed. Alternatively, the future 

development potential for the four commercial centres would need to be much less than is 

currently being sought by developers. The challenge is finding the balance between adequate 

supply of parking to ensure vitality of the commercial centres and managing the demand for 

parking. Continuing a demand satisfaction approach (based on a 'predict and provide' model) is 

unsustainable. 

The study recognises that attitudes to parking are not going to change quickly and that changes 

to parking management should be gradual and accompanied with an educational program to 

draw awareness to the true commercial and environmental costs associated with parking. 

The study recommends the Town adopt a demand management approach towards parking. 

Pay parking is one of the most effective ways of influencing parking and travel demand and 

increases equity as the 'user pays'. The Town has already successfully implemented paid 

parking around St John of God Hospital and the Southport Street Commercial Area to address 

parking demand issues for these centres. Undertaking annual parking surveys will inform high 

demand areas where the introduction of paid parking may be required. 




A comprehensive analysis has been undertaken in regards to the application of cash-in-lieu for 

parking. The study recommends applying a uniform formula to all developments seeking cashin-lieu 

for parking that incorporates both the cost of land and the true cost of construction for 

each parking bay. The relationship of this proposed cash-in-lieu formula and the parking ratios 

specified in the Off-Street Parking Policy will be important. 

The parking principles and strategic directions that have arisen from part one will be used to 

inform the second part of the study. Part two of the study will involve:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applying recommendations identified in part one that are common to all four centres. 

Assessing potential sites for additional public parking facilities (including an assessment 

of suitable streets for the expansion of on-street parking). 

Creation of public parking station templates to define the most effective and desirable site 

for public parking. 

Provide indicative parking capacity for each centre. 

Prepare examples for each centre applying the proposed cash-in-lieu formula to calculate 

contributions for potential public parking sites. 

Preparation of a prioritised Action Plan for each centre. 


The Access and Parking Study forms part of the review of Town Planning Scheme and will 

inform the review of the Town's Off-Street Parking Policy and future application of cash-in-lieu 

for parking. 


The cost for Luxmoore Consulting to undertake both part one and two of the Access and 

Parking Study is covered in the Town Planning Scheme Review Budget 2011/12. 

Future management of parking and access demand will require informed investment of Council 

funds. Revenue sources could include cash-in-lieu contributions, income from paid parking and 

parking fines. 


The Access and Parking Study is consistent with priority area: Planning for Our Community of 

the Town's Strategic Plan. In particular, our goals for 'Transport Options' (facilitated through 

aligning parking strategies to land use) and 'Attractive and Diverse Shopping and Business 

Areas' (supported by the development of place-specific plans for commercial areas). 


The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. Community 

consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be given 

to this matter when the study is completed. 

During the first part of the study a stakeholder workshop was held (advertised through the 

Cambridge News and on the Town's website) and was attended by interested residents, 

business owners, property owners, developers and real estate agents. Their comments and 

feedback have informed the study. 




SUMMARY: 

The traffic capacity of existing streets, availability of land and the costs associated with 

providing parking will not allow for future growth of the commercial centres if the current 'predict 

and provide' approach to parking continues. An alternative approach to access and parking is 

required. 

Part one of the study looks at ways to manage access and parking and incorporates strategies 

not only to control the supply of parking but also to manage parking demand and encourage 

alternative modes of travel. 

Parking demand management involves a suite of management tools, including:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pay parking; 

education programs; 

cash-in-lieu; 

maximum and minimum parking standards; 

parking surveys to monitor parking occupancy and demand; 

shared parking; 

pedestrian improvements; 

alternative modes of transport; and 

monitoring of compliance. 

The Part 1 Report forms the basis of proceeding to the second part of the study, which will 

examine practical solutions for each of the four centres; Southport Street Commercial, 

Cambridge High Street Node, Medical Precinct and Wembley Town Centre. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary - Access and Parking Strategy 


That the Access and Parking Strategy Part 1 - Issues, Options and Long-term Strategic 

Directions Report be endorsed for the purpose of proceeding with part two of the study, the 

preparation of detailed management plans for the four commercial centres along Cambridge 

Street. 

Council Meeting 22 November 2011 

During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be referred to a Council Forum for further 

consideration. 


That the item relating to the Access and Parking Strategy Part 1 be referred back to a Council 

Forum for further consideration. 




FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 22 December 2011) 

A presentation on the Access and Parking Study by the consultant Larry Schneider from 

Luxmoore Consulting will be held for Elected Members on Tuesday 13 December 2011 at 

5.00pm prior to the Development Committee. 


(REFERRED BACK RECOMMENDATION) 


That the Access and Parking Strategy Part 1 - Issues, Options and Long-term Strategic 

Directions Report be endorsed for the purpose of proceeding with part two of the study, 

the preparation of detailed management plans for the four commercial centres along 

Cambridge Street. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.125 APPLICATION - FOUR 'NON-COMPLYING EVENTS' (CONCERTS) IN A 12 

MONTH PERIOD AT WA ATHLETICS STADIUM, MT CLAREMONT 


To consider the application to conduct up to four non-complying concerts events in any 12 

month period at the WA Athletics Stadium, Mt Claremont. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Western Australian Sports Centre Trust trading as VenuesWest have submitted an 

application to conduct up to four non-complying events in any 12 month period at the WA 

Athletics Stadium, Mt Claremont. 

In terms of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, an approved non-complying 

event is a sporting, cultural or entertainment event, that is open to the public, that is likely to 

generate noise levels well above the assigned sound levels for the area; and the event would 

lose its character or usefulness if it were required to comply with the assigned sound levels. 

In such circumstances a conditional Regulation 18 Approval for a Non-complying event is 

issued by the local government Chief Executive Officer. The Regulations define that noise from 

such an event is not unreasonable if it is emitted in accordance with an approval granted under 

regulation 18. 

Sub-regulations 18(11) and (12) of Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 requires 

that the Chief Executive Officer may not approve the holding of more than 2 non-conforming 

events at a particular venue in any period of 12 consecutive months unless the CEO is satisfied 

that the majority of occupiers on whom the noise emissions will impact have no objection to the 

holding of the additional events. Further, that an approval cannot be given unless the local 

government of each district in which the noise is received agree to the proposed conditions 

applicable to the approval. 

This sports facility is located within the Town of Cambridge and the City of Nedlands; the local 

government boundary bisects the facility. As a result, both local authorities have legislative 

authority over the venue. In this particular aspect, the stage is located within the Town, so 

Cambridge is the approving authority in terms of the Noise Regulations. 

DETAILS: 

VenuesWest hosted the Stevie Nicks concert at the WA Athletic Stadium on 26 November 

2011. At the time of application, VenuesWest were encouraged and finally agreed to orientate 

the stage so that noise was directed to the west rather than the east, as originally planned. This 

gave a large buffer of bushland and sports facilities to help attenuate noise before it was 

received at residential properties in Mt Claremont. 

The Regulation 18 approval issued by the Town for that event applied a sound limit of 

LAeq,1min level of 100 dB (at 30 metres). That sound level limit was allowed to be exceeded 

by no more than 3 dB(A) on no more than thirty occasions during the approved concert time. 




That concert was monitored, and sound levels recorded, by an independent acoustic consultant 

employed by VenuesWest. Sound levels at two residential properties nominated by the City of 

Nedlands and the Town were also recorded. The acoustic consultant reported that the three 

sets of measured noise levels from the Stevie Nicks Concert were within the bounds of the 

approval issued by the Town of Cambridge, and therefore complied with regulation 18 of Noise 

Regulations. 

A second non-complying event (the 80's Dance Picnic Party Outdoor Music Concert featuring 

Ali Cambell, Billy Ocean and Big Mountain) is to take place on Saturday 21 January 2012. The 

Administration is proposing to apply a similar Regulation 18 approval to that used for the Stevie 

Nicks concert, but with a maximum sound level of 102dB(A) at the mixing desk (instead of 

100dB(A) applied previously). Consideration of that application was to be considered by the 

City of Nedlands on 6 December 2011. 

No complaints were received by the concert held on 26 November. 

VenuesWest are actively promoting a third concert (Lenny Kravitz, supported by Wolfmother 

and The Cranberries) to be held on Wednesday 28 March 2012 at the WA Athletics Stadium. 

This would be the third non-complying event in five months. 


Sub-regulations 18(11) and (12) of Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 apply. 

They require that:- 

the Chief Executive Officer is not to approve the holding of more than 2 non-conforming 

events at a particular venue in any period of 12 consecutive months unless the Chief 

Executive Officer is satisfied that the majority of occupiers on whom the noise emissions 

will impact have no objection to the holding of the additional events; and 

an approval cannot be given unless the local government of each district in which the 

noise is received agree to the proposed conditions applicable to the approval. 


An application for approval for a non-complying event incurs an application fee of $500. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes strategies under:- 

Delivering our Services 

• consult with the community on their needs; 


As prescribed by the Noise Regulations, the Chief Executive Officer must be satisfied that the 

majority of occupiers on whom the noise emissions will impact have no objection to the holding 

of more than 2 non-conforming events at a particular venue in any period of 12 consecutive 

months. 

Council policy No. 1.2.11 requires a public consultation process in respect to this application. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 

SUMMARY 

As a relatively new sports venue, it is appropriate, and a statutory requirement, that the 

potentially affected residents of both local government areas be surveyed and given the 

opportunity to comment in the proposal to conduct up to 4 concerts within a 12 month period at 

the WA Athletic Stadium. 



Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer 

That:- 

(i) 

the application be referred to the City of Nedlands for their comments and 

conditions; 

(ii) (a) a survey of residents with the area bounded by and including the streets:- 

Stephenson Avenue 

McClemans Road 

Fortview Road 

Mayfair Street 

Alfred Road 

Montgomery Avenue 

Mooro Drive 

Heritage Lane 

The Marlows 

Blenheim Lane 

Houston Place 

and Wollaston College 

be carried out by an independent agency, at the applicants cost, to ascertain 

the views of those residents regarding the application to conduct up to 4 noncomplying 

concert events at the WA Athletics stadium; 

(b) 

the City of Nedlands and the Town of Cambridge shall define the survey 

questions, with the Manager Compliance being the Town's representative in 

this aspect; 

(iii) a decision on the application be deferred pending a report on the outcome of 

consultation defined in (i) and (ii) above. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.126 HOLYROOD STREET HERITAGE DESIGN CONCEPT QUOTATION 


To consider proposed design concepts for interpretation material that recognises the heritage 

values of Holyrood Street, West Leederville. 

BACKGROUND: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holyrood Street is a Conservation Area pursuant to Clause 24 of Town Planning Scheme 

No. 1. 

The 'Holyrood Street Heritage Development and Design Guidelines' was adopted as 

planning policy in July 2003. 

The Council budgeted $50,000 in its 2010/2011 budget for the provision of interpretative 

material for Holyrood Street which would raise the profile of Holyrood Street as having 

special heritage significance. 

The Council called for expressions of interest from community/conceptual artists to 

develop suitable design concepts for interpretative material that recognises the heritage 

values of Holyrood Street. 

Artists were advised that the interpretative material could range from individual plaques to 

street furniture to public art within the adjacent Holyrood Park. 

Jager Studios were subsequently appointed and began developing some concepts and 

proposals. 

Residents of Holyrood Street, Jager Studios, elected members and Council staff attended 

a workshop in August 2011 to consider and discuss the ideas presented by Jager 

Studios. 

Some residents who could not attend the meetings subsequently sent emails supporting 

the proposals. 

DETAILS: 

The proposals put forward by Jager Studio can be broken into three main ideas:- 

1. Signage for the entrance to the street; 

2. Lighting of the first two fig trees with heritage photos of Holyrood Street by means of 

projecting photo images onto the tree trunks; and 

3. Provision of street lights from the original era of Holyrood Street. 

Jager Studio have prepared a quotation for the proposed works which forms part of the 

attachments to the agenda. 

The concepts were presented to residents of Holyrood Street who supported the proposed 

design concepts and were especially excited by the idea of lighting the street trees with 

historical images of the street. The original concept looked at lighting more than the first two 

trees but the budget does not allow for this and it has become apparent that the size of the 

structure required to house projection lamps means that it is logical to house it within a signage 

box which can provide the dual purpose of an illuminated street sign on one face. 




The quotation involves the expenditure of $25,600 for the signage box, $9,800 for lighting the 

fig trees and $6,600 for provision of two 'vintage' street lights at the entrance to the street (a 

total of $42,000). 

The quotation requires the Town to deliver concrete for the plinth, power to the signage box and 

exact text for the signage. The Town's Infrastructure Services have advised that the cost of 

connecting the box would only be a few hundred dollars. Therefore the project can be 

completed within budget (noting that the remainder of the $50,000 budget has been spent on 

developing the concept designs to this stage). 


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. 


The proposal involves the expenditure of money allocated in the 2010/2011 budget. To date 

$8000 has been spent in developing the concept designs. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Holyrood Street Heritage Concepts/Quotation 




That:- 

(i) 

the Holyrood Street Heritage Concepts being: 

 

 

 

signage for the entrance to the street; 

lighting of the first two fig trees with heritage photos of Holyrood Street by 

means of projecting photo images onto the tree trunks; and 

provision of street lights from the original era of Holyrood Street. 

be adopted and Jager Studios be instructed to commence design and installation. 

(ii) 

the owners of properties in Holyrood Street be advised of the adopted design 

concepts. 

Carried 7/1 

For: 

Against: 


Cr Bradley 




DV11.127 PROPOSED LONG TERM HALF ROAD CLOSURE - MACEWAN STREET, WEST 

LEEDERVILLE 


To approve the temporary, long term closure of the southern half of MacEwan Street to facilitate 

the safe construction of a large commercial building. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting on 19 April 2011, the Council approved a development application for the 

construction of a nine storey building with 3 level basement car park. The building is to be used 

for offices, multiple dwellings, a restaurant and a local shop. 

The new building is to be constructed on the block of land surrounded by Loftus Street, 

MacEwan Street, Oxford Close and Railway Parade. 

DETAILS: 

The project builder has submitted a Construction and Traffic Management Plan for this project. 

The traffic management plan proposes numerous temporary one day road closures as well as a 

large number of partial road closures of MacEwan Street to facilitate the construction process. 

In reviewing those plans, the Administration is of the view that it would be safer to close the 

southern half of MacEwan Street for the duration of the construction period. This would allow 

the significant number of heavy vehicle delivery movements to access the site without 

disrupting the traffic in Loftus Street; allow the safe assembly of heavy trucks adjacent to the 

site; and allow the safe and controlled departure of heavy trucks via Loftus Street. 

Due to the narrowness of MacEwan Street, the access constraints imposed by the location of 

this site, the lengthy construction period, and the considerable quantities of material to be 

removed from this site in the initial phase, followed by the large amounts of construction 

materials need for this project, it is recommended that the southern half of MacEwan Street be 

temporarily closed for the construction period - approximately 30 months. 

Traffic use of MacEwan Street is light, particularly in the southern west bound half, as 

substantiated by traffic count data. 

12 September 2007: 

1283 vehicles east bound (northern half); with 213 vehicles west bound (southern half). 

18 February 2010: 

1343 vehicles east bound (northern half); 243 vehicles west bound (southern half). 

The temporary removal of the two parking bays on the northern side of MacEwan Street will 

assist to keep the east bound trafficable section of MacEwan Street as wide as possible. 

The temporary, long term half road closure will enable the safe delivery and removal of material 

by large trucks and semi-trailers, whilst maintaining the majority easterly one-way traffic flow on 

the northern half of this street. 





Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 applies. 

Subsection (1a) states: 

"A local government may, by local public notice, order that a thoroughfare that it manages is 

wholly or partially closed to the passage of vehicles for a period exceeding 4 weeks". 

Subsection (4) states: 

"Before it makes an order wholly or partially closing a thoroughfare to the passage of vehicles 

for a period exceeding 4 weeks or continuing the closure of a thoroughfare, the local 

government is to:- 

(a) 

give local public notice of the proposed order giving details of the proposal, including the 

location of the thoroughfare and where, when, and why it would be closed, and inviting 

submissions from any person who wishes to make a submission; 

(b) give written notice to each person who — 

(i) is prescribed for the purposes of this section; or 

(ii) owns land that is prescribed for the purposes of this section; 

and 

(c) allow a reasonable time for submissions to be made and consider any submissions 

made." 


The publication of the statutory public notice will cost $250. The builder will be responsible for 

installing, signposting and managing the operation of the temporary road closure. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes strategies under:- 

Delivering our Services 

consult with the community on their needs; 

review the Town's asset management practices and improve transport infrastructure 

(roads, footpaths etc). 


As prescribed by Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995:- 

four potentially affected property owners were notified by mail on 30 November 2011; 

nineteen potentially affected local businesses were personally visited on Thursday 1 

December 2011 and handed notification and verbal advice of the proposed half road 

closure; 

local public notice was published in the Western Suburbs Weekly on Tuesday 6 

December 2011. 

Council policy No. 1.2.11 would require a 'consult' process, which concludes on Friday 16 


Any comments received will be reported to the Council. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Map of proposed partial closure of MacEwan Street. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the southern half of MacEwan Street, West Leederville be temporarily closed for a 

period of approximately 30 months to facilitate the safe construction of a large 

commercial building at 10 Oxford Close and 3-5 Loftus Street; 

in accordance with the requirement of the Local Government Act, the 

Commissioner of Main Roads be advised of (i) above; 

the two parking bays in MacEwan Street be removed for the period of the long term 

temporary road closure; 

(iv) the street adjacent to the redundant crossover of the development site to be 

marked as parking bays and the existing "2 hour ticket" parking restrictions being 

applicable. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.128 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL USE 'CONSULTING 

ROOMS' GROUP - 'DENTAL SURGERY' - LOT 353 (NO 24) FLOREAT 

AVENUE, FLOREAT 


To consider a scheme amendment application for an additional use 'consulting rooms group - 

dental surgery' at Lot 353 (No. 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat. 

BACKGROUND: 

LANDOWNER: 

Mr Stefan Kolm and Medifit Pty Ltd. 

APPLICANT: 

Doepel Marsh Architects and Planners 

ZONING: MRS: 

Urban 

TPS No.1: Residential R12.5 

LAND AREA: 

1137 sqm 

The property is located adjacent to the Floreat Forum district centre and consists of a single 

residential dwelling. The Floreat Forum Shopping Centre is located to the west and north of the 

site, with the shopping centre double-storey parking located to the north and shops and parking 

to the west. It is noted that access to the parking area is directly across from the site. Single 

residential dwellings are located to the south and east of the property and in total there are 

eleven other single residential dwellings along Floreat Avenue facing Floreat Forum, zoned 

'Residential R12.5' under Town Planning Scheme No.1. Please refer to Attachment 1 for site 

photos. 

A planning application was received by the Town on June 1 2011 by Doepel Marsh Architects 

and Planners for the use of the Lot 353 (No 24) Floreat Avenue for consulting rooms. The 

application was refused as the use is not permitted within the existing 'Residential R12.5' zone. 

DETAILS: 

The applicant has applied for a scheme amendment for an additional use 'consulting rooms 

group - dental surgery' to accommodate the proposed use. An additional use does not change 

zoning but specifies a particular use that the site can also be used for which provides a high 

level of control. Another recent and similar example involved the addition of medical centre and 

pharmacy uses to the residential zone for No 272 and No 274 Cambridge Street (Amendment 

18 to TPS 1). 

The proposed dental surgery use is considered small-scale as it would be limited to four 

consulting rooms and dental appointments are generally by appointment. The applicant has 

also indicated that appointments are generally 30 minutes to an hour in length. The 

specification of the additional use for dental surgery is considered necessary as the proposal is 

for a purpose built building which will operate by appointment only. 

The scheme amendment application is accompanied by plans for a proposed development 

which is intended to be submitted should the rezoning be approved (see Attachment 2). The 

proposed development consists of a two storey building consisting of four consulting rooms 

which has been designed largely in keeping with the residential built form standards of the 




Town's Planning Scheme Policy Manual and Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. 

The proposal features landscaped front and side setbacks and rear parking (16 bays as per the 

Town Planning Scheme requirements for consulting rooms) which are to be screened from the 

street and from neighbouring properties through landscaping. The parking is set lower than the 

ground level of the adjacent property to the east to restrict views from residences into parking 

areas. 

It is proposed that specific development controls would be introduced to limit the number of 

consulting rooms to four rooms; ensure that the development would generally appear residential 

in nature; reduce impacts from the development and from parking on the streetscape and on 

adjacent properties; and to provide landscaped setback areas. 

The main points of the applicant's justification are summarised as follows:- 

Applicant's Justification 

• A dental use is an appropriate community use serving the local residents. Dental uses 

have historically existed in suburban residential areas and were provided for in the 

original City of Perth City Planning Scheme No.1 1985. The dental use is a passive use 

with 'by-appointment' consultations that are between 30 minutes and an hour. 

• The dental surgery will improve the standard of care/ allow the provision of best practice 

dental care which is unable to be provided at the existing Floreat Forum location. Dr 

Stefan Kolm has leased space within the Floreat Forum for 20 years but the space has 

become too small. Requests to expand the tenancy have been to no avail and the rent 

has progressively increased. All Dr Kolm's patients are local residents with more than 

50% over 60 years of age. Staff and patients alike are impacted from issues at the 

existing practice relating to parking availability, toilet access, disabled access and lack of 

space for recovery/modern dental surgery space. Dr Kolm wishes to continue to provide 

his community based service in modern, safe, comfortable, convenient and appropriate 

premises. 

• The expansion of Floreat Forum and the multi-storey car park has drastically impacted the 

residential properties and there is no longer residential amenity along Floreat Avenue. A 

non residential use can be established without any disturbance to adjoining residential 

uses. 

• There are other examples of nearby non-residential uses on residentially zoned land 

including a dental specialist opposite the Floreat Forum (?) and physiotherapist on the 

south-east side of the Floreat Forum in Grantham Street. 

• The proposal's built form will be residential in nature. The visual amenity of the 

streetscape will remain residential, existing mature landscaping will be retained and the 

scale, bulk and form will be residential. Parking will be screened from the street and from 

adjacent properties through landscaping and because it will be below floor levels of 

adjacent properties. Sound attenuation walls will screen the car parking to the east side 

and rear. The proposal will meet or exceed the R-Code requirements. Additional features 

proposed include end of journey facilities to encourage walking and cycling, public art and 

a bench seat in the front landscaped area. 




Comment 

It is considered that the site is a suitable location for the introduction of a small scale 

commercial use such as a dental surgery as it is located directly opposite Floreat Forum District 

Centre. The additional use will be subject to careful control and will be of a height and scale 

similar to the existing development within the area and be compatible with adjacent 

development. 

Council has endorsed a working Local Planning Strategy document to provide general 

directions and objectives for the Town's future planning. Opportunities for the adjacent Floreat 

Forum District Centre include building on the existing commercial focus, the introduction of a 

greater mix of uses and the consideration of opportunities for expansion. The dental surgery 

proposal, albeit only a minor proposal, is consistent with these objectives. Should further 

opportunities be identified for redevelopment around Floreat Forum into the future, the proposal 

will not inhibit this as the setbacks along Floreat Avenue will provide space for new 

development. In effect, the proposal is compatible with existing development in the area but 

provides the flexibility for future development. 

The minor scale of the proposed additional use and flexibility for future development also 

means that the proposal can proceed without the finalisation of the Town Planning Scheme 

Review or the preparation of a centre plan for Floreat Forum. It is also noted that that the 

additional use would not increase shop-retail floor space in the area, which would otherwise 

require the completion of an Activity Centre Structure Plan. 

The introduction of an additional use could be viewed to set a new precedent for the 

introduction of other additional uses for properties along Floreat Avenue which directly face 

Floreat Forum. It is noted that Floreat Avenue is the closest street to Floreat Forum and that 

individual assessment would still be required for any proposals for additional uses. The 

proposal introduces what is only a low-intensity use along Floreat Avenue. 

The introduction of development standards will aim to maintain a generally residential 

appearance for development and to minimise impacts of parking areas on adjoining properties. 

The building is to be generally designed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and 

the Town's Residential Planning Policies, with additional standards for landscaping of all 

setback areas, car park screening and noise attenuation. Given the parking requirements, it is 

not reasonable to expect that the requirement for 55% open space for the site will be fully met. 

In place, suitable landscaping of the street, side and rear setbacks is to be required. The use of 

the site will be restricted to four practitioners at any one time. 


The introduction of an additional use will involve an amendment to Schedule 2 of the Town 

Planning Scheme to include the additional use and associated development standards and 

conditions. 




Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan for the provision of 




orderly planning to enhance the Town's natural and built environment through effective and 

responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. 


Should the Council initiate the Scheme Amendment, consultation will be required under the 

Town Planning Regulations. 

SUMMARY: 

An application has been received for a scheme amendment for an additional use 'consulting 

rooms group - dental surgery' to allow a dental surgery to operate at Lot 353 (No. 24) Floreat 

Avenue, Floreat. 

It is considered that the proposal for four dental consulting rooms is suitable for the location 

opposite a car parking entry to the Floreat Forum. It is a small scale commercial use which will 

operate by appointment only. The proposal will also allow for future redevelopment in the area 

should this be identified as appropriate into the future through the Town Planning Scheme 

Review. The additional use would be accompanied by development standards to maintain a 

residential appearance and limit impacts on adjacent properties and the streetscape. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Attachment 1: Site photos 

Attachment 2: Proposed dental surgery plans (indicative) 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council resolves to 

initiate an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Planning Scheme No. 1 to 

introduce an additional use for "consulting rooms group - dental surgery' for Lot 

353 (No. 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat to the existing "Residential R12.5" zone; 

Schedule 2 in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be amended to include the following 

Development Standards and Conditions for the additional use "consulting rooms 

group - dental surgery" at Lot 353 (No.24) Floreat Avenue:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the design of the building to be in accordance with the Residential Design 

Codes and the Town's Residential Planning Policies, unless specified 

otherwise; 

provision of open space may be less than 55%. All open space areas shall be 

substantially well maintained gardens; 

no car-parking to be located in the primary street setback area; 

car parking areas to be screened from adjacent residential properties and 

from the street and noise attenuation measures to be introduced; 

a maximum of four practitioners can operate from the dental surgery at any 

one time; 

any signage proposals to satisfy signage policy; 




 

parking to be provided in accordance with the Town's Planning Scheme 

parking requirements. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.129 DRAFT POLICY 6.5 - PRECINCT P5: WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT WEST LEEDERVILLE PLANNING AND URBAN 

DESIGN STUDY 


To outline the proposed amendments to current Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville to 

implement the findings from the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and to 

present a draft West Leederville Precinct Policy for adoption for advertising by Council. 

BACKGROUND: 

In February 2008, Council adopted a progressive approach to the review of the Town Planning 

Scheme commencing with the development of the Local Planning Strategy and the West 

Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study (Item DV08.20). 

The West Leederville Study was undertaken in two parts and the second and concluding part of 

the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study was adopted by Council in December 

2010 (Item DV10.122). Since its adoption, focus has shifted towards implementation and the 

drafting, advertising and adoption of the necessary Town Planning Scheme amendments. 

Whilst progress is being made with the drafting of the Town Planning Scheme amendments 

(being facilitated through the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee), the initiation 

of an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 is several months away. 

To provide clarity in regard to the assessment of development applications for the existing West 

Leederville commercial areas, particularly where there are inconsistencies between the West 

Leederville Study and current Scheme provisions, it is proposed as an interim measure to 

amend current Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville to reflect the proposed new 

development standards identified by the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

This report outlines the proposed amendments to Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville for 

Council's consideration. 

DETAILS: 

Current Town Planning Scheme No. 1 

The current Town Planning Scheme's structure is policy based with majority of development 

standards outlined in planning polices (referred to collectively as the Policy Manual which is 

adopted under the Scheme to give statutory weight). This is in comparison to having 

development standards prescribed specifically in the Scheme text. In this regard, Council can 

approve amendments to a planning policy adopted under the Scheme without requiring the 

approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission and Minister for Planning. The 

procedure to make or amend a planning policy is stipulated under the Scheme. 

Further, the Town Planning Scheme is also precinct based. The Scheme area is divided into 

six separate precincts and each precinct has it own specific Precinct Planning Policy to 

prescribe development standards reflective of the precincts character. 




Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville (West Leederville Precinct Policy) provides 

development standards for the area of the Town bounded by Gregory Street, Salvado Road, 

Railway Parade, Loftus Street, the freeway and Lake Monger Drive. The format of the West 

Leederville Precinct Policy is set out in such a way that each zone within the precinct (being 

Residential, Commercial, Residential/Commercial and Medical) have specific development 

standards prescribed. The vision for the Community Node (Leederville Town Hall), which is 

reserved for Parks and Recreation, is also included. 

The West Leederville Precinct Policy further divides the Commercial Zone into three identifiable 

areas being Southport Street Commercial Area, Rosslyn Street Commercial Area and Vincent 

Street West Commercial Area. Other commercial areas not associated with these three defined 

centres are referred to as Other Commercial Areas. 

The Southport Street Commercial Area and the Rosslyn Street Commercial Area fall within the 

West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study area boundary and as such, it is the 

development standards that relate to these two commercial areas that are proposed to be 

amended to reflect the findings of the West Leederville Study. Similarly, the Community Node 

is also within the West Leederville Study area and the vision for this node is also proposed to be 

amended. 

Proposed Amendments to West Leederville Precinct Policy 

A summary of the changes to the West Leederville Precinct Policy are provided below. A copy 

of the West Leederville Precinct Policy (as amended) is attached. Note, the proposed new 

provisions in the precinct policy are shown in red in the attachment. 

The changes proposed to the policy have been informed by the West Leederville Planning and 

Urban Design Study and the Indicative Development Plans (IDPs) that were prepared for each 

node. The IDP's illustrate how the planning and development principles adopted for West 

Leederville might be applied and show the possible network of streets, laneways and pedestrian 

routes, building layouts and public spaces that could develop over time. 

General 

i. Revised Introduction to reflect West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

ii. Revised West Leederville Precinct Map by renaming 'Rosslyn Street Commercial Area' 

to 'Cambridge High Street Node' and 'Southport Street Commercial Area' to 'Southport 

Street Node' and to include the location of the 'Community Node'. 

iii. Revised Statement of Intent for Commercial Zone to reflect desired future character as 

identified in the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

iv. General update of the Policy and minor reformatting. 

Southport Street Node (Previously Southport Street Commercial Area) 

v. Propose new development standards for the Southport Street Node (existing 

development standards for Southport Street Commercial Area deleted). 

Development 

Standard 

Indicative 

Development Plan 

Current Policy 

Proposed Policy 

N/A Clause referencing Indicative 

Development Plan to allow Council 

to have regard to IDP objectives in 




Development 

Standard 

Current Policy 


considering applications for 

development and subdivision 

approval. 

Plot Ratio 1:1 1:1 

Bonus Plot Ratio 

(additional floor 

area) 

For mixed use development 

comprising commercial and 

residential uses, maximum plot 

ratio of 1.5:1 provided no more 

than 25% of additional floorspace 

is used for non-residential 

purposes. 

Building Height Minimum height of 6 metres (9 

meters for corner buildings). 

No maximum height specified. 

Street Setbacks 

Side and Rear 

Setbacks 

Design Elements 

Buildings built to street alignment 

to promote strong urban form. 

Nil side setback. 

No requirement for rear setbacks. 

Ground floor levels to be set at 

abutting footpath level. 

Buildings to be provided with 

awning over footpath. 

Parking and Access Vehicular access discouraged 

from Loftus Street, Cambridge 

Street and Railway Parade where 

alternative access is available. 

Opportunities for bonus plot ratio if 

strategic objectives are achieved: 

Residential - 1:1 

Extension of Nicholson Street - 1:1 

Public Parking - 1:1 

Ceding of land for ROW - 0.5:1 

Land for ROW widening - 0.2:1 

Pedestrian connections - 0.2:1 

Lot amalgamations - 0.2-0.5:1 

Public spaces - 0.5:1 

Underground parking - 0.5:1 

Parking behind street fronts - 0.2:1 

(Bonus plot ratio is accumulative) 

Minimum 2 storeys to maximum 8 

storeys. 

Maximum 10 storeys if bonus plot 

ratio applicable. 

Nil for first three storeys, except: 

Cambridge Street - 2 metres 

Railway Parade, Loftus and 

Abbotsford Street - 4 metres 

Nicholson Street - 2 metres 

Further setbacks for fourth storey 

and above. 

Maximum height for boundary 

walls is 3 storeys. 

Standards for side and rear 

setbacks (above three storeys), 

ranging from 3 to 4 metres. 

Performance assessment for 

boundary walls where adjoining 

property is zoned residential. 

Awnings, architectural design 

elements and defined building 

entries, no exposed blank walls to 

street or laneways, articulated 

street elevations, no obscured 

glazing to windows at ground floor 

level, roof pitch requirements. 

Standards for location of parking 

and access to be taken from 

laneways, wherever possible. 

Residential Residential density R80. 'R-AC 0' (multi-housing) code. 

Retention of building 

stock 

Variations permitted to standards 

where original building is retained. 

Cambridge High Street Node (Previously Rosslyn Street Commercial Area) 

vi. Propose new development standards for the Cambridge High Street Node (existing 

development standards for Rosslyn Street Commercial Areas deleted). 

N/A 




Development 

Standard 

Indicative 

Development Plan 

Existing Policy 


N/A Clause referencing Indicative 

Development Plan to allow 

Council to have regard to IDP 

objectives in considering 

applications for development and 

subdivision approval. 

Plot Ratio 1:1 1:1 

Bonus Plot Ratio 

(additional floor 

area) 


For mixed use development 

comprising commercial and 

residential uses, maximum plot 

ratio of 1.5:1 provided no more 

than 25% of additional 

floorspace is used for nonresidential 

purposes. 

Minimum height of 6 metres. 

No maximum height specified. 

Street Setbacks Buildings built to street 

alignment to promote strong 

urban form. 

Side and Rear 

Setbacks 

Nil side setback. 

No requirement for rear 

setbacks. 

Opportunities for bonus plot ratio 

if strategic objectives are 

achieved: 

Residential - 1:1 

Pedestrian laneway and plaza 

(former Bethel site only) - 1:1 

Public Parking - 1:1 

Ceding of land for ROW - 0.5:1 

Land for ROW widening - 0.2:1 

Pedestrian connections - 0.2:1 

Lot amalgamations - 0.2-0.5:1 

Public spaces - 0.5:1 

Underground parking - 0.5:1 

Parking behind street fronts - 

0.2:1 

(Bonus plot ratio is accumulative) 

South side of Cambridge Street 

Minimum 2 storeys to maximum 

4 storeys. 

Maximum 6 storeys if bonus plot 

ratio applicable. 

Former Bethel Site 

Icon site up to 10 storeys if 

strategic benefits achieved. 

North side of Cambridge Street 

Minimum and maximum 2 

storeys. 

Additional height to 

accommodate bonus plot ratio 

subject to performance based 

assessment. 

Nil for first three storeys, except: 

Cambridge Street - 2 metres 

Further setbacks for fourth storey 

and above. 

Maximum height for boundary 

walls is 3 storeys. 

Standards for side and rear 

setbacks (above three storeys), 

ranging from 3 to 4 metres. 

Performance assessment for 

boundary walls where adjoining 

property is zoned residential. 




Design Elements 

Parking and Access 

Buildings to be provided with 

awning over footpath. 

Discourages vehicle access from 

Cambridge Street and Railway 

Parade where alternative access 

is available. 

Awnings, architectural design 

elements and defined building 

entries, no exposed blank walls 

to street or laneways, articulated 

street elevations, no obscured 

glazing to windows at ground 

floor level, roof pitch 

requirements. 

Standards for location of parking 

and access to be taken from 

laneways, wherever possible. 

Residential Residential density R80. 'R-AC 0' (multi-housing) code. 

Retention of 

building stock 

Community Node 

Variations permitted to 

standards where original building 

is retained. 

vii. Amended the statement of intent for the Community Node (Leederville Town Hall) to 

reflect the desired future character as identified from the West Leederville Planning and 

Urban Design Study. Maintains a community and recreational focus. 

Explanation of Amendments 

The abovementioned amendments to the West Leederville Precinct Policy are proposed as an 

interim measure, whilst drafting of the more comprehensive Scheme amendments to reflect the 

findings of the West Leederville study are being progressed. This interim amendment to the 

precinct policy only addresses built form and development standards for properties within the 

West Leederville study area that are already zoned Commercial. It is not proposed at this time 

to amend the Town Planning Scheme by rezoning properties. 

Indicative Development Plan 

During Part 2 of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study, IDPs were prepared 

for each of the five nodes within the study area. The IDPs show in diagrammatical form the 

general location and pattern of development envisaged for each node, including opportunities to 

widen or create new laneways, combine rear parking areas and create more intensive, larger 

urban developments through the amalgamation of properties. 

The IDPs are not intended to be a mandatory development layout that must be rigidly adhered 

to and as such are more aspirational in their intent. Nevertheless, it is important the objectives 

and principles behind each IDP are achieved, particularly if the desire for more intensive 

development in West Leederville is to be achieved in a cohesive manner. Specifically important 

will be the creation of well connected grid of rear and side laneways, which are needed to 

provide alternative vehicle access to developments, assist with the distribution of traffic 

throughout the area and reduce the number of crossovers to properties, improving pedestrian 

amenity along street frontages and maximising the opportunity for on-street parking bays. 

In light of this, the proposed amendments to the West Leederville Precinct Policy include a 

clause allowing Council to have regard to the objectives for each of the respective IDPs when 

considering applications for subdivision and development approval. Bonus plot ratio is 

proposed to be used as an incentive to achieve the objectives (and is discussed below). 

Plot Ratio 

N/A 




The West Leederville Study proposes development controls based on building height and 

setback provisions (i.e. built form controls) instead of traditional plot ratio (floor area) controls. 

However, it is proposed to retain plot ratio provisions as part of the proposed amendments as 

an incentive to developers to achieve the desired urban design outcomes outlined in the IDPs. 

The base plot ratio has been kept at 1:1 for both nodes to ensure the attractiveness to 

developers to seek bonus plot ratio and hence achieve the desired urban design outcomes. 

The proposed plot ratio figures were modelled to ensure bonus floorspace could generally be 

accommodated within the height and setback requirements. The two to three storeys height 

limit to the north side of Cambridge Street, as proposed under the West Leederville Study, was 

identified as being prohibitive to achieving any benefit from the plot ratio bonuses (and is 

discussed further below). 


The West Leederville Study identified minimum and maximum building height provisions for 

each of the nodes and these have been included as part of the amendments. 

However, as mentioned above, the two to three storey height limit imposed on properties to the 

north of Cambridge Street does not allow developers opportunity to take up any bonus plot ratio 

(minimising the chance of achieving key strategic initiatives, such as widening rear laneways). 

The rationale behind the three storey height limit to the north of Cambridge Street was to 

minimise the potential impacts of building bulk on the adjacent residential area to the north. To 

address this issue, it is proposed to adopt a performance based assessment towards additional 

building height above two storeys. The developer would need to demonstrate how the design 

of their building ameliorates the negative effects of excessive building bulk on the adjacent 

residential area, if additional storeys above two are proposed. 

Side and Rear Setbacks 

A maximum wall height of three storeys is proposed for walls built to a common boundary, 

reflecting the desired urban form for the two nodes. 

Side and rear setbacks, above three storeys have been introduced as part of the amendments 

to ensure an acceptable level of amenity between buildings and allow for access to light and 

ventilation. The side and rear setbacks increase as the width of the lot increases, reflecting the 

potential increase of building bulk that could be accommodated on larger lots. 

Residential Development 

In November 2010, the Residential Design Codes were amended to include multi-unit housing 

provisions. As part of the amendments to the Codes, the R-AC code was introduced to guide 

the development of multiple dwellings within mixed use development and activity centres. The 

R-AC code specifies provisions for maximum plot ratio, setbacks and building height for the 

assessment of residential development. 

The proposed amendments introduce the R-AC 0 code for residential development within the 

two nodes, replacing the R80 residential density. It is noted a bonus plot ratio of 1:1 is proposed 

to encourage the development of residential apartments. 

COMMENT: 




The above summarised amendments are proposed only an interim measure whilst work 

continues on preparing the Minor Town Planning Scheme for West Leederville. The Access 

and Parking study, currently being prepared on behalf of the Town, includes a detailed 

investigation on the application of cash-in-lieu for parking and preparation of practical parking 

management plans for each of the commercial areas. The outcomes of this study, once 

completed, will also need to be incorporated into the Minor Town Planning Scheme. 


The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme 

No. 1 by replacing Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville with an amended Policy 6.5 - 

Precinct P5: West Leederville that incorporates development provisions that arose from the 

West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 


The cost of advertising the proposed draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville is covered 

in the Town's budget. 


Amending the West Leederville Precinct Policy works towards goals identified for Key Focus 

Area ‘Planning for the Community’ of the Town’s Strategic Plan 2009-2020, by introducing 

provisions to facilitate a choice of housing and the creation of attractive and diverse shopping 

and business areas into the Scheme. 


In accordance with clause 48 (7) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, a planning policy adopted by 

the Council may be altered or rescinded only by following the procedure for making and 

adopting a planning policy as set out in this clause. 

Furthermore, under clause 48 (3) of the Town Planning Scheme, the Council, having prepared 

a draft planning policy, is required:- 

(a) to advertise a summary of the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive 

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft 

Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not less 

than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be advertised under 

clause 24 or 25 of the Scheme, in which case no further advertisement is required; 

(b) 

where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council, might be 

directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and 

(c) to forward a copy of the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that the 

Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions of the Scheme or with state and regional 

planning policies. 

Extensive community consultation was undertaken during the preparation of the West 

Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. Over this time, a mailing list of interested 

persons in the West Leederville Study was compiled. 




In advertising the proposed draft West Leederville Precinct Policy, the following advertising 

method is recommended:- 

 

 

 

 

 

advertisements be placed in the local newspapers under the Cambridge noticeboard; 

a notice and copy of the draft policy be placed on the Town's website; 

a letter sent to ratepayer groups; 

a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and 

persons on the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Mailing List be informed of 

the proposed draft policy. 

Given, the approaching Christmas and New Year holidays, advertising of the draft West 

Leederville Precinct Policy will commence mid January 2012. 

SUMMARY: 

The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study was concluded in December 2010 and 

since this time, focus has shifted towards drafting the necessary Town Planning Scheme 

amendments to implement the study. Whilst progress is being made with these Town Planning 

Scheme amendments, the initiation of a comprehensive amendment is several months away. 

In the meantime, to provide clarity in regard to the assessment of development applications, 

particularly where there are inconsistencies between the West Leederville Study and current 

Scheme provisions, it is proposed, as an interim measure, to amend current Policy 6.5 - 

Precinct P5: West Leederville to reflect the findings of the West Leederville Study. It is noted 

this interim amendment to the precinct policy only addresses built form and development 

standards for properties within the study area already zoned Commercial. (Changes to zoning 

of properties and the introduction of specific land use classifications, can only occur through the 

statutory Town Planning Scheme amendment process, requiring the approval of the WAPC and 

Minister for Planning.) 

The use of plot ratio as a development control measure is maintained in the draft West 

Leederville Precinct Policy, with the application of bonus plot ratio being proposed as a tool to 

encourage desired urban design outcomes (such as laneway and pedestrian connections and 

amalgamation of lots) and to assist in implementing the objectives from the indicative 

development plans, which were prepared as part of the study. In this regard, it is also 

recommended that legal advice be sought on the proposed draft West Leederville Precinct 

Policy, to ensure the statutory effectiveness of the policy provisions. 

The proposed draft West Leederville Precinct Policy, as detailed above and as attached, is 

submitted for adoption for advertising. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville 







That the draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville:- 

(i) be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with clause 48 

(7) of the Town Planning Scheme; 

(ii) 

(iii) 

be advertised as follows: 

an advertisement be placed in the local newspapers under the Cambridge 

noticeboard; 

a notice be included on the Town’s website; and 

a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission, local 

ratepayer groups and to those persons on the West Leederville Planning and 

Urban Design Study mailing list; 

be referred to the Town's solicitors for vetting for legal soundness whilst it is being 

publically advertised. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.130 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2011 


To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the 

Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters. 

DETAILS: 

The following items (for the month of November 2011) have been dealt with under delegated 

authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects 

with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Amended plan - Single storey dwelling 

34 Challenger Parade, City Beach - Alfresco and timber deck 

41 Kalinda Drive, City Beach - Patio extension 

81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Landscaping in front setback area 

3b/131 Drabble Road, City Beach - Patio 

29 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

11a/133 Drabble Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

15 Weldon Way, City Beach - Carport 

30 Tarongo Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

4 Frinton Avenue, City Beach - Upgrade and lighting to tennis courts - City Beach Tennis 

Club 

6 Warren Place, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

9 Fortview Road, Mount Claremont - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

25 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

92 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

11 Callan Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling 

49 Orrel Avenue, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

24 Linden Gardens, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

9 Caithness Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

130 Grantham Street, Floreat - Timber fence 

27 Dunblane Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

7 Cromarty Road, Floreat - Front fence 

10 Seymour Avenue, Floreat - Patio and deck 

40 Orrel Avenue, Florat - Sunroof 

26 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Carport door and fence 

20 Peebles Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling 

4 North Banff Road, Floreat - Carport 

47 Reserve Street, Wembley - Amended plan - Additions and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

32 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

212 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Patio 

3 Collier Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

3 Nanson Street, Wembley - Patio 

18a Keane Street, Wembley - Carport 

5 Veryard Terrace, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27a Simper Street, Wembley - Carport and patio 

14 Collier Street, Wembley - Front fence 

13 Caddy Avenue, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling 

107 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling 

177 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Change of use from indoor pool facility to 

midwifery training facility (St John of God Hospital) 

34a Joseph Street, West Leederville - Single storey dwelling 

4 Connaught Street, West Leederville - Carport 

61 McCourt Street, West Leederville - Front fence (FAST TRACK) 

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval:- 

 

2 Keane Street, Wembley - Two lot green title subdivision 

The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s 

information:- 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - received 

No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions 

of the Council during November 2011. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

Property: Lot 800 (No. 31) Gayton Road, City Beach 

Proposal: Proposed built strata subdivision of shopping centre 

On 30 November 2011, the State Administrative Tribunal advised that the application for review 

was withdrawn. 

Compliance 

On 30 September 2011, a Dog Act Prosecution was heard before the Perth Magistrates Court. 

On that day the accused was convicted on both charges of "Dog Attack". The court agreed with 

submissions made on behalf of the Town that the attacks were extremely serious. However, in 

imposing fines in relation to the matters the Magistrate took into account that the accused had 

paid the complainant's veterinary bills in the sum of $8,900.00. On the first charge, the accused 

was fined $4,000.00. On the second charge, the accused was fined $2000.00 and ordered to 

pay costs of $1,476.45. 

On 4 November 2011, a Dog Act Prosecution was heard before the Perth Magistrates Court. 

On that day the accused appeared in person and was convicted on three charges of "Dog 

Attack". The accused pleaded guilty to the charges, the court imposed a fine of $1000.00 on 

each charge and ordered to pay costs of $1,124.70. 

On 7 November 2011, a Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrates Court for 

hearing. On that day the accused did not attend Court and was convicted in her absence 

pursuant to section 55 of the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. Upon conviction, the accused was 

fined $200.00 and ordered to pay costs in the amount of $500.00. 

A Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrates Court on the 16 November 2011, the 

accused did not attend and was convicted in his absence pursuant to section 55 of the Criminal 




Procedure Act 2004. The Court imposed a penalty of $200.00 and ordered the accused to pay 

the Town's costs in the amount of $796.50. 




That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period ending 30 November 2011 be received. 

Carried 8/0 




DV11.131 BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 


To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under 

delegated authority in November 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

Listed below are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of November 2011 and the 

comparative figures of the number of licences issued for the same month of the previous year. 

Financial Year to Date figures has also been listed to provide an indication of building activity. 

November 

2011 

November 

2010 

Financial Year 

to Date 

2011/2012 

Financial Year 

to Date 

2010/2011 

Building Licences 66 54 262 316 

Demolition Licences 3 5 31 43 

Building Approval 1 0 2 9 

Certificates 

(Acknowledgement 

of Unauthorised 

Structure) 

Special Licences 0 0 0 0 

Total 70 59 295 167 

Value of 

Construction 

$19,888,246 $14,538,818 $70,737,939 $69,823,166 




That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated 

authority for the month of November 2011, as attached to and forming part of the notice 

paper, be received. 

Carried 8/0 




COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee held on 14 November 2011 was 

submitted as under: 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.02 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Cr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Cr Colin Walker 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Rod Bradley 

Officers: 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 

Ross Bowman, Acting Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.00 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 136




Gillian Catlow and Charles Hoernmann, Halesworth Road, Jolimont 

Item CR11.153 - Five Year Program - Footpaths 

Question 

Is the request of one individual enough to schedule the construction of a new footpath? 

In Halesworth Road, we would be very surprised if anyone apart from this person felt the 

slightest need for a new concrete footpath. 

Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. The requirement for a path will be part 

of the Wembley Sports Park master plan. 

Item CR11.166 - Wembley Sports Park 

Question 1 

How and when will the Council inform the public about the next "forum" regarding the 

Traffic and Parking Study? 

If it is to be held before February, when the outcomes are scheduled to be presented to 

Council, it needs to be made public IMMEDIATELY, and not simply advertised in the 

POST a week beforehand when everyone is away on school holidays (which is how it 

was done last time). On your website, it also needs to be placed where everyone can 

see it, not on an obtrusive page. 

Response 

The public will be invited to submit comments on the Integrated Access and Parking 

Study for Wembley Sports Park once it is made available to the Town. The study report 

will be available from the Town's website. Advice of this will be made in the media. It is 

anticipated that the study report will not be received by the Town from its consultants until 

mid January 2012. 

The Council will consider a report at its December 2011 meeting recommending a public 

comment period. 

Question 2 

Is the public going to be informed about the landscaping plans before they are finalised? 

And are the results of the "tree audit" going to be made public? 

Response 

Council has determined that a landscaping design be undertaken for Wembley Sports 

Park. Council will determine the manner in which this design is developed and adopted. 




Question 3 

Under the heading Community Consultation, you talk about the Town's existing 

Community Consultation Matrix. Why is this Matrix not published on your website? 

Other Councils who have such a matrix go to lengths to explain the details to the 

community. As ratepayers we look to you, our Mayor and Councillors, as our 

representatives, working for the common good of this community. Why are we constantly 

given the feeling you withhold information from us and treat us almost as enemies, to be 

kept in the dark as long as possible. 

Response 

The Community Consultation Matrix is detailed in Policy No. 1.2.11, which is included in 

the Town's Policy Manual and is published on the Town's website. 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Deputations 

Item CR11.153 - Dr Ian Robertson 

Item CR11.162 - Damien Green, I Katcher Events 

Petition 

A petition signed by 371 residents of City Beach was submitted by Wendy Appleyard, 14 

Lentara Crescent, City Beach calling on the Town to "fund and establish community 

security patrols as soon as possible. To be presented at the Town's Community and 

Resources Committee meeting 12 December 2011." 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Walker 

That the petition be received. 

Carried 5/0 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 14 November 2011 as contained in November 2011 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 




CR11.153 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM (2012/13 TO 2016/17) - FOOTPATHS 


To review a Draft Five Year Program for footpaths as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 

2012/13 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in November 2010 (Item 

CR10.25). The first year of that program was then considered for funding in the Draft 2011/12 

Budget. 

This program considers the upgrading of slab footpaths and construction of new footpaths. To 

avoid confusion with the Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009, the construction of shared 

paths and bicycle minor works are reported separately as a Five Year Program for Shared 

Paths. Council last reviewed that program in September 2010, Item CR10.3. 

When the footpath projects that are funded in the 20011/12 Budget are complete, the state of 

construction of footpaths will be:- 

 

 

 

 

Length of slab footpaths: 22.8 km (17% of total); 

Length of brick paved footpaths (in commercial areas): 3.8 km (3% of total); 

Length of concrete footpaths 110.6 km (80% of total); and 

Total length of all footpaths: 137.2 km. 

The location of the remaining slab footpaths are shown graphically on the map provided in the 

attachment to this report. 

All slab and concrete paths are inspected annually to assess condition, identify tripping hazards 

and control risk. The inspection for 2011 is in progress and tripping hazards will be 

progressively removed by relaying the defective slabs and grinding the displacement in 

concrete paths. The condition assessment is one of the factors used to develop a priority order 

for upgrading slab paths to concrete. The condition is visually assessed by the proportion of 

cracked slabs, unevenness of surface and gaps between the slabs, and they are ranked as 

either 1, 2, 3 or 4. Their replacement is prioritised as follows:- 

 

 

 

Paths ranked as 1 and 2 only require maintenance. 

Paths ranked as 3 should be replaced in years 3, 4 or 5 of the program. 

Paths ranked as 4 should be replaced in year 1 and 2 of the program. 

DETAILS: 

Objective 

The objective of the footpath upgrading program is to provide a safe network of paths for 

people to travel by walking, running, riding bicycles or wheelchairs. The existing slab paths are 

now relatively expensive to maintain in a good condition and the best long term option is to 

upgrade them to an insitu poured concrete footpath. These are expected to last at least 40 

years with minimal maintenance. 




The minimum standard for upgrading footpaths is set out in Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – 

Upgrading Of”, that states:- 

 

 

Slab footpath adjacent to residential properties are upgraded to cast-insitu concrete; 

Slab footpaths adjacent to commercial properties are upgraded to brick paving. 

In addition to this minimum standard, the following standards are generally adopted:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1.2 metre wide slab footpaths are increased to 1.5 metre minimum width concrete 

footpaths. If possible, 2.0 metres will be provided. 

The 1.8 metre wide slab footpaths are increased to 2.0 metre width concrete paths so 

they can be classified as shared paths if required. 

Concrete paths that are 2.0 metres wide have “lock-joints” installed on the contraction 

joints to provide a smooth ride for cyclists. 

Concrete paths in reserves are coloured marigold or limestone. 

Levels of footpaths are adjusted to match the existing levels of service covers, verges 

and crossovers. 

The verge area adjacent to intersections with high traffic volumes are filled with coloured 

stencilled concrete. The colour is usually red brick or terracotta. 

Program 

The proposed Five Year Program is provided as an attachment to this report and lists the 

locations of New Footpaths and Replacement Footpaths. 

1. New Concrete Footpaths - The proposed new paths are all sourced from requests from 

the community. These sections of path are estimated to require a total funding of 

$400,000 and have been spread over Year 1 and 2 so that funding of the footpath 

program is similar to the current budget. Years 3, 4 and 5 do not have any new paths 

listed because it is intended that main slab footpath replacement program is completed 

as the first priority. A program of new path construction will then follow, based on 

extensive community consultation, to complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes 

for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops. 

The following community requests were received:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Barnsley Road - scheduled in Year 2 since it is a short road with low traffic. 

Bent Street - scheduled in Year 1 since it has high community support, medium 

traffic road, school and beach destinations, and the rising and setting sun creates a 

road safety issue. A copy of correspondence in support of this path are provided as 

an attachment to this report. Based on previous experience, it is likely that some 

residents will oppose any footpath in Bent Street. 

Berkeley Crescent - A survey of residents in Berkeley Crescent was not supportive 

of a footpath and this is not programmed. 

Crieff Street - scheduled Year 1 since it is a medium traffic road and a bus route. 

Dodd Street - North and South sides. Dodd Street is part of a route on the Perth 

Bicycle Network and services 3 schools and Lake Monger Reserve. There are no 

footpaths east of Gregory Street and pedestrians walk on a rough verge or a rough 

road. The shared path on the east side of Gregory Street has no connection to the 

shared paths around Lake Monger. This path section is included in the "Blue Sky" 

program of works in 2011/12. The development of the Speech and Hearing Centre 

is required to provide car parking and this should include a plan for a footpath on 

the north side of Dodd Street. 




 

 

 

 

Halesworth Road - this is scheduled in Year 2 pending the outcome of the Wembley 

Sports Park plans. 

Herdsman Parade - this is scheduled in Year 1 to coincide with resurfacing of this 

section of Herdsman Parade with grant funding. The recent developments on the 

north side of Herdsman Parade, between Selby Street and Marlow Street has 

significantly increased pedestrian traffic. 

Teslin Road - this is scheduled in Year 2 since it is a short road with low traffic. 

Tilton Terrace - this is scheduled in Year 2 pending community consultation. The 

scheduled replacement of a short section of slab path on Tilton Terrace will depend 

on which side the new path is constructed. 

2. Replacement of Slab Paths - The proposed program for upgrading slab footpaths to 

concrete footpaths was developed in consideration of:- 

There are approximately 23 kilometres of slab footpath remaining after June 2012. 

At the current funding, all remaining slab footpaths can be upgraded over a 5 year 

program at a rate of 4.6 kilometres each year. 

Condition of the existing slab path – the poorest condition rated paths are listed in 

the first years of the program. 

High pedestrian use or high traffic volume on adjacent road. 

Paths adjacent to hospitals, schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and 

bus stops. 

Community requests - Daglish Street, Dodd Street, Station Street, Linden Gardens, 

Salvado Road. 

Complete the footpaths on whole roads rather than isolated sections. 

The remaining sections of slab path on Salvado Road are currently deferred to Year 5 

until the plans for a shared path on Salvado Road, between Jersey and Haydn Bunton 

Drive are known. 


The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading 

Of”. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration of setting 

appropriate levels of funding for the Draft 2012/13 Budget. 

The current 2011/12 Budget provides a total of:- 

 

 

 

$554,400 for upgrading 5.0 kilometres of slab footpaths; 

$93,000 for construction of 0.75 kilometres of new paths; and 

$500,000 for the new shared path program. 

Total funding is $1,147,000 for the current budget year. 




It is proposed that a similar total level of funding is adopted, so that the program of replacement 

of all slab footpaths can be completed over the next 5 years. The first and second years of the 

program propose funding levels of approximately:- 

 

 

 

$460,000 to $480,000 for upgrading of 4.6 km paths each year; 

$150,000 to $194,000 for construction of 1.6km new paths each year; and 

$500,000 for shared path program. 

Total proposed funding is $1,110,000 to $1,174,000 per year for the first and second year of 

the program. 


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies; 

Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure 

their sustainability for future generations; 

Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc; and 

Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not 

Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in 

nature, with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2012/13. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Location of Footpaths Remaining After June 2012. 

2. Five Year Program for Footpaths 2012/13 - 2016/17. 

3. Supporting documentation - requests from community for Bent Street. 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for footpaths, as attached, be 

endorsed for planning and budget considerations; 

the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft 

2012/13 Budget. 


During discussion, Mayor Withers expressed concern with regard to new path construction and 

suggested that a program for new path construction to complete any missing links in the 

pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops be 

commenced as soon as possible rather than at the end of Year 5.. 




Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri 


(iii) a program of new path construction, based on extensive community consultation, to 

complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, 

recreational centres and bus stops be commenced as soon as possible. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 



the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in 

the Draft 2012/13 Budget; 

(iii) a program of new path construction, based on extensive community consultation, 

to complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial 

centres, recreational centres and bus stops be commenced as soon as possible. 

Cr MacRae left the meeting at 8.02 pm and returned at 8.04 pm. 

Amendment 


That clause (iii) of the motion be amended by deleting the words "based on extensive 

community consultation". 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 



the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in 

the Draft 2012/13 Budget; 

(iii) a program of new path construction to complete any missing links in the 

pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus 

stops be commenced as soon as possible. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.154 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT AND 20 YEAR PROGRAM FOR ROAD 

RESURFACING 


To review required expenditure levels and the revised 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road 

Resurfacing as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 2012/13 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council last reviewed this Road Resurfacing Program in November 2010 (Item CR10.39) 'Road 

Asset Management and Twenty Year Program for Road Resurfacing' and decided that:- 

“(i) 

(ii) 

the updated 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as an 

asset management program; 

the first year of the program be considered for funding in the 2011/12 Draft Budget”. 

The 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing was first developed in 2009 and lists a 

total of 144 kilometres of roads for resurfacing over a 20 year period. There is an additional 22 

kilometres of roads which are not on the program at this state. It was updated in November 

2011 to show:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Roads that were resurfaced in the 2010/2011 Budget. 

Roads that are funded for resurfacing in the current 2011/2012 Budget. 

Roads that will be funded by Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in the 2012/13 Budget. 

Roads that should be considered for applying for Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in 

2013/2014. 

Roads that should be considered for resurfacing as a priority in the 2012/2013 Budget. 

This program for the same 2010-2029 period is now presented as a planning tool for preparing 

the Draft 2012/13 Budget. The roads resurfaced in the 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 Budgets 

are retained on this program to show past trends. 

An independent review of road asset condition is generally carried out every 5 years with the 

next one due in 2014. This will generate a new twenty year program for the period 

2015–2034. 

DETAILS: 

The Town manages a total of 166 kilometres of sealed roads of which 8 kilometres is dual 

carriageway. In addition, the Town manages 21 kilometres of laneways (ROW's) of which 14 

kilometres is sealed and the balance is programmed to be upgraded to a seal standard over the 

next 10 years. 

The current strategy for maintaining these roads and lanes was originally derived from the 

ARRB road study carried out during 2004 and reported to Council on 24 November 2004. In 

2009, Pavement Analysis Pty Ltd confirmed that the Town’s road asset management was 

operating effectively and provided the first version of the 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for 

Road Resurfacing. This was reported to Council in October 2009 (Item IC09.87). 




The main components of this strategy are:- 

 

Distributor Roads - Total length 45.5 kilometres which includes 7.6 kilometres of dual 

carriageway and traffic volume greater than 2,000 vehicles per day. Most will qualify for 

MRRG grants depending on condition. Resurfacing is scheduled at a surface age of 20 

years. This means that an average of 2.3 kilometres per year will require resurfacing. In 

practice, distributor roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 15 and 25 

years in the Town. 

Local Access Roads - Total length 121 kilometres. Traffic volume less than 2,000 

vehicles per day. Resurfacing is scheduled every 30 years depending on condition. This 

means that an average of 4 kilometres per year will require resurfacing. In practice, local 

access roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 25 and 35 years in the 

Town. 

 

Condition of Precast Kerb - If short sections of precast kerb are misaligned then work is 

programmed to re-lay these sections. If long sections of kerb are deteriorated or are too 

low, then they are replaced with extruded kerb. This has been done on a large scale, for 

example on Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade and The Boulevard Service Road. The 

need for kerb replacement will increase over the next 20 years as the precast-kerbs 

reach the end of their useful lives. The replacement of kerb is a substantial item in this 

asset management strategy. At present, the replacement of kerb is deferred until it has 

become necessary due to a serious lack of kerb height or a significant number of kerb 

sections are broken or misaligned. The average value of kerb replacement currently 

ranges from $0 to approximately $160,000 each year. The report recommends that the 

Town considers replacing more kerbing to improve the cosmetic appearance of streets 

and construction standards. If kerb is not replaced at this opportunity, then it has to be 

good enough to last until the road is next resurfaced in 20-30 years time. 

Lanes - Traffic volume less than 200 vehicles per day. Total length 21 kilometres (14 

kilometres sealed). Schedule resurfacing every 30 years depending on condition. Two of 

the older lanes have been resurfaced in the last 10 years and more will be required in 

future years. 

Laneways will need to be added to the road resurfacing program as their seal age 

reaches 30 years. It is anticipated that funding of $65,000 per year will be required for 

resurfacing all 21 kilometres of lanes. This should coincide with the completion of the 

current lane upgrading program in approximately 10 years time that currently has funding 

of $300,000 per year. 

 

Condition of the Asphalt Seal - The condition of the asphalt is determined visually and 

a rating is given for asphalt type, surface defects, extent of patching, cracking, rutting and 

bitumen binder condition. The condition of the asphalt at the time of inspection will 

depend on its age, the original standard of road construction, type of sprayed seal or 

asphalt used for the wearing surface and traffic loading. As asphalt seals age, the 

cracking, rutting, defects, and binder condition all get progressively worse until one of 

them reaches an intervention level that dictates that the road must be resurfaced. These 

values are then assessed by a computer program to rank each section of road into a 20 

year program. The computer program uses a deterioration algorithm that predicts when 

each section of road requires resurfacing. The current standard road asset management 

computer software is ROMAN II and is currently supported by WALGA. 




 

Maintain a Uniform Expenditure Level - Uniform funding each year is adequate to 

maintain the current condition of roads for the next 20 years. The asphalt deterioration 

algorithm predicts that the roads are deteriorating uniformly and there are no “crisis 

years” where an abnormal length of road requires resurfacing in one year. 

Using the components of this strategy, the original 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road 

Resurfacing has been updated for preparing the Draft 2012/2013 Budget by listing:- 

 

 

Roads that were resurfaced in the previous and current Budgets for identifying trends. 

Distributor Roads that will be funded by Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in the 

2012/13 Budget. These were applied for in April 2011 and were approved by MRWA in 

November 2011: 

ROAD SECTION FUNDING 

Selby St 

Grantham St 

90m north of Ruislip Street to 90m north of Herdsman 

Parade 

Gregory Street to Marlow Street (excluding the 

Harborne Street intersection) 

$94,041 

$252,979 

Herdsman Pde Selby Street to Marlow Street $51,840 

Grantham St Keane Street to Seymour Avenue $95,256 

Harborne St 40m north of Dodd Street to Powis Street $18,144 

Total Funding $512,261 

Note: These grants only cover 2/3 of the total required for asphalt works. 

 

 

 

Distributor Roads that should be considered for applying for Metropolitan Regional Road 

Grants in 2013/14. Applications for these will be due in April 2012. 

Roads that should be considered for resurfacing in the 2012/13 Budget due to age and 

condition. These have been selected from the 2012, 2013 2014 and 2015 years of the 

program based on a more recent inspection than the inspection by Pavement Analysis in 

2009. As a result, the resurfacing of some roads is deferred and others are brought 

forward in the program. In addition, adjacent sections of road of similar condition are 

scheduled in the same year so that they may be resurfaced as one project and take 

advantage of a lower price associated with the large asphalt order. 

A section of road surface in Cambridge Street, between McCourt Street and Harborne 

Street, has started to fail and requires replacing. This is listed in the 2012/13 Year. 

The benchmark for resurfacing is 7.3 kilometres per year and is based on the average length of 

resurfacing scheduled over the 20 year program. This is slightly more than the 2.3 kilometres 

of Distributor Roads and 4 kilometres of Local Roads required on average because some of the 

roads are more than 30 years old and some catching up is required. 

The revised program is included in the report attachment and Budget 2012/13 works proposed 

are Year 2012 listings. 







There are no financial implications related to this report other than Council budget approvals. 

The 2011/12 Budget listed a total of $2,145,100 for road resurfacing that included $867,000 

grant funding and carry-forward funding. This left a residual of $1,278,100 to be funded by the 

Town in the current budget. The actual length of roads scheduled for resurfacing in the 

2011/12 Budget, not including carry-forwarded projects, is 6.89km. This is less than the 

benchmark of 7.28km/year. 

This review for the 2012/13 Budget proposes a funding level of $2,281,000 for 2012/13, to 

resurface and repair approximately 7.22 kilometres of road per year. This increase is required 

to allow for increase in asphalt costs anticipated in 2012/13. 

These works will be subsidised by three grants totalling $748,761:- 

Direct Grant of approximately $54,000 each year. 

Roads to Recovery Grant of $182,500 each year. 

Metropolitan Regional Road Grants (MRRG): $512,261 in 2012/13. 

This will leave a residual of approximately $1,500,000 to be funded by the Town in the 2012/13 

Budget. 

The Roads to Recovery Grant places an obligation on the Town to use the funds for works that 

would not normally be budgeted. The additional 0.9 kilometres of resurfacing above the 

average of 6.3 kilometres fulfils this obligation. 


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies. 


their sustainability for future generations. 

Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc. 

Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not 

Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in 

nature with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2012/13. 




SUMMARY: 

The original 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing has been updated for the 

same period of 2010–2029, without adding any roads or additional years. 

An independent review of road asset condition is generally carried out every 5 years and the 

next one is due in 2014. This will generate a new 20 year program for 2015–2034. 

The pavements within the Town continue to perform very much to expectations and 

deterioration modelling is predictable because of the excellent history of road construction. The 

level of predicted resurfacing has not increased from the 2004 predictions and the only 

adjustment required is financially, based on price variances for materials, labour and plant. 

This is expected to be 6% due to increases in bitumen prices, materials and labour. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Updated 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the updated 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as an 

asset management program; 

the projects listed in year 2012 of the program be considered for funding in the 

2012/13 Draft Budget. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.155 ROAD IMPROVEMENT - CAPITAL WORKS FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FROM 

2012/13 


To review a five year program for road improvement capital works projects. This program will 

assist with grant applications and the preparation of road designs and be used to formulate the 

Draft 2012/2013 Council Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

In December 2010 (Item CR10.56), Council considered a Road Improvement Capital Works 

Program for 2011/2012 to 2015/2016. It is now proposed that Council reviews and upgrades 

the program for the next five year period recognising the works that have been budgeted to be 

carried out in the 2011/2012 financial year. The recommended program was developed from 

Council's previously approved works and community requests with an objective to:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reduce traffic accidents; 

manage traffic speeds; 

reinforce the road hierarchy; 

provide cyclists and pedestrian facilities; 

upgrade the streetscape; 

recognise adjacent land developments. 

The criteria for prioritising work to be considered with this program includes:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

roadway capacity and efficiency; 

traffic accident statistics; 

traffic speed and volume statistics; 

community and Councillor requests; 

public transport requirements; 

pedestrian, cyclists and adjacent property requirements. 

Adoption of a plan of improvement is desirable due to the complexity of preparing designs in 

conjunction with existing public utilities, the time to obtain the necessary statutory approvals 

and to carry out community consultation. Further, the program allows for grant submissions to 

be prepared in line with Council approved direction and additional funding may be obtained if 

successful. 

DETAILS: 

Road Network 

The Council maintains approximately 166 kilometres of road. The road design standards 

conform with established Australian Standards and guidelines from Main Roads WA. All road 

traffic management signs and lines on all projects are required to be approved by Main Roads 

WA in accordance with the Main Roads WA Act. 




Council has established a road hierarchy that is coordinated with Main Roads WA and the West 

Australian Planning Commission. The road classifications within the Town's municipality are:- 

 

 

 

 

Primary distributor roads. These provide for major regional and inter-regional traffic 

movement and carry large volumes of generally fast moving traffic. These include 

Mitchell Freeway and West Coast Highway in the Town. These roads are managed by 

Main Roads WA; 

District distributor roads. These carry traffic between areas and generally connect to a 

primary distributor road. They generally form a grid which would ideally be spaced 

around 1.5 kilometres apart. They include Cambridge Street, Oceanic Drive, Grantham 

Street, Lake Monger Drive, The Boulevard, Herdsman Parade, Railway Parade, Harborne 

Street, Selby Street, Empire Avenue, Durston Road, Bold Park Drive, Howtree Place and 

Brookdale Street. They are managed by Local Government; 

Local distributor roads. These roads carry traffic within a residential cell and are linked to 

district distributor roads at the boundary of the cell. Local distributor roads distribute the 

traffic to local residential precinct cells. They include Kimberley Street, Ruislip Street, 

Kirkdale Avenue, Alderbury Street, Ulster Roads, Kalinda Drive, Brompton Road, 

Chipping Road and Kingsland Avenue. They are managed by Local Government; 

Access Roads. These provide access to abutting properties with amenity, safety and 

aesthetic aspects having priority over vehicle movement function. These roads are 

bicycle and pedestrian friendly. They are managed by Local Government. 

Recognising the varying demands on the various road classifications, the Council is challenged 

to develop different levels of serviceability for each criteria. 

Issues 

1. Council has been progressing a road strategy for the precinct of West Leederville since 

February 2005. The initial objectives were to:- 

 

 

 

ensure district traffic remains on district roads; 

reduce traffic accidents; 

provide a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. 

The coordination of some capital works initiatives has required some projects to be 

deferred as a result of:- 

(a) The work scope associated with redevelopment of Subiaco Oval. Refer October 

2008 reports IC08.86, 87 and 88; 

(b) The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. This was adopted by 

Council in December 2010. (Report DV10.122). 

The other projects listed have all progressed through successive years of review and it is 

the Council priorities which require consideration. Council may also wish to completely 

delete projects if they consider they are not warranted. 

When the work on the district roads has been completed in West Leederville there will be 

an assessment of West Leederville local area traffic management requirements and 

funds are proposed in the recommended program to accommodate this work. 




It is accepted all planning can now proceed as it is unlikely the Subiaco Oval will be 

redeveloped as a larger stadium and the West Leederville Planning Study now has been 

finalised. 

2. There have been a number of areas that have demanded improved kerbside parking. 

These include Cambridge Street, Essex Street, Birkdale Street and Northwood Street 

south of Cambridge Street, all adjacent to commercial developments. A Town Planning 

Access and Parking Strategy currently underway and will consider these issues. Upon 

completion of that review, funds can be allocated to consider the required work. Refer 

DV11.105 Nov 2011. 

3. Council receives a number of enquiries concerning local area traffic management. These 

are considered on their merit and referred to Budget when a specific project has been 

agreed with the community. The criteria priority ranking for these projects include:- 

 

 

 

proximity to schools; 

projects near hospitals; 

roads where the 85 th percentile traffic speed is in excess of 60kph. 

Projects Proposed for Year 1, 2012 - 2013 

A number of projects have been identified for inclusion in the first year of the 5 Year Program of 

road works. 

These consist of items which have previously been reported to Council together with works 

which have been the subject of requests from residents/ratepayers and following investigation 

have been assessed as having a high priority for safety and amenity reasons. 

PROJECT 

Cambridge St - Northwood St to 

Kimberley St - Street 

enhancement Stage 1. 

Cambridge St - Kimberley St to 

Southport Street- Street 

enhancement Stage 2. 

Cambridge Street/Southport 

intersection - relocate Telecom pit. 

Lake Monger Drive - improve 

median width for pedestrian 

crossings west of Northwood St 

and east of St Vincents Ave to 

Lake Monger. 

Cambridge Street/Selby St - 

Drainage Improvements. 

Empire Ave/Durston Road 

intersection - Construct 

roundabout or chanelise. 

Denton Street - widen from 7.35 m 

to 8.0 m over 130 m to provide 

room for parked vehicles on both 

sides. 

COMMENT 

"High Street" - Street enhancement Stage 1. 

"High Street" - Street enhancement Stage 2. 

Bus Route. Move Telecom pit westwards from 

traffic signals to allow better bus access from 

Southport left into Cambridge Street. 

WLRA meeting request Nov 2010. CR 11.137 

November 2011. 

WLRA meeting request Nov 2010. CR 11.124 

October 2011. 

Refer CR 11.88 July 2011. Roundabout option 

costing $ 460,000 shelved. Request a review of 

design options be carried out with city of Stirling. 

Duplicate like Corboy Street. Width 7.35 m Length 

130m. Traffic 3600 veh/day. Parking unrestricted 

on west side. No parking on east side. Will need 

stakeholder input to see whether to widen to 8.0 m 

or have a parking clearway in the afternoon 4.15 - 

6.00 pm to solve the apparent problem. Requested 

by local resident in February 2009. 

BUDGET 

COST 

TBA 

TBA 

$150,000 

$150,000 

$300,000 

TBA 

$60,000 




Selby Street - Grantham Street to 

The Boulevard – establish central 

brown asphalt median and/or 

parking nibs. 

Peebles Rd / Moray Ave -Traffic 

Islands in Peebles Road. 

Assist pedestrians crossing and create traffic 

calming. Do with asphalt program 2012/13. Also 

programmed is Shared Path widening. 

Resident request to improve safety and reinforce 

crossroad. Do with asphalt program in 2012/13. 

$50,000 

$50,000 

Daglish Street - remove chicane 

between No 12 & 13. New 

plateaux. 

Essex Street - remove chicane 

north of Cambridge St. New 

plateaux. 

Oban Road - Gayton to Simon 

Place median and footpath. 

Cromarty Road - just east of Crief. 

Remove central raised median. 

Perry Lakes Drive/Underwood 

Ave Intersection - widen for left 

turn. 

Salvado Road - Disabled 

pedestrian crossings at traffic 

signals near SJOG hospital. 

Traffic Signals - disability access. 

CR 11.90 July 2011. Refer to 2012/13 Budget 

Considerations. 

$20,000 

Community request from adjacent property. $20,000 

Traffic and pedestrian safety improvements. Median 

and new Shared path adjacent to Beecroft park. 

Due for removal when University relocated. 

Improves access to 21, 23, 25 and 27 Cromarty 

Road. 

Traffic held up when vehicles wish to turn right. 

Need left slip lane. 

Retrofit audible/tactile crossings at traffic signals 

along Salvado Road near hospital. Disabled 

request December 2008. $20,000 x 2 No. 

Install audible clickers to all traffic signals to allow 

blind people to cross on green signal. EDI Downer 

estimate $25,000 per site. Requested by 

Association for Blind in January 2009 for signals at 

Harborne/Cambridge and Harborne/ Salvado. 

TBA 

$10,000 

$10,000 

$40,000 

$50,000 

Other Projects 

Each year, a review of the traffic accident statistics is compiled and forwarded by Main Roads 

WA. From the review of this data, new projects are highlighted. State and Federal Black Spot 

Grant applications are assessed annually for Council consideration. When these projects are 

successful, a Council contribution of approximately one third of the project cost is required for 

State grants. Federal Blackspot projects are fully funded and do not require a contribution from 

the Town. A list of Council's Blackspot submissions was considered in September 2011 and 

November 2011. Details are:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Boulvard/Howtree - signals review and modifications 

Grantham/Crosby - intersection traffic islands 

Gregory/Ruislip - Intersection traffic islands 

Howtree/Oceanic Drive/Brookdale St - traffic signal modifications 

Cambridge/Kimberley - traffic island on North side 

Loftus/MacEwan - traffic island 

The Boulevard/Grantham Street - skid resistant treatment. 

The State Government provides grants for Local Government road improvement and 

rehabilitation funding based on a cost benefit ratio assessment. These projects may be chosen 

from those incorporated in the five year works program, however, they must meet a specific 

criteria for improvement of the street environment as well as show that they have a priority 

greater than those submitted by other Councils throughout the State. The road rehabilitation 

grants are specifically for road asphalt resurfacing and may be supported by Council funds for 

upgrading of kerbing and/or drainage. This will be identified in the specific submission to Main 

Roads WA and reports for Council consideration. 




Other Capital Works Programs 

This program of projects is supplemented by other programs presented to Council:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Five Year Program for Footpaths 

Program for Road Resurfacing 

Laneway Upgrading Program 

Bicycle Path Plan Program 

Development of a drainage program resultant from CCTV assessment of infrastructure. 


All roads are designed to the Austroads, relevant Australian Standards and Main Roads WA 

guidelines. Main Roads WA signs and lines approval is required prior to proceeding to 

construction. 


The estimated cost of the budgeted works in the past has been up to $700,000 per year. This 

level is then supplemented by grants. It is proposed that this level of funding be continued 

when developing this Draft program. Further, it can be reviewed depending on the level of 

grants that Council road issues can attract and the matching contributions required. The 

program this year has exceeded $700,000 as strategic projects like the Cambridge High Street 

and drainage improvements for Cambridge/Selby Street have been listed for assessment. 


The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the Town's strategic 

direction and goals, namely:- 

 

 

 

Transport choice. 

Alignment of Town plans with community needs. 

Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained. 


This project has been assessed under the community consultation policy. 

As this report is for information, consultation has not been undertaken. Any projects which are 

included in the Draft Budget will be the subject of consultation. 

SUMMARY: 

Council reviews a five year capital works program annually. This review is submitted for 

Council discussion, generally in November/December each year, and then forwarded to be 

considered in the Budget for the following financial year. Further, the projects in the review are 

progressed to design to refine the Budget estimates which assist with grant applications and to 

enable the works to be carried out in the following financial year. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Capital Works Roadworks Priorities Program 2012/2013 to 2016/2017. 





Prior to consideration of this item, Cr MacRae, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local 

Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 

8.04 pm. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed five year capital road works program for 2012/2013 to 2016/2017, as 

attached, be endorsed for future planning and budget preparation; 

the Blackspot Programs for the Draft 2012/13 budget be:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Boulvard/Howtree - signals review and modifications 

Grantham/Crosby - intersection traffic islands 

Gregory/Ruislip - Intersection traffic islands 

Howtree/Oceanic Drive/Brookdale St - traffic signal modifications 

Cambridge/Kimberley - traffic island on North side 

Loftus/MacEwan - traffic island 

The Boulevard/Grantham Street - skid resistant treatment. 

(iii) the projects as listed on the 5 Year Program for Year 1, 2012 - 2013:- 

1. Cambridge St - Northwood St to Kimberley St - Street enhancement Stage 1 

2. Cambridge St - Kimberley St to Southport Street- Street enhancement Stage 2 

3. Cambridge Street / Southport intersection - relocate Telecom pit 

4. Lake Monger Drive - improve median width for pedestrian crossings west of 

Northwood St and east of St Vincents Ave to Lake Monger 

5. Cambridge Street / Selby St - Drainage Improvements 

6. Empire Ave/Durston Road intersection - Construct traffic management works 

7. Denton Street - widen from 7.35 m to 8.0 m over 130 m to provide room for 

parked vehicles on both sides 

8. Selby Street - Grantham Street to The Boulevard – establish central brown 

asphalt median and/or parking nibs 

9. Peebles Rd / Moray Ave -Traffic Islands in Peebles Road 

10. Daglish Street - remove chicane between No 12 & 13. New plateaux 

11. Essex Street - remove chicane north of Cambridge St. New plateaux 

12. Oban Road - Gayton to Simon Place median and footpath 

13. Cromarty Road - just east of Crief. Remove central raised median 

14. Perry Lakes Drive / Underwood Ave Intersection - widen for left turn 

15. Salvado Road - Disabled pedestrian crossings at traffic signals near SJOG 

hospital 

16. Traffic Signals - disability access 

be included in the 2012 - 2013 draft budget submission for consideration by 

Council; 

(iv) investigation, design and grant funding application be prepared in line with the 

accepted five year program; 




(v) 

the five year capital road works program be referred to the 2012/2013 Draft Budget 

discussions. 

Carried 7/0 




CR11.156 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE BICYCLE PLAN 2009 - WORKS PROGRAM FOR 

2011/12 


To consider the priorities and approve an implementation plan for "Blue Sky" shared path 

projects that will be constructed from the $500,000 "Shared Path Program" item in the 2011/12 

Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

Blue Sky shared path projects are the larger projects in the Town's Bicycle Plan 2009. Some of 

these projects are straightforward and may be implemented with little planning or consultation. 

Other projects require more extensive planning and consultation. 

In September 2010, Council considered the "Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009 - 5 Year 

Program" (Item CR10.3) and decided:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Five Year Program for the Bicycle Plan, reviewed annually with budget, be endorsed 

and incorporated into the Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009; 

the funding of $500,000 listed in the 2010/11 Budget be used to carry out high priority 

shared paths on Brompton Road, Gregory Street, Lake Monger Drive, and Salvado Road; 

(iii) the plan be reviewed following preliminary design on specific Blue Sky projects as 

detailed in this report including a path along Brookdale Street, from Alderbury Street to 

Oceanic Drive, and prepared on the basis $500,000 is available in future budgets for 

construction and design". 

In February 2011, Council considered "Empire Avenue - Proposal for Shared Path Next to 

Wembley Golf Course" (Item CR11.2) and decided: 

"That the Administration prepare a report on implementing the Blue Sky Projects, including 

revised priorities, preliminary plans and an implementation schedule". 

DETAILS: 

The total shared path projects constructed in the previous Budget (2010/11) were:- 

Road Section Length 

m 

Funding 

$ 

West Coast Hway Hale to Carpark C316 670 $150,000 (includes $50,000 grant) 

Jon Sanders Drive Harborne to Herdsman 220 $30,000 (includes $20,000 grant) 

Pearson Street Turriff to Cromarty 460 $50,000 (includes $25,000 grant) 

Hay Street Selby to Halesworth 50 $5,000 

Grantham Street Seymour to The Boulevard 940 $91,900 

Brompton Road Empire to Hale 930 $130,000 

Lake Monger Drive Gregory to Southport 260 $60,000 

Gregory Street Lake Monger to Dodd 1050 $175,000 

Salvado Road Haydn Bunton to Station 400 $0 project deferred - City of Subiaco 




Lake Monger 

Reserve 

Lake Monger 

Reserve 

Legal Signing of 

Shared Paths 

South sides 550 $90,000 in progress 

West side 550 $150,000 in progress 

All shared paths painted 

with symbols to make them 

legal. 

$20,000 (includes $10,000 grant) 

The shared path on Brompton Road was created by widening the existing 1.5 metre path to a 3 

metre width. The section between Empire Avenue and Bent Street has several narrow sections 

where the original 1.5 metre wide path could not be widened due to the proximity of street 

trees. If the trees are relocated, then the path can be made 3.0 metres wide for the entire 

length. 

The shared path on Salvado Road between Haydn Bunton Drive and Station Street was 

deferred due to the development of a larger shared path project on Salvado Road between 

Selby Street and Haydn Bunton Drive with the City of Subiaco. This was reported to Council in 

April 2011 (Item CR11.32). 

Drawing "Appendix I Town of Cambridge Long Term Bike Plan", from the Bike Plan 2009, has 

been updated to show the current network of shared paths. A copy of this plan is provided as 

an attachment to this report. The functioning shared paths are shown in red and the paths that 

are proposed for construction are shown in purple. The paths that are proposed for 

construction may be scheduled on a 5 year program with approximately $500,000 funding per 

year as listed in the table below. 

Road Section Length Funding 

Comment 

$ 

Year 1 

West Coast Helston - 

500 100,000 The existing alternative bike route is 

Highway 

Underpass (West) 

on-road on Launceston Avenue. 

West Coast Underpass - 

500 100,000 Uses underpass as a safe crossing 

Highway 

Rochdale (East) 

of West Coast Highway. Need 

approval from BGPA for access 

from east end of underpass up to 

West Coast Highway. 

Railway Parade Haydn Bunton - 

West Leederville 

Train Station 

320 60,000 Required for pedestrians as well. 

Requires removal of some shrubs 

and trees. 

(South) 

Dodd Street Harborne - End 350 70,000 Missing link and will complement 

Southport Street 

Tower - Lake 

Monger Drive 

(West) 

Dodd Street roadworks in 2012. 

100 50,000 Widen narrow sections (1.7m) and 

install guard-rail at traffic signals to 

protect path users. Requires 

MRWA approval. 

Pearson Place Turriff - Peebles 280 50,000 Missing link behind Herdsman 

(East) 

Shopping Centre. 

Grantham Street Selby - Seymour 220 50,000 Widen existing 1.5 m path to 3.0m. 

(South) 

Crosby Street Peebles - 

Grantham (East) 

100 20,000 Missing link between Pearson Place 

and Grantham Street. 

Underwood 

Avenue 

Meagher - 

Brookdale (North) 

350 $0 Will be constructed as part of Perry 

Lakes Development Stage 3. 

Total 500,000 




Year 2 

Brompton Road + Hale - Peasholm 

Drabble Road West 

Empire Avenue The Boulevard - 

Cromarty 

Selby Street The Boulevard - 

Gregory Street Grantham - 

Cambridge (East) 

Year 3 

Salvado Road 

Year 4 

Kalinda Drive 

640 120,000 Widen existing 1.5 m path to 3.0m. 

600 110,000 The existing alternative bike route is 

on on-road on Alyth Road 

580 110,000 Residents campaigned against a 

Grantham (West) 

footpath on west side in 2003. 

700 160,000 Requires all street trees removed 

and replaced to make space for a 

2.5 m wide path. 

Total 500,000 

Bishop - Haydn 1500 800,000 Item CR11.32 Major roadworks 

Bunton Drive 

involved. $1.6 million estimate. 

Shared with City of Subiaco. 

Total 1500 800,000 

Kalari - The 

Boulevard East 

970 300,000 Widen existing 1.5 m path to 3.0m. 

Requires retaining wall 

Ruislip Street Marlow - Selby 340 65,000 Petition received against this section 

of path in November 2010. Item 

CR10.41 

Total 365,000 

Year 5 

Empire Avenue Cromarty - Durston 1900 400,000 Item CR11.2. Deferred until this 

report. Retaining walls and netting 

required next to Wembley Golf 

Course. 

Brookdale Street Alderbury - 

Oceanic 

Total 480,000 

400 80,000 Widen existing shared path from 

2.0m to 3.0m. Cycle lanes installed. 

The projects in this Five Year Program have been prioritised to address the following objectives 

in the Bike Plan 2009:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Year 1 group indicates the projects that may funded in the 2011/12 Budget. These 

are straightforward projects that complete missing links in the network. 

The Year 2 group indicates projects that require more planning. 

The major Salvado Road project has been scheduled in Year 3 to allow time for planning 

with the view that this can be moved forward to Year 2 if possible or back to Year 4 if 

necessary. 

The Year 4 and 5 projects are expensive projects with lower priority. 

The principal goal of the Bike Plan is to promote confidence in the Town’s bike network 

and thereby encourage cycling. 

Bike paths link destinations (and not come from nowhere and/or go to nowhere). 

Where possible, the bike path network connect to the Perth Bicycle Network and 

adjoining Council’s cycle networks (Subiaco, Nedlands, Stirling, Perth and Vincent). 

Funding and construction will focus on the end to end completion of the most important 

routes. 

Initial priority will be given to the following routes:- 

1. Salvado Road (Selby Street to Haydn Bunton Drive) 

2. Railway Parade (Haydn Bunton Drive to Southport Street) 

3. Underwood Avenue (Brookdale Street to Nedlands boundary) 

4. Hay Street (Selby Street to Subiaco boundary) 

5. Selby Street (Herdsman Lake to Stubbs Terrace) 

6. Southport Street (Railway Parade to Lake Monger Drive). 




 

These Blue Sky projects concentrate on major north-south and east-west links through the 

Town of Cambridge. These projects are used in developing a program of works totalling 

$500,000 per year which would, if completed as programmed, provide immediate 

improvement to the existing bike network by completing existing links or providing new 

links. 

Other Blue Sky options for development, but not shown on drawing Appendix I, include:- 

1. Path through Bold Park between Bold Park Drive, linking to Bold Park Pool and The 

Boulevard. 

2. Path through the Wembley Golf Course connecting the main access, driving range and 

exiting on Empire Avenue adjacent to the Herdsman drain. 

3. Path along the Herdsman drain linking Empire Avenue to Pearson Street (City of Stirling). 

Future Planning 

It is proposed the "Blue Sky" Shared Path Program be reviewed again during 2012 in order to 

integrate with work currently being completed by the Department of Transport. The work being 

carried out involves development of a state Moving People Plan. This plan covers the entire 

metropolitan area and considers issues like:- 

 

 

 

Location and function of activity centres and provision of priority for pedestrians and 

transport modes. 

Location and function of key employment areas and how to best provide transport to them. 

Preferred networks for different modes of transport including pedestrians, cyclists, public 

transport, general traffic and freight movements. 

It is also noted a Draft of a new WA Bike Plan is expected to be released for public comment in 

January 2012. 




Year 1 of the Five Year Program is included in the 2011/12 Budget and has a total funding of 

$500,000. 


The recommendations of this report supports the goals of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 

of providing:- 

- services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with 

personal and community safety; and 

- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the 

improvement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc). 





In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation was carried out in the 

preparation of the Bicycle Plan 2009 on which this 5 year program is based. 

SUMMARY: 

The Town of Cambridge Bike Plan 2009 indicates how the existing network of bicycle paths 

should be improved over the next five years. Appendix I - "Town of Cambridge Long Term Bike 

Plan (map)" from the Bike Plan has been updated to show the completed shared path projects 

that were funded in the 2010/11 Budget. 

The remaining shared path projects proposed in the Bike Plan 2009 are listed in this report with 

a revised estimate of cost and ranked in a revised five year program of works. The total value 

of each year's of projects is approximately $500,000 so that they may be funded by the 

$500,000 Shared Path Program item in future budgets. 

Year 1 of this program is recommended for the Shared Path Program item in the Draft 2011/12 

Budget. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Appendix I - Town of Cambridge Long Term Bike Plan (map). 


During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information on the 

possibility of creating a shared path by widening the existing path on Dodd Street from 

Harborne Street to Herdsman Parade. It was noted that construction of new path sections and 

replacement of existing slabs is part of the proposed 2012/13 works listed in report CR11.153 

in the December 2011 Council Agenda. 




That funding of $500,000 listed in the adopted 2011/12 Budget be used to carry out high 

priority shared paths on:- 

(i) West Coast Highway (Helston - Underpass West) - $100,000; 

(ii) West Coast Highway (Underpass - Rochdale East) - $100,000; 

(iii) Railway Parade (Haydn Bunton - West Leederville Train Station South) - $60,000; 

(iv) Dodd Street (Harborne - End) - $70,000; 

(v) Southport Street (Tower - Lake Monger Drive West) - $50,000; 

(vi) Pearson Place (Turriff - Peebles East) - $50,000; 

(vii) Grantham Street (Selby - Seymour South) - $50,000; 

(viii) Crosby Street (Peebles - Grantham East) - $20,000; 

(ix) Underwood Avenue (Meagher - Brockway North) - $Nil (Perry Lakes Stage 3). 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.157 INFRASTRUCTURE PARKS 2012/2013 PROPOSED BUDGET WORKS 


To list Capital and Non-Capital projects which relate to the Infrastructure Parks service area 

and are proposed for inclusion in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town's Infrastructure Parks service area currently manages 474 hectares of Parks, 

Sportsgrounds and landscaped Road Reserves (excluding the Wembley Golf Course). To 

manage the various assets, facilities and landscaping components within these areas to 

appropriate safety and quality standards, individual asset management programmes/plans 

have been developed. These programmes list every asset within the Infrastructure Parks 

service area which are prioritised (according to their condition) and are allocated a cost 

estimate for budgeting purposes when they need to be upgraded or replaced. 

In addition, there is the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018, the Perry Lakes 

Reserve Environmental Management Plan 2001, the Coastal Natural Areas Management Plan 

2006-2010 and associated implementation programmes which guide the management and 

improvement of these reserves. 

Council has previously endorsed all of these management and implementation programmes in 

previous Council reports. The Administration updates the programs annually to identify 

completed projects and proposed projects to be funded. The annual review of the programmes 

has been completed and a summarised version of these programmes is included in the report 

attachment. 

DETAILS: 

Capital projects are listed in the Capital section of the Budget within the “Infrastructure - Parks 

and Reserves” category. Non-Capital projects are listed in the Operating section of the Budget 

within their designated “Grounds Maintenance” categories. 

Items including Capital and Non-Capital, proposed to be included in the 2012/2013 Draft 

Budget, have been individually identified and listed below under the various four categories in 

accordance with the current Budget format:- 

1. Parks Construction: 

Project 

Budget 

$ 

Beecroft Park – Install New Barbecue 12,000 

Bent Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

Birkdale Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

City Beach Civic Centre - Upgrade Garden Beds (Stage 3 of 4) 30,000 

Contingency Emergency Irrigation Repairs 50,000 

Helston Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump (Reserve Funds) 15,000 

Holyrood Park - Service Pump 8,000 

Lake Monger Reserve - Develop Bore & Service Pump 186 15,000 




Lake Monger Reserve - Management of Rehabilitated Zones 40,000 

(Includes $26,600 combined annual contribution, City of Vincent & MRWA) 

Lake Monger Reserve - Decorate Christmas Tree 16,000 

Lake Monger Reserve – Tree Planting Program in Lawn Areas 5,000 

Lake Monger Reserve – Aboricultural Works 20,000 

Lake Monger Reserve – Security Light Upgrade Program (Stage 1 of 4) 140,000 

Leederville Memorial Gardens - Install Up Lighting to Memorial 20,000 

Leederville Memorial Gardens - Resurface Carpark 45,000 

Maloney Park - Upgrade Garden Beds (Stage 3 of 6) 15,000 

Perry Lakes Reserve - Arboricultural / Tree Planting Works 25,000 

Perry Lakes Reserve - Remove Lake Tree Weeds 20,000 

Perry Lakes Reserve - Develop Bore & Service Pump 43 14,000 

Ruislip Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

Various Parks – Ground Water Monitoring 15,000 

Various Parks - Biodiversity Action Plan Rehab Works 46,500 

Various Parks - Install Seats/Bins/Drink Fountains 15,000 

Various Parks - Iron Bacteria Bore Treatment 15,000 

Various Parks – Replace Swings/Minor Play Items/Sand 30,000 

Various Parks - Upgrade Garden Beds 8,000 

Various Parks - Upgrade Park Signs 5,000 

Winmarley Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

Total: 684,500 

The 2011/2012 adopted Budget included a total of $1,521,600 associated with works relating to 

the Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program 

was from the following accounts:- 

• Municipal $ 711,000 

• Carry Forward $ 724,600 

• Reserves $ 50,000 

• ELA $ 10,000 

• Grants/Contributions $ 26,000 (City of Vincent, MRWA) 

$1,521,600 

2. Sportsgrounds Construction: 

Project 

Budget 

$ 

Alderbury Sportsground - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

City Beach Oval - Develop Bore & Service Pump 35 15,000 

City Beach Oval North- Replace Synthetic surface to cricket wicket 5,000 

Floreat Oval - Develop Bore & Service Pump 11 5,000 

Grantham Park - Resurface Carpark 20,000 

Henderson Park - Replace Synthetic Surface to cricket wicket nets 5,000 

Pat Goodridge Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

Various Sportsgrounds – Best Practice Turf Management 2,500 

Various Sportsgrounds - Renovate Active Turf Areas 33,000 

Total: 115,500 




The 2011/2012 adopted Budget included a total of $235,300 associated with works relating to 

the Sportsgrounds Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this 

program was from the following accounts:- 

• Municipal $215,500 


• Reserve Nil 

• Endowment Nil 

• Grants Nil 

Total: $235,300 

Note: This does not include works budgeted for Wembley Sports Park. 

3. Ocean Beaches Construction: 

Project 

Budget 

$ 

Beaches and Dunes – Upgrade City Beach Groyne 420,000 

(Dept of Transport $210,000, Grant Application 

Beaches and Dunes - Upgrade Beach Access Paths 15,000 

Beaches and Dunes - Replace/Remove Fence (stage 2 of 4) 20,000 

Beaches and Dunes - Rehabilitation with Cambridge Coastcare 20,000 

Floreat Beach Park - Upgrade Landscaping (stage 2 of 3) 20,000 

Total: 495,000 

The City Beach Groyne Upgrade is a new project as a result of a complete assessment 

undertaken of its structural integrity in 2009. The upgrade of this groyne will include 

repositioning and repacking of existing armour rock and the placement of new armour rock to 

strengthen it. This includes increasing the length of the rock armour (not the groyne or the 

path) protecting the core eastwards by approximately 25 metres, stopping approximately 15 

metres short of the eastern end of the existing groyne path. 

The total cost of the project has been estimated at $420,000 based on 2012 prices. This 

amount is proposed to be made up of funds/contributions as follows: 

Department of Transport $210,000 

Existing Council Funds from 2011/12 FY Nil 

Additional Funds requested 2012/13 FY $210,000 

Total: $420,000 

This project can be staged over two years, however, to do this the estimated cost of the total 

project is increased to $540,000. Preliminary discussions with the Department of Transport 

indicate that the project may attract 50/50 grant funding and expressions of interest applications 

will be invited in early 2012. For further details refer to attachment 2 of this report. 





the Ocean Beaches Construction and Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this 

program was from the following accounts:- 





• Grants $ 88,000 

Total: $306,300 

4. Road Reserves Construction: 

Project 

Budget 

$ 

Brompton/Bent Roundabout - Install concrete surround 5,000 

Treescape Plan - Holyrood St Ficus Trees Risk Management 30,000 

Lake Monger Drive Median - Upgrade Entry Statement Garden 10,000 

Treescape Plan – Priority Streets Improvement Program 117,000 

Treescape Plan – Precinct Streets Planting Program 80,000 

Treescape Plan - Pine/Ficus/Palm Trees Management 70,000 

The Boulevard Median – Develop Bore & Service Pump 26 15,000 

Vincent St West Median - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000 

Various Road Reserves – Upgrade Garden Beds 8,000 

West Coast Highway Median - Upgrade Landscaping (Stage 3 of 4) 5,000 

Total: 355,000 


the Road Reserves Construction Program. The funding source for this program was from the 

following accounts:- 





• Grants Nil 

Total: $188,000 

The proper management and annual funding of the four programmes ensures the provision of 

quality parks facilities, improvement of those facilities, compliance with appropriate safety and 

health requirements and is intended to meet the needs of the community. 

The projects listed within each program are proposed to be included in the 2012/2013 Draft 

Budget for Council consideration. This list is not a final Draft Budget list as other projects may 

be identified for inclusion between now and the Draft Budget submission date in 2012. 

It will be recommended that Council considers funding the various projects which have been 

listed in the above programs. 







Past funding of the programs listed in this report has been supplemented from Council’s 

Reserve Accounts, in particular, the Area Improvement Reserve and Endowment Lands 

Account. The continued use of funds from these accounts will be subject to the availability of 

funds from within those reserves and the level of development works being carried out by the 

Town in other areas of operations. 

Council has previously been successful in securing grant funding for eligible projects. Grant 

applications will again be submitted as they become available for those projects considered 

eligible. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; 

Continuously adapt and improve our services; 


their sustainability for future generations; 

Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately. 


The implementation of individual projects within the programs listed in this report are 

undertaken so as to minimise any problems with the various stakeholders of the parks and 

sportsgrounds where works will be undertaken. Depending on the program, sporting clubs, 

user groups, community groups and individual residents are included in discussions when 

developing works programs and construction schedules. 

In addition, each project is assessed using the Town’s Community Consultation Policy. This 

report is for information purposes and therefore an assessment in relation to this policy was not 

undertaken. It is Council policy to publicly advertise the content of the Draft Budget prior to 

adopting an annual Budget. 

SUMMARY: 

Various asset management and works programs/plans are managed within the Infrastructure 

Parks service area. These programmes list every existing asset and proposed new assets 

within this service area which are prioritised and costed for budgeting purposes when they 

require upgrading or replacement. 

The proper management and funding of the above programs ensure that Council’s major 

assets are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis with the aim of raising the quality 

standard of assets throughout the Town's parks, comply to appropriate safety and health 

standards, as well as meeting the needs of the community. 

Details of individual projects as categorised in the four Budget programmes of the current 

Budget format and listed in this report, are recommended for inclusion in the 2012/2013 Draft 

Budget for Council consideration. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Infrastructure Parks Asset Management Programmes Summary (Reviewed Nov. 2011) 

and Asset Management Programmes Overview (Reviewed Nov 2011). 

2. City Beach Groyne Works Scope - email from Department of Transport 29 August 2011 

and correspondence from Consultants MP Rogers & Associates 23 September 2009. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report on Infrastructure Parks 2012/2013 proposed Budget works programmes 

be received; 

projects identified for implementation in (i) above be considered for inclusion in 

the 2012/2013 Draft Budget with an estimated total of each program as follows:- 

Program 

Proposed Budget 

1. Parks $ 684,500 

2. Sportsgrounds $ 115,500 

3. Ocean Beaches $ 495,000 

4. Road Reserves $ 355,000 

$1,650,000 

(iii) grant applications be submitted as they become available for those projects 

considered eligible. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.158 LAKE MONGER RESERVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 


To provide information to Council on current lake water quality monitoring at Lake Monger 

Reserve, and the proposed presentation to the Lake Monger Working Group of a student's 

thesis, from the University of Western Australia, on nutrient cycling at Lake Monger Reserve. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018 Implementation Program lists the 

following proposed actions in relation to water quality:- 

 

 

 

Continue water quality monitoring and lake level management; 

Develop and implement a program that monitors the effectiveness of the planted fringing 

native vegetation in minimising the nutrient input into the lake; and 

Investigate measures to reduce nutrients entering the lake from groundwater. 

To address the above actions, a Water Quality Monitoring Program was produced in March 

2011 with the following objectives:- 

 

 

 

Collate all water quality data and entry into an integrated environmental data assessment 

program; 

Determine whether the beneficial uses of Lake Monger and the wider reserve are being 

impacted; and 

Provide sufficient information to reliably detect seasonal trends in water quality and the 

effectiveness of management programs/strategies. 

A sampling workscope has been developed for the above program and will include the analysis 

of water samples from the lake, drains and groundwater, to be undertaken every six months, 

commencing in autumn of 2012 and include the presentation of an annual report to interpret the 

data. Over time this will provide trends in water quality. 

To assist with assessing the water quality in Lake Monger, assistance has been provided 

through the University of Western Australia. 

DETAILS: 

Professor Jorg Imberger, Director for the Centre for Water Research at the University of 

Western Australia, has been providing services and advice to the Town in relation to lake water 

quality management at Lake Monger Reserve since November 2010. 

The University of Western Australia has installed a measuring instrument in the middle of the 

lake aimed at providing the Town and other interested parties with a real-time management 

system online for Lake Monger, to predict its ecological health and the dispersion of effluent 

from stormwater drains. The Town has contributed $5,000 towards the cost of this instrument 

which is managed by the University of Western Australia. 

Since July 2011, Professor Imberger has assigned a student from Italy to do his thesis on 

nutrient cycling at Lake Monger Reserve and there is also the possibility of another PhD 

student doing work on pathogens at the lake. The Town has funded water quality analysis 




costs of $9,000 which has assisted with the thesis to date. This water analysis is a 

programmed budget expenditure. 

At the request of the University of Western Australia, the Administrations of the Town of 

Cambridge and the City of Vincent have given the University of Western Australia approval to 

install a groundwater monitoring bore at Lake Monger Reserve (Cambridge) and Britannia 

Road Reserve (Vincent) to assist with ongoing monitoring of lake water quality and, in 

particular, to understand the relationship between groundwater and lake water quality. The 

Town will fund the cost of the bore estimated at $5,000 and will also fund the analysis of a 

further two water samples in the next few weeks at a cost of $5,000. These costs are part of 

budgeted expenditure. 

The student from Italy has progressed to a point where his work is near completion. Professor 

Imberger and the student have offered to provide a briefing on the results of the thesis to the 

Lake Monger Reserve Working Group. The date suggested is Thursday, 19 January 2012. 

This date has been chosen because the student's thesis will be complete by then. 




There are no Financial Implications. Funding of $30,000 for water quality management has 

been included within the operating Budget of Lake Monger Reserve. Costs in relation to 

completed and proposed water quality management works undertaken by the University of 

Western Australia thus far this financial year are estimated at $19,000. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

 

 

 

Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 


their sustainability for future generations; and 

Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following 

consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, 

consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no 

external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report on the Lake Monger Reserve Water Quality Monitoring Program be 

received; 

a Lake Monger Reserve Working Group meeting be held on Thursday, 19 January 

2012 to receive the findings of a thesis undertaken by a University of Western 

Australia student on nutrient cycling at Lake Monger Reserve. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.159 STATION STREET (BARRETT STREET TO CREECH LANE) - PARKING 

RESTRICTION AMENDMENTS 


To obtain approval to modify kerbside parking restrictions on the west side of Station Street 

between Barrett Street and Creech Lane. 

BACKGROUND: 

Kerbside parking restrictions have been progressively implemented in many streets within the 

Town, in accordance with Policy No. 5.2.22. In general, this has been done to improve the 

safety and amenity of residents. 

Requests are regularly received from directly affected residents to modify the posted 

restrictions over short distances to address changed circumstances and requirements which 

would not negate the original intent of the restrictions. Minor changes at times also become 

necessary due to the introduction of traffic management devices. 

Policy No. 5.2.22 (i)(b) states that:- 

"Parking restrictions shall be reviewed when: 

 

 

 

Requested by the adjacent property owner or occupier in writing; 

Considered necessary by the Town; 

Requested by other persons in writing". 

A report on amendments to parking restrictions, at various sites, which include the proposal to 

vary the parking restrictions in Station Street, on the west side between Barrett Street and 

Creech Lane was considered by Council at its meeting held on 22 November 2011 (Report 

CR11.140). 

During discussion, Cr Langer suggested that the proposed parking restrictions in Station Street 

- Barrett Street to Creech Lane be referred back to the Committee to enable consultation to be 

undertaken with adjacent residents. 

Council then decided: 

"That the proposed parking restrictions in Station Street - Barrett Street to Creech Lane, west 

side, to "2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday" be referred back to the 

Community and Resources Committee for further consideration." 

DETAILS: 

This small section of Station Street, approximately 50 metres, has posted parking restrictions 

indicating "No Parking Road or Verge, Residential Permit Parking Excepted". The adjacent 

residence faces Barrett Street and the residents have sufficient unrestricted on-road parking for 

themselves and their visitors on that street. They have never requested a residential or visitors 

parking permit for this section of road on Station Street. 




The section of street from Creech Lane to Cambridge Street has parking restrictions indicating 

"2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday". 

On-street parking in this area is in high demand and requests have been received from nearby 

business owners for additional parking to accommodate their clients and visitors. 

Amending the parking restrictions in Station Street from Barrett Street to Creech Lane to "2 

Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday" will provide an additional four parking 

bays without affecting the amenity of the adjoining property and will discourage long term or all 

day parking by commuters or persons attending events at Subiaco Oval. 

The Administration advised the resident/owner of 23 Barrett Street of the proposal to amend 

the parking restrictions in Station Street, adjacent to the side boundary of the property by letter 

drop on 10 November 2011, prior to its consideration by Council. 

A telephone response was received from the owner on 25 November 2011 indicating that they 

had no objection to the proposal. In further discussion, it was suggested that a minor 

amendment could be made to the proposal so that the parking restrictions would read "2 Hour 

Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday - Residential Permit Parking Excepted." 

It is considered that this proposed verge parking amendment would satisfy the requirements of 

the adjacent property owner and provide medium term parking for clients of the nearby medical 

suites. 


Amendments for parking restrictions as detailed in this report are in conformity with Policy No. 

5.2.22(i) - 'Implementation of Restrictions'. 

Council may make regulations for parking under the provisions of the Local Government Act 

1995, Schedule 9.1. 


The total cost of the proposed parking amendments is estimated to be $200. This amount can 

be accommodated under Budget Item - 'Road Name Signs and Parking Signs'. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- 

Community 

- Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations; 

- A safe community. 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" 

with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist 

them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 

The directly affected property owner/resident was advised in writing of the proposal and further 

consulted by telephone, prior to the submission of this report. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Sketch Plan - Station Street, Barrett Street to Creech Lane. 




That parking restrictions on the west side of Station Street between Barrett Street and 

Creech Lane be amended to: "2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday, 

Residential Permit Parking Excepted". 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.160 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 8 DECEMBER 2011 


To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting held on Thursday, 8 


BACKGROUND: 

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at 

least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions 

each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress 

specific initiatives. Details relating to the meetings held on 13 October and 26 October 2011 

were reported to Council in November 2011 (Item CR11.144). 

DETAILS: 

Item 1 - Resource Recovery Facility Update 

 

BioVision has confirmed its decision to replace both composters rather than make 

structural repairs. This work will be programmed for completion in early 2013. 

The benefit of replacement for the MRC is that it will remove all historical issues with the 

original failed composters and simplify future insurance processes. 

The facility continued to operate to desired capacity and is at the end of October 2011, 

ahead of contract delivery requirements. 

Waste diversion average over the previous 6 months is 50.9%. The target is 51.3%. 

 

The Project Advisory Group (PAG) had a vacancy for an alternate representative elected 

member, Cr Dot Newton (City of Wanneroo) was elected as the alternate member for Cr 

Laura Gray (City of Wanneroo). The PAG is a requirement of the RRFA (Resource 

Recovery Facility Agreement) whose primary function is to ensure that the MRC Project 

Agreements run as smoothly and as efficiently as possible, for the benefit of the parties. 

The Project Advisory Group's role and responsibilities are more fully detailed in Annexure 

C of the RRFA document. 

The PAG consists of three representatives appointed by the MRC, three representatives 

of the contractor and an independent chairperson. 

Council's Director Infrastructure is one of the three MRC appointed representatives. 

Item 2 - Process Review Committee 

This committee has met with appointed consultants Morrison Low on 2 November 2011 and on 

Thursday, 24 November 2011. It is anticipated a Draft Report will be available in early 2012. 




Item 3 - City of Stirling Withdrawal 

A progress report updated all MRC members on the progress made in relation to the facilitation 

and timely conclusion to the withdrawal process. 

In progressing this matter, appointed consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) have 

presented their Stage 2 report, summarising the assets and liabilities of the MRC. Two 

valuation scenarios have been presented valuing assets between $30.1 to $47.8 million and 

$29.3 to $41.3 million. The City of Stirling's equity portion is 1/3 or 33.33%. 

The City of Stirling has confirmed a "withdrawal proposal" consisting of the following elements:- 

 

 

 

Financial settlement of $11.14 million 

Release from the BioVision Guarantee 

Retention of their ownership in Tamala Park 

Included in the report was a position from the City of Perth. No other MRC member Council 

has presented a comprehensive comment in relation to the valuation and financial commitment 

to financial settlement or release from BioVision Guarantee. 

Having reviewed the PWC report, the following comments are made:- 

 

 

 

 

The Town does not support the Discount Cash Flow methodology used by PWC to 

assess the valuation as the Mindarie Regional Council is a cost recovery business. 

The PWC financial model allows for a low and high scenario assuming members will pay 

$135 per tonne and $140 per tonne and it is considered highly unlikely that the member 

Councils would agree to pay the higher rate per tonne. Therefore the assumption is 

questionable and results in an over inflated value of the business. 

As a result of the settlement request by City of Stirling of more than $11 million, the other 

member Councils are considering what a reasonable exit price should be and 

negotiations are continuing with the City of Stirling. 

It is noted the heads of agreement expired in April 2011 and the Town decided not to 

agree to extending the expiry period although it did agree to continue negotiations to 

allow City of Stirling to withdraw from the Mindarie Regional Council. 

To honour the commitment given in the Heads of Agreement signed by all seven MRC 

members on 3 August 2010, all seven member Councils are required to give the MRC direction 

on the terms of withdrawal. It was proposed to empower an occasional committee of MRC 

elected members to negotiate with the City of Stirling on the terms of withdrawal. The City of 

Stirling has authorised its Chief Executive Officer and Mayor to negotiate the final valuation with 

the MRC. It was emphasised that all member Councils should strive to reach agreement with 

the City of Stirling in a timely manner, rather than risk the potential of further Supreme Court 

action or having the matter decided by the Minister. 

It has been noted, City of Stirling cannot withdraw from the BioVision Guarantee without 

BioVision and ANZ Bank support and both are not obliged to do so. Conversely, the other 

MRC members are obliged to take over all or a portion of the City of Stirling's guarantee. 

The Council subsequently decided on an amended recommendation as follows:- 

That:- 

1. A Working Group comprising the Mindarie Regional Council Chairman and Chief 

Executive Officer, and the participant local government mayors and/or their elected 




representatives be established to consider options for the membership, structure and the 

operations of the Mindarie Regional Council. 

2. The City of Stirling be requested to seek from the Hon. Minister for Local Government a 

further 3 months’ extension to their current withdrawal request from the Mindarie Regional 

Council. 

3. The Working Group deliberations include all options, including progressing the withdrawal 

of the City of Stirling from the Mindarie Regional Council. 

Item 4 - City of Stirling - Tipping Exemption Extension 

As City of Stirling are progressing withdrawal from the MRC, they were granted a tipping 

exemption from 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011. As the withdrawal process is not finalised, 

an exemption for a further six months until 30 June 2012 has been granted. It is noted City of 

Stirling are still using the MRC Tamala Park landfill for minor disposal and fees are charged at 

the Casual or Public rate. 

Item 5 - New MRC Establishment Agreement 

This item was withdrawn from the Council meeting agenda. 

Item 6 - Tamala Park Lease - Market Rent Review 

As Tamala Park landfill facility resides on a portion (151.7Ha) of land owned by the 7 MRC 

members, the MRC has a lease from the owners to conduct a landfill operation. This land was 

initially leased for a term, 1 July 1990 to 30 June 2011, and an option for extension to 30 June 

2032 was given. The option to extend the lease was exercised and the lease was extended by 

a Deed of Variation dated 25 September 2006, from 1 June 2006 to 30 June 2032. Under this 

Deed of Variation, a Market Rent Review needed to be conducted every five years, with the 

first review due 1 June 2011. This review has now been finalised by Landgate. 

The current rental paid is $596,087 per annum plus outgoings plus GST. This is now amended 

to $623,000 and results in an increase of $26,913 per annum. 

This is an operational cost covered by MRC disposal fees. Member MRC owners are 

reimbursed this lease fee based on their relevant equity ownership. 

Item 7 - Meeting Dates For 2012 

All meetings commence at 5.30pm. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, 23 February 2012 - City of Stirling 

Thursday, 19 April 2012 - City of Joondalup 

Thursday, 5 July 2012 - City of Wanneroo 

Thursday, 23 August 2012 - City of Vincent 

Thursday, 25 October 2012 - City of Perth 

Thursday, 6 December 2012 - Town of Victoria Park 







There are no immediate Financial Implications related to this report. The issue relating to the 

withdrawal of City of Stirling has potential for a financial implication based upon how the MRC 

members agree to reimburse City of Stirling. 


Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:- 

Delivery Services 

- Services meet the needs of ratepayers and residents and visitors. 

Environmental Leadership 

- Environmentally sustainable practices for Town operations 

- Community awareness, knowledge and action. 

Capacity to Deliver 

- Financial sustainability. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is purely 

administrative in providing information to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 




That the report relating to items considered by the Mindarie Regional Council at the 

meeting held on 8 December 2011 be received. 

Carried 7/0 

Cr MacRae returned to the meeting at 8.06 pm. 




CR11.161 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - FLOREAT SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - PURCHASE 

OF SIDE-BY-SIDE SURF RESCUE VEHICLE 


To seek financial support towards the purchase of surf rescue vehicle for the Floreat Surf 

Lifesaving Club 

BACKGROUND: 

The Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club has written to Council seeking a grant under the Town's 

Community Grants Program towards the cost to purchase a new surf rescue vehicle. The 

Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club has been advised by Surf Lifesaving WA that its current surf 

rescue vehicle - a quad bike does not meet current safety standards and if members of the club 

use the vehicle they will not be covered by insurance. 

A new surf rescue vehicle that meets Surf lifesaving WA specifications will cost approximately 

$20,000. 

The club has over 500 members and provides a weekend beach lifeguard service at Floreat 

Beach from October to the end of March. 

The Floreat Surf Club leases the surf club building at Floreat Beach and is currently 

contributing approximately $21,000 to the building maintenance fund. The Town also 

contributes approximately $42,000 amount to the maintenance fund. This year, the two surf 

clubs in the Town assumed responsibility for utilities, which previously the Town had paid for. 

This added $12,000 to the Club's budget this year. Due to these costs not previously been 

made the responsibility of the Club and the lack of financial support from Surf Lifesaving WA, 

the Club approached the Town seeking some form of financial assistance towards the vehicle. 

DETAILS: 

The new surf vehicle will be used to minimise injury and loss of life from the Floreat Groyne to 

the north side of the dog beach (boundary of City of Stirling), approximately 4 kilometres of 

beach. The vehicle will carry two rescue boards, defibrillator, first aid equipment and spinal 

board (approximately $30,000 worth of equipment). 

It is noted that following a report to Council in April 2011, the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club 

annual grant increased from $9,000 to $25,000. This increase was taken into consideration and 

that the Club would now be responsible for power and water and also the level of voluntary 

service provided to the community. 

Although the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club receives an annual donation from the Town of 

$25,000, the Club advises that even a small contribution would help with the acquisition of the 

vehicle and take the pressure off a tight budget. Other sources of funds, including sponsorship 

are being investigated. 

It is suggested that as there is an amount of $2,000 remaining in the Community Grant 

Program 2011/2012 financial year and the Club meets the criteria for funding, these funds 

could be allocated to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club. Furthermore, the maximum amount of 

funds available under this program is $2000. 





Policy No. 2.1.15 - Community Grant Programs- the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club meet the 

criteria with the maximum allowed being $2,000. 


There is amount of $2,000 remaining in the Community Grant Program for the 2011/2012 

financial year and it is suggested that these funds be provided to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving 

Club. 


Financial assistance towards purchase of surf rescue vehicle for the Floreat Surf Lifesaving 

Club supports a number of key priority areas of the Town's 2009- 2020 Strategic Plan including: 

 

 

Delivery Our Services; and 

Capacity to Deliver. 


Consultation has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 as "Not Required". 




That an amount of $2,000 (ex GST) be provided to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club as a 

one-off contribution to assist in the cost to purchase a new surf rescue vehicle. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.162 PROPOSED 'SIDS AND KIDS SUNSHINE BEACH RUN' AT CITY BEACH 


To seek Council's support for the conduct of the 'Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach Run' at City 

Beach on Sunday 12 February 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

I Katcher Events (IKE) have written to Council seeking support for the conduct of the inaugural 

'Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach run' to be held at City Beach on Sunday 12 February 2012. The 

purpose of the event is to raise funds for the WA SIDS and KIDS Association. 

IKE is a Perth based event Management Company specialising in the design and production of 

corporate events. 

DETAILS: 

IKE originally approached the Town in September 2011, seeking permission to conduct the 

‘Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach Run’ on Sunday 5 February 2012 where the event would 

commence at Scarborough Beach and then conclude on City Beach and utilise City Beach 

Oval for a family fun day. It was envisaged that between 3,000 and 5,000 participants would be 

involved in the event. However, due to the possible redevelopment works of the City Beach 

oval pavilion, IKE was informed that City Beach Oval would not be available. 

After further discussions, the event organisers submitted an application for the event to run 

entirely at City Beach and the adjacent grass foreshore area, with the new proposed date of 12 

February 2012, from 8am to 12 noon. The number of participants has been scaled down to 

approximately 1500-2000. The event would incorporate the charity walk, again followed by a 

family fun day. The event is supported by the West Coast Eagles and coincides with one of the 

pre-season training sessions. 

The Town has met with IKE on 15 November 2011 to discuss the event application. An 

overview of the event is provided as an Attachment. 

IKE will provide a deputation at the Community and Resources Committee meeting on 12 


IKE has requested a 3 year agreement with the Town to ensure the event will continue at City 

Beach. However, if the event is approved it is recommended that only one year is approved 

and a review is undertaken after the event. If the event proved to be successful, a further 2 year 

term could then be examined. 

Following the meeting with IKE and in accordance with the Town's Policy Number 2.1.19- 

Conduct of Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events, IKE has provided a 

Traffic Management Plan, Risk Management Plan and other statutory requirements, although 

more work is required in relation to the Traffic Management Plan. In addition, IKE has support 

from a number of stakeholders including: 

1. City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club 

2. Greenrange Cricket Club 




3. Wembley Districts Cricket Club 

4. Metropolitan Districts Rifle Association 

5. Clancy's Fish Bar 

6. South City Beach Kiosk; and 

7. Floreat beach Kiosk. 

The Floreat Surf Life Saving Club have not been contacted as the beach run course now heads 

2.5km south from the City of Perth Surf Club towards Swanbourne. Previously the course went 

north from the City of Perth Surf Club to the Floreat Surf Club. 

A letterbox drop will also be undertaken by IKE to nearby residents informing them of the event. 

As part of the event, it is proposed to have the Surf Lifesaving WA helicopter parked on the 

grassed area, near the Floreat Beach groyne. Surf Lifesaving WA will provide Civil Aviation 

Safety Authority approval to land the helicopter and necessary risk management practices will 

be in place. 

A number of advantages and disadvantages are associated with the IKE event, specifically: 

Advantages 

An estimated attendance of between 1500 and 2000 people from all over the 

Metropolitan Area provides an opportunity to showcase City Beach; 

Create considerable interest with the media. This will be achieved through the West 

Coast Eagles supporting the event and public relations firm CPR to handle the PR for the 

event. It is proposed that radio, print and TV all be utilised to promote the event; and 

 

Secondary benefits to local business groups. 

Disadvantages 

The actual set-up for the event is very large, they will require access to the beach for 1 

day prior to the event to install infrastructure also impacting on the access by other 

potential clients or users of the beach; 

 

 

 

 

The timing of the event falls within the middle of summer when the beach is heavily 

used and parking operates close to capacity. 

Due to the size and nature of the event, general access to the beach will be limited (if at 

all available) 

Potential for inconvenience to local residents; and 

Negative publicity if there are any issues with the event 

The proposed ‘Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach Run’ will have advantages and disadvantages. 

However, if the event is well managed it could provide the Town and local residents the 

opportunity to experience an exciting iconic event within Perth. 

To ensure all the necessary responsibilities (including financial arrangements, insurance 

arrangements, risk management, traffic management, cleaning, security and consultation) is 

undertaken a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town and IKE will be 

entered into. 





2.1.24 – Conduct of Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events. 


Hire Charges are approximately $3,000 and an appropriate bond of $5,000 will be applicable. 

A stall holder fee would also be applicable to each of the various display stands and vendors. 


The SIDS and Kids Sunshine Beach Run supports a number of the key priority areas in the 

Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, including: 

 

 

Planning for our Community; and 

Delivery Our Services 


The IKE proposal has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy. In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at the Inform level. 

It is recommended that the following community consultation methods are undertaken to 

include but are not limited to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Letter Box drop to nearby residents 14 days prior to event 

Written notification to those clubs and businesses in close proximity to the event 

Public notification at the site 14 days prior to the event 

Statutory compliance; and 

Advertisements in local newspaper. 

SUMMARY: 

IKE has written to the Town requesting the approval to conduct the Sids and Kids Sunshine 

Beach Run at City Beach on Sunday 12 February 2012 and in 2013 and 2014. The Town has 

met representatives from IKE and outlined the necessary requirements for an event this size to 

gain the approval from Council. IKE has provided the majority of the information. 

It is recommended that approval is granted for the event on Sunday 12 February 2012 subject 

the signing of a MOU. It is recommended that before approving a similar event in 2013 and 

2014, an evaluation is undertaken and a further report be presented to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Event Overview, including site map. 





During discussion, concern was expressed regarding the availability of parking for beach users 

not participating in the event. The Administration was requested to discuss parking options 

with the event organiser. 




That:- 

(i) the SIDS and Kids Sunshine Beach Run to be held on City Beach on Sunday, 12 

February 2012 be approved, at a cost of $3,108 (inc GST) plus a bond of $5,000, 

subject to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the event 

organiser, I Katcher Events (IKE) and the Town; 

(ii) 

(ii) 

following the conduct of the 2012 event, an evaluation be undertaken by I 

Katcher Events (IKE) and a further report presented to Council; 

subject to a satisfactory evaluation and report to Council, approval to conduct the 

event in 2013 and 2014 be considered. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.163 FEE REVIEW 2011 - WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE 


To review the fees applied at the Wembley Golf Course (WGC), and implement a new fee 

structure effective from 1 January 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The fees charged at WGC are reviewed on an annual basis as decided by Council in February 

1996. To allow for any price increases other golf facilities may have implemented during the 

previous year, the review period commences on 1 January annually. 

Fees at WGC are benchmarked against nine other public golf courses in the metropolitan area. 

Wembley has in the past increased fees where applicable to bring it in line with other courses to 

cover increasing maintenance and dividend costs. 

A schedule of fees charged at WGC and a competitive analysis is provided as Confidential 

Attachment 2. 

DETAILS: 

The pricing policy adopted by Council in past reviews has been to increase the fees charged at 

WGC to be comparable with other public courses. 

Many of the golf courses that WGC benchmarks against have increased prices this year, 

reflecting the continuing increase in costs to maintain a golf facility. Increasing fuel, labour and 

material costs impact on the maintenance budgets of all golf courses. 

In 2010/2011 there was a decrease of approximately 12% in golf course patronage. This was 

caused by a number of factors, including, but not limited to:- 

 

 

 

Disruption from stage 1 development works. Most notably the Golf Shop not opening until 

September 2010 and car park works work not completed until late November 2010; 

Record hot weather in early 2011; and 

Global downturn in golf participation. 

However, an upside has been in relation to the Swing Driving Range. The Swing Driving Range 

opened in August 2011 and in its first year of operation has seen over 80,000 visits and eight 

million golf balls hit. 

An overview of the golf participation, driving range participation and income is provided as 

Confidential Attachment 3. 

A series of Tables highlighting current and proposed fees for the WGC are provided as 

Attachment 1. 

1.0 Current Fees 

Although competitively priced, the fees at Wembley are now at the higher of industry averages 

for 9 and 18 hole rounds, including concessional fees. 




Taking into consideration the other current golf course fees and charges and where the 

Wembley Golf Course sits in the market, it is proposed to only marginally increase them in 

2012, effective from 1 January. 

The risk being that if the Wembley Golf Course significantly increases their fees and charges, 

patronage could decrease with golfers choosing a cheaper venue (ie. Hamersley or Collier Park. 

etc). 

Refer to Attachment 1, Table 1 for further details. 

A further report will be presented to Council outlining a number of other alterative pricing models 

based around yield management and potential memberships. It is noted that the WGC already 

provide memberships (driving range) and internet booking deposits (golf course). 

Concession fees apply as follows: 

 

 

Pensioners/Seniors concession applicable weekdays only excluding public holidays. Valid 

for those holding State Government of WA, or Commonwealth of Australia senior or 

pension cards. 

School Student concession available weekdays on either course after 10am, and 

weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am. 

1.2 Driving Range 

The ball rate is charged within a specific time period, broken down into three times as approved 

by Council in May 2009 

Off Peak 

Monday to Friday from 6am to 5pm, 8pm to close 

Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 6pm to close 

Peak 

 

 

Monday to Friday from 5pm to 6pm 

Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – opening to 10am, 2pm to 6pm 

Premium 

Monday to Friday from 6pm to 8pm 

Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 10am to 2pm 

After a year of operation the timing for each of the pricing periods has been well received. There 

is, however, an opportunity to offer a new weekday price for early morning range customers, 

which at present is a quieter time. 

The new rate will be from opening to 10am, Monday to Friday with a recommended price per 

ball of 15 cents. This rate will give customers an opportunity to access very competitive ball 

rates. 

For the existing ball rates, it is recommended that a small increase of one cent per ball be 

implemented from 1 January 2012. 

This will offset some of the costs incurred in regards to maintenance of a large driving range. 

Further details are provided in Table 2, Attachment 1. 




1.3. Range Membership 

The membership model was approved by Council in May 2010 (GC10.34) 

The model recommended provides entry points for all levels, with additional ball value and other 

features included. 

The range memberships have been well received apart from the Corporate Packages. 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate ($5,500 inc GST) – 25% added value 

Platinum ($2,200 inc GST) – 20% added value 

Gold ($1,100 inc GST) – 17.5% added value 

Silver ($550 inc GST) – 15% added value 

Bronze ($110 inc GST) – 10% added value 

It is recommended that the membership fee structure for the Swing Driving Range remains as 

is. 

1.4 Teaching 

A number of new fees were added in November 2010 in response to the opening of the Swing 

Learning Centre. Some of the old teaching pricing and structures have been deleted from the 

fee structure where it was found to be not applicable. New fees have been added to cover the 

new technology options and provide for greater customer choice. 

An overview of the current and proposed teaching fees is provided as Table 3, Attachment 1. 

1.5 Electric Golf Cart Hire 

A review of golf cart prices at other public facilities is provided as Table 4, Attachment 1. It is 

important to note that WGC is one of only two public facilities that offers reduced fees for 

concession card holders. 

It is recommended that all electric cart hire be increased by $1 on nine and eighteen holes in 

response to increasing electricity tariffs. Concession rates remain as is. 

1.6 Hire Clubs 

Hire Club fees were reviewed in November 2010, with new fees set for Junior and Premium 

brands. 

Though the Town invested in new equipment and continues to upgrade hire equipment, it is 

recommended that these fees remain as is. All hire sets include a manual pull buggy as part of 

the price. 

To remove some of the confusion in regards to choices, it is proposed that full sets be offered to 

all customers, with the fee payable varying for 9 or 18 holes. 





1.7 Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee) 

The Town has a policy concerning the administration of private motorised golf carts. Licensees 

are required to obtain an extension under their home contents public liability cover to the value 

of $5 million, and this does not present a problem. 

The administration fee of $44.00 covers the cost to administer the licensing procedures, and 

ensure the appropriate licence and relevant conditions are met. This is now a requirement of the 

Town to manage and it is recommended that the fee remain. 


1.8 Swing View Function Room 

Council approved in May 2010 (GC10.34) fees for the new Swing View Function Room. The 

fees were set at very competitive rates to attract customers to the new facility. 

In consultation with the Town's Hospitality Contractor, Spices Catering, it is recommended that 

fees be increased to reflect the level of investment and uniqueness of the facility. The charges 

remain competitive with other facilities within area, particularly as the room comes fully 

equipped with all AV equipment. 

An overview of the current and proposed function room fire charges is provided in Table 6, 

Attachment 1. 

2.0 New Fees 

2.1 Value Add Packages 

Four packages have been developed providing a bundle of discounted products across multiple 

areas of operation at WGC. 

This provides an incentive to customers to commit to a significant one off purchase, and gives 

them an opportunity to use areas of WGC that they may not have traditionally been a patron off 

(Teaching, range etc) 

Each package has two different price points to allow customers access at a pricing point that 

matches the budget. 

TABLE 1: 

PROPOSED VALUE ADD PACKAGES 

Cost Value Difference Discount 

Golf Plus $1,399 $1,865 $466 25% 

Golf Plus Lite $699 $928 $229 24.7% 

Practice Plus $1,399 $1,860 $461 24.8% 

Practice Plus Lite $699 $880 $181 20.5% 

Range Plus $1,399 $1,822 $423 23.2% 

Range Plus Lite $699 $936 $237 25.3% 

Lesson Plus $899 $1,120 $221 19.7% 

Lesson Plus Lite $599 $710 $111 15.6% 

Each package has a main product offering with secondary benefits. 

Golf Plus – 26 rounds of golf with cart 

Practice Plus – 12 golf lessons and range balls 




Range Plus – range balls 

Lesson Plus – golf lessons only 

TABLE 2: 

DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS 

Golf Rounds Carts Lessons Range Balls Golf Shop 

Golf Plus 26 13 5 $110 $50 

Golf Plus Lite 12 6 2 $110 $50 

Practice Plus 10 5 12 $550 $50 

Practice Plus Lite 6 2 12 $220 $50 

Range Plus 8 4 4 $1100 $50 

Range Plus Lite 4 2 2 $550 $50 

Lesson Plus 0 0 15 $220 0 

Lesson Plus Lite 0 0 10 $110 0 

Flexibility in Fee Structure 

Any concession requires the approval of the Chief Executive Officer or delegated officer. 


Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for Council to levy fees 

and charges for the provision of goods and services. Council’s decision to levy a fee or charge 

must be made by an absolute majority. 

According to section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995, if the Council proposes to impose 

any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the Council is to give local 

public notice of its intention to do so and advise the effective date of change. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 of the 

Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, Council and golf course 

website and noticeboards. 


The setting of fees will have a direct impact on the amount of revenue generated at the WGC. 


The proposed review of fees and charges supports a number of the Priority Areas of the 

Town’s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely: 

 

 

Delivery of our services, and; 

Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy Number 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 




SUMMARY: 

The Wembley Golf Course fees and charges are at the top end of the metropolitan public golf 

course pricing and it is therefore proposed to introduce marginal increases from 1 January 

2012. 

A further report will be presented Council in April 2012 outlining a number of different 

alternative pricing models. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Table 1: Current and Proposed Green Fees 

Table 2: Current and Proposed Swing Driving Range Fees 

Table 3: Current and Proposed Teaching Fees 

Table 4: Current and Proposed Golf Cart Fees 

Table 5: Current and Proposed Hire Club Fees 

Table 6: Current and Proposed Swing View Function Fees 

2. Competitive Analysis, including Golf Fees, Hire Equipment and Driving Range 

(CONFIDENTIAL) 

3. Overview of Golf, Driving Range Participation and Income (CONFIDENTIAL) 




That:- 

(i) 

the following fees and charges (inclusive of GST) at Wembley Golf Course effective 

from 1 January 2012 be adopted by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:- 

GREEN FEES 

9 Holes $19.50 

9 Holes Weekend $22.50 

9 Holes Concession $15.00 

18 Holes $28.00 

18 Holes Weekend $34.50 

18 Holes Concession $22.00 

Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekday $24.00 

Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekday $16.50 

Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekend $30.00 

Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekend $20.00 

Twilight Golf $10.50 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes $38.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes $52.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes (with electric golf cart) $52.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes (with electric golf cart) $72.00 




Concession Fees apply as follows: 

 

 

Pensioners/Seniors Concession applicable weekdays only, excluding public 

holidays; 

School Student Concession available weekdays on either course after 10am 

and weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am; 

DRIVING RANGE 

Early Bird – per ball $0.15 

Off Peak - per ball $0.17 

Peak- per ball $0.19 

Premium - per ball $0.21 

DRIVING RANGE MEMBERSHIPS 

Corporate (includes 25% added value) $5,500 

Platinum (includes 20% added value) $2,200 

Gold (includes 17.5% added value) $1,100 

Silver (includes 15% added value) $550 

Bronze (includes 10% added value) $110 

ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS 

Electric Golf Cart – 18 Holes $42 

Electric Golf Cart – 9 Holes $30 

Electric Golf Cart - Concession 18 holes $31 

Electric Golf Carts - Concession 9 holes $21 

Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee) $44 

HIRE CLUBS 

Clubs – 18 Holes $30 

Clubs – 9 Holes $16 

Clubs – Junior $15 

Premium Brand $45 

Range Club $4 

Manual Golf Cart $5 

TEACHING 

Individual Lessons 

30 minute Lesson $60 

60 minute Lesson $110 

Individual Video Analysis/Launch Monitor 

60 minutes – Video Only $110 

60 minutes – Video and DVD Copy $140 

Packages 

30 minutes $300 

30 minutes – 2 people $350 


60 minutes – 2 people $550 

Video Analysis/Launch Monitor Package $550 




Virtual Golf (per hour) $130 

Putting 



On Course Lessons 



Junior Lessons (under 18) 



Package $250 

Adult Clinics 

Level 1 – 60 minutes $130 



Level 4 - 60 minutes 

Ladies Clinic 

$120 

$140 

Short Game Clinic 


Specialty Clinics 

Driver – 60 minutes $20 

Bunker – 60 minutes $20 

Putting – 60 minutes $20 

Junior Clinics 

Junior Holiday – Level 1 $95 

Junior Holiday – Level 2 $95 

Junior Term – Level 1 $110 

Junior Term – Level2 $110 

Come and Try 

Junior Academy 

Junior Clinic – single session 

Junior Holiday – single day 

$10 

$170 

$15 

$32 

Schools 

Per Hour $132 

Corporate (60 minutes) $132 

Fitting Prices 

Driver – 45 minutes $50 

Driver and Ball – 60 minutes $75 

Ball Fit – 25 minutes $25 

Fairway/Hybrid – 30 minutes $50 

Irons – 60 minutes $70 

Wedges – 30 minutes $50 

Putter – 30 minutes $50 

Distance/Gap – 30 minutes $50 

Full Set – 120 minutes $150 




FUNCTION ROOM (SWING VIEW) 

Room Hire – Per Day 

Room Hire – Per Half Day (maximum 4 hours) 

$400 

$250 

Room Hire – Per Hour (minimum 2 hours) $100 

Discount Room Hire – registered charitable 

30% 

organisations & community/sporting groups 

within the Town 

Exclusive Driving Range Bay Use (5 bays per 

$200 

hour) 

VALUE ADD PACKAGES 

Golf Plus $1,399 

Golf Plus Lite $699 

Practice Plus $1,399 

Practice Plus Lite $699 

Range Plus $1,399 

Range Plus Lite $699 

Lesson Plus $899 

Lesson Plus Lite $599 

(ii) 

the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to 

amend the fee schedule for the Wembley Golf Course to undertake promotional 

offers, charity events and other concessional rates in accordance with Section 6.12 

of the Local Government Act 1995; 

(iii) the intention to impose the above charges at the Wembley Golf Course and the 

effective date be advertised in accordance with Section 6.19 of the Local 

Government Act 1995. 

(iv) a further report be presented to Council in April 2012 in relation to other possible 

pricing models for the Wembley Golf Course 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0 




CR11.164 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WEMBLEY 

GOLF COURSE HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT - TENDER T37-11 

HOSPITALITY LEASING SPECIALIST 


To select a preferred Hospitality Leasing Specialist for both the Surf Club Building and 

Commercial Facilities Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development 

projects. 

BACKGROUND: 

Expressions of Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from firms to provide advice for the 

hospitality development proposed for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities 

Development at City Beach and Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course. 

Due to the relatively small number of suppliers, it was decided to appoint one consultant for 

both projects, however, costs will be tracked against each project individually. 

Only one of the select tenders submitted a formal tender. The tender offer could not be 

reconciled with the scope of works required in the specification. Further interviews with the 

single tenderer resulted in a small reduction in the tender price, but it was still far short of the 

value for money expectations. It was deemed not suitable. 

The Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations provides that Tenders need not 

be publicly invited within a 6 month period of last calling for tenders and no suitable tenderer 

was contracted (Regulation 11 (2) (c) (i) refers). 

Subsequent to the tender being rejected, two other potential suppliers have been drawn to the 

attention of the Town who appear to have the capability to undertake the work to the desired 

standard. A select tender was sought from these suppliers as well as the original single 

tenderer based on a more refined scope of work. One potential supplier decided not to submit a 

tender, leaving two tenders to assess. 

DETAILS: 

Basis of Works 

Each project is anticipated to have two distinct phases - the first being development of a 

business case which determines the scale of the project and then the second phase being the 

detail design and construction of the works. The second phase of the project is dependent on 

the business case developed and Council decision to proceed. 

The tender is structured such that pricing is certain for both phases of work, however, the Town 

is not bound to commit to the second phase of the project. 

Tender Submissions 

The selection of the Hospitality Leasing Specialist for this project is largely based on an 

assessment of their hospitality experience, ability to develop robust business case models, 

industry contacts and/or experience in securing operators and ability to work within the team to 




be set up for this project. Price was considered in terms of value for money outcomes rather 

than as the sole determinant for selection. 

It is important to emphasise that approval to construct either project will largely be shaped by 

the business case developed which in turn is shaped by the ability of the consultant to 

accurately forecast a mix and size of commercial facilities that will meet financial return 

expectations. The Hospitality Leasing Specialist will work with the appointed architects to 

ensure that the concept planning of the facilities meet operator needs but are also cost effective 

to meet the business case. Assessment of each tender against these objectives was important. 

Tender Evaluation 

The tenders were assessed firstly on a compliance basis (for conformance to tender conditions 

and tender requirements), then a qualitative and finally a quantitative assessment basis. 

Confidential Attachment 1 details the assessment panel report. 

Herron Todd White was ranked the highest on the qualitative assessment process and their fee 

submission was suitable in terms of the quantitative process. 

It is to be noted that it is proposed to engage Herron Todd White to undertake the necessary 

research to support development of the Business Case for the Surf project (at a cost of 

$60,000) and the Golf project (at a cost of $50,000). A decision to commit Herron Todd White 

to the full project will depend on a future Council decision to approve the Business Case and 

commit to either or both projects. The anticipated cost of this consultancy, if both projects 

proceeded, would in the order of $ 330,000. 


There are no Policy Implications related to this report. Select tenders were undertaken in line 

with Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 


The opportunity for development of the Wembley Golf Course site supports the Town's 2009- 

2020 Strategic Plan. It is within the actions supporting our strategy 4.3.3 to "Increase the 

Town's self-generating funding and decrease the reliance on external funding sources" which is 

part of Action 4.3 Financial Sustainability in Outcome 4 Capacity to Deliver. 

The opportunity for development of the Surf Club site supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic 

Plan vision of Delivering Our Services. It is an action in response to our strategy of maintaining 

quality community and civic buildings. 

The projects, once completed, also contribute to other Strategic Outcomes notably: 

Planning for Our Community 

Delivering Our Services 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix as suitable for the 

Community to be informed, on the basis that it will provide the public with balanced and 

objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solution. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Assessment Report (Confidential) 




That Tender T37-11 - Hospitality Leasing Specialist services be awarded to Herron Todd 

White at an indicative cost of $330,000. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.165 HERDSMAN MAIN DRAIN STORMWATER - POTENTIAL REUSE PROJECT 


To advise Council of findings from an initial study regarding the potential reuse of stormwater 

that flows in the Herdsman Main Drain to ocean outfall. 

BACKGROUND: 

Herdsman Main Drain (HMD) takes stormwater (as well as some expressed ground water) from 

Herdsman Lake catchment to an ocean outfall near Floreat beach. 

Council, at the February 2011, determined that an investigation be undertaken regarding the 

potential to reuse this water rather than allow it to flow into the ocean. GHD consultants were 

appointed to undertake an investigation on behalf of the Town. 

DETAILS: 

Existing Drain 

HMD takes stormwater that flows into Herdsman Lake (along with any expressed ground water 

that raises the Lake level), along with downstream stormwater catchments and transports this 

water to an ocean outfall near Floreat Beach. 

Measurements between 1993 and 1999 indicated that 8.7 to 10.4 GL pa flowed into the ocean. 

The seasonal variances showed an average summer flow of 13.3 ML per day and an average 

winter flow of 47.1 ML per day. 

By way of comparison, the Perry Lakes Aquifer Replenishment project may have seen 5 ML 

per day of treated waste water being saved from ocean outfall. 

The existing drain is an open drain to the point closest to Wembley Golf Course at Newman 

College at which point it becomes a closed tunnel to the ocean outfall. Refer to picture 

attached. 

Previous Study 

Previous engineering advice in April 2010 demonstrated to the Town the feasibility of diverting 

stormwater from HMD into Wembley Golf Course under gravity pressure rather than the 

expense of a pumping system. 

The study did not determine what could be done with the water once inside Wembley Golf 

Course. 

Recent Study 

A recent study was commissioned to determine: 

Potential uses and benefits of stormwater harvested from HMD 

Likely capital and operating costs of preferred options 

Level 1 Introductory Risk Assessment of most preferred option 




This study has been completed and is subject of this report. 

Outcomes 

The study found that the following uses of the stormwater were feasible: 

Create an infiltration basin to allow gravity fed water to replenish the aquifer 

Create one or several injection bores to pump water into the aquifer 

Pump the stormwater to the main dam on Wembley Golf Course as an offset to some 

bore usage 

Harvest the water and pump it into feature lakes near several key holes on Wembley 

Golf Course 

The benefits, depending on the scheme chose, were: 

Replenish the aquifer with more water than the Town currently extracts for all of its 

irrigation. The State would be less likely to reduce any future licensing volumes upon 

the Town in a drying climate whilst our irrigation standards can be maintained 

Develop a wetlands feature which would add interest to any potential walking trail 

through Wembley Golf Course 

Produce feature lakes with potential interest and thus attraction for Wembley Golf 

Course. It would be difficult to see how this would translate into increased revenue 

Recycle water that would normally go to ocean outfall 

It was evident that the most important issue was that by recharging the aquifer with more water 

than the Town currently takes, we are contributing positively to the overall water balance. In a 

drying climate, this matter will be of significant benefit to the Town in negotiations to maintain 

existing licences to extract bore water for irrigation, not only in Wembley Golf Course but for all 

Town areas. 

The Department of Water has not yet reviewed the allocation of ground water abstraction for 

Town of Cambridge hence undertaking this work now is pre-emptive. 

The issue of preferring a gravity fed solution over pumped solutions was to minimise operating 

costs. 

Most Preferred Option 

The most preferred option was to divert stormwater from HMD via gravity into a 10,000 m 2 

infiltration basin at Wembley Golf Course and infiltrate ~ 2GL pa of water into the aquifer. 

This option had the lowest capital costs (~ $960,000) and lowest operational costs ($125,000 

pa). All other solutions required the use of pumps, which significantly increase the operating 

costs. 

Attachment 1 details an indicative plan of this option. 

It is important to note that this option only sees about 20% of HMD water being reclaimed, as 

volumes above this amount may not be able to be infiltrated into the aquifer successfully 

without parts of Wembley Golf Course becoming inundated through surface expression of 

groundwater (ie flooding) and the necessary changes to HMD to create sufficient pressure 

would be problematic. 

Risk Assessment 

A Stage 1 entry level risk assessment was undertaken for the project. Attachment 2 

summarises the risk issues. 




Of greatest concern is that regulatory approval for the project will need firm data confirming 

water quality of the stormwater is better than the aquifer. If this is not proven then water 

treatment (at significant costs) will be necessary. Sampling to date is not sufficiently robust to 

make the risk free assumption that the HMD water quality can be left untreated prior to 

infiltration to the aquifer. A significant cost risk is thus left unanswered. 

The second main issue is that further hydro geological analysis is necessary to properly model 

the ground conditions to ensure sufficient understanding is made of water infiltration and 

impacts on Water Corporation's drain asset and Wembley Golf Course ground water. 

The risk assessment leads to the conclusion that there is insufficient certainty at this stage to 

identify the likely capital and operating budgets for the project. 

Grant Funding 

The Commonwealth Government recently closed submissions for Round 3 funding of 

Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse grants. The Town may have been in a position to submit an 

application for partial funding (up to 50%) of this project however with the degree of uncertainty 

regarding costs and no Council decision to proceed; it was decided not to submit an 

application. 

If a decision is made to continue with this project, funding sources will be explored. 

Perry Lakes 

The consultant also provided some advice as to the feasibility of harvesting stormwater from 

HMD and diverting it to Perry Lakes. The initial advice is that the system would need to pump 

water from the drain, into new pressure pipes and into the lakes. The capital cost would be in 

the order of $4.5 million with significant operating costs for electricity to run the pumping 

process. This issue has not been pursued further. 

Necessary Works to Reduce Risks 

If a decision was made to continue with this project, the following actions need to be 

undertaken to better quantify the project capital, operating costs and general risk: 

Measure water quality in both the local aquifer and HMD over the same time frame for a 

nominal 12 month period 

Measure water flow in HMD over a nominal 12 month period to confirm data that is 10 

years old 

Undertake assessment of vegetation and environmental impacts of the infiltration basin 

Complete hydro geological modelling to greater degree of certainty 

Review budgets based on the outcomes of investigations 

It is estimated that the costs of these investigative works would be in the order of $150,000. 

Why should Town of Cambridge Invest in this Project? 

Irrigation Supply 

Currently, there is no charge levied for bore water licensed to the Town for irrigation. The Town 

has a licence for irrigation suffice for current needs (assuming the Town continues its program 

of water friendly plantings). If, in a drying climate, circumstances change and the State 

implements significant restrictions to irrigation supply, this project may present itself as a better 

financial outcome for the Town to continue irrigation of its golf course, parks and gardens. 




Wembley Golf Course Amenity 

Sub options of this project may include pumping some of the harvested stormwater to create 

feature lakes inside Wembley Golf Course. This would add to the visual amenity of Wembley 

Golf Course but it is difficult to justify the expense in terms of additional golfing revenue. 

Walking Trail Amenity 

The Town is considering extensions to the Western Bushland and Lakeland Regional Trails, 

inclusive of a trail inside Wembley Golf Course at the proposed site of the infiltration basin. This 

project would add to the visual beauty of the trail. 

Environmental Benefits 

The project sees approximately 20% of the HMD stormwater that would normally go to ocean 

outfall being reclaimed and infiltrated into the groundwater table. This outcome is considered an 

environmental benefit and better improves the overall water balance in urban areas. The 

question before Council is one of who is most responsible to implement this issue? 

It is also noted that the project will require about 10,000 m 2 of vegetation to be removed. Whilst 

it is understood that the area is not a conservation zone nominated by Department of 

Environment (ie no threatened species of flora or fauna); clearing of trees will make way for 

water savings. Further analysis may be warranted to address this issue. 


Nil 


The opportunity for reuse of Herdsman Main Drain water supports the Town's 2009-2020 

Strategic Plan vision of Environmental Leadership through the action of "Reducing our water 

consumption and improving the quality of ground and surface water, essential to our lake, 

wetlands and coastal environments" 


In accordance with the Town's existing Community Consultation Matrix, this report would 

require the Town to inform the community in an appropriate manner. Inclusion within the 

Council minutes is deemed appropriate at this time. 

SUMMARY: 

1. Herdsman Main Drain delivers a significant amount of stormwater, mixed with 

groundwater, to ocean outfall. 

2. It is technically feasible to reclaim about 20% of this outfall by way of a gravity fed system 

to an infiltration basin within Wembley Golf Course. This amount of water would more 

than offset the current volume taken by the Town from groundwater. 

3. Capital costs of ~ $960,000 and annual operating costs of ~ $125,000 would be 

envisaged for this outcome. 

4. The need to undertake this project now is not immediately apparent. 

5. Further investigations are necessary to quantify and mitigate some risks. Funding in the 

of $150,000 would be necessary. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Indicative Site Plan 

2. Risk Assessment 




That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Herdsman Main Drain study for the reuse of stormwater/groundwater be noted; 

further investigative works to assess project feasibility at a cost of $150,000 not be 

undertaken until an external grant is sourced to fund these investigations. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.166 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK - INTEGRATED ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND PARKING 

STUDY OUTCOMES 


To advise Council of the progress of the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study as it 

relates to the approved Master Plan for Wembley Sports Park and to seek further public 

comment on the Study. 

BACKGROUND: 

At the June 2011 Council Meeting, Council endorsed the Wembley Sports Park Master Plan 

subject to (inter alia): 

"the Master Plan be amended as necessary to incorporate changes required as a result of the 

traffic and parking study, including stakeholder consultation" 

A copy of the approved master plan is attached for reference. 

DETAILS: 

Traffic Study 

The State Government, as part of planning for the State Netball Centre, was required to 

undertake a traffic and parking study as part of its planning approvals process. It was sensible 

to work with the State Government to modify the scope of the study to meet the overall 

objectives of the master plan for Wembley Sports Park. Costs for the study are being shared 

between Town of Cambridge and State Government. 

Aecom, recognised traffic and access consultants, were appointed by the State to undertake 

this study. 

The aim of the study was to model demand for access to Wembley Sports Park over its various 

operating modes (winter / summer) and sports activities and to determine optimum facilities for 

access to the Park, parking and road layouts. 

The Study was suspended for a period of time whilst the Town and State were resolving the 

issues pertaining to cost responsibility for works at Wembley Sports Park. As this matter has 

almost been resolved, the Study can now be concluded. 

The Town has been advised that the Study report is close to completion at the time of writing 

this report. If it is available it will be distributed to Council prior to meeting. 

Consultation 

Aecom consulted with officers from the Western Australian Planning Commission to determine 

their likely views of the draft outcomes being developed during the study period. The main 

outcomes of this consultation were: 

WAPC support the intent for greater use of public transport and pedestrian access to 

Wembley Sports Park to partially offset growth in vehicular parking demand. 

WAPC do not see any rationale for car parking capacity within Wembley Sports Park to 

meet 100% of the peak demand for car parking space. 




Public consultation was by way of two open forums, held in July and August 2011, facilitated by 

the State and Town of Cambridge. Attendees were generally seeking clarification of some of 

the assumptions made in the traffic study as well as to share particular matters of concern. 

Major improvements to the study report stemming from these forums include: 

Refinement of the proposed signalised intersection to reduce impacts on Alderbury Street 

resident verges 

Acknowledgement that current netball and football playing schedules will change over 

time, and how these changes need to be recognised in parking arrangements. 

Other major stakeholders, such as Perth Netball Association and Wembley Athletic Club 

participated in the public forums and their views have been taken into consideration. 

The State government consulted with the major parties associated with the State Netball 

Centre (Venues West and Netball WA) as part of this process. 

It is noted that whilst the community were invited to the two open forums, they have yet to have 

the opportunity to comment on the final report. 

It is proposed to seek feedback from the community on the study and provide a further report to 

Council as soon as possible. 


Nil 


Nil 


The opportunity for development of the Wembley Sports Park supports the Town's 2009-2020 

Strategic Plan vision of Planning for Our Community through the actions of a wide range of 

quality, accessible recreational facilities. 


In accordance with the Town's existing Community Consultation Matrix, this study will require 

further community consultation to allow them the opportunity to comment on the study's 

findings. 

SUMMARY: 

1. The Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study for Wembley Sports Park will be 

completed in the near future 

2. Further public comment on the Study is recommended. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Approved Master Plan 





That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the report relating to the progress of the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study for 

Wembley Sports Park be noted; 

public comment on the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study be invited upon 

receipt of the Study report; 

the outcomes of (ii) above to form part of a further report to Council in February 2012 on 

this matter. 


During discussion, it was agreed that, due to school holidays, a further report on the outcomes 

of public comment be submitted to Council in March 2012. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report relating to the progress of the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking 

Study for Wembley Sports Park be noted; 

public comment on the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study be invited 

upon receipt of the Study report; 

(iii) the outcomes of (ii) above to form part of a further report to Council in March 2012 

on this matter. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.167 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2011/2012 - CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR RECESS 


To delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer to deal with urgent items of 

business, which may arise during the 2011/12 Christmas/New Year recess period. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Council will be in its usual recess from the last meeting of the year, to be held on 22 

December 2011 to the first Committee meetings for the new year to be held in February 2012. 

In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable urgent items 

of business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with. 

DETAILS: 

The Local Government Act 1995 details the Council’s ability to delegate some powers and 

duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:- 

“a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the 

exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under this Act other than 

those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power of delegation.” 

Section 5.43 of the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief 

Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise 

provided in the instrument of delegation. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government 

Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the powers and duties 

of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the Christmas/New Year 

period for 2011/2012, subject to the following:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant Ward 

being in agreement with the recommendation; 

in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business of a 

general nature, a majority of all Elected Members being in agreement; 

(iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority be 

submitted for information to the February 2012 Council meeting; 

(iv) 

the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the Christmas/New 

Year period. 

Should any item require an absolute majority of the Council, the requisite level of consent will 

be sought. 

During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive 

Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a contact 

person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated authority. 




This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess period of 

Council every year since 1995. 

At its meeting held on 20 December 2005, the Council also decided, as detailed above, that the 

Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the Christmas/New Year 

period and noted that Elected Members should be cognisant of the urgency associated with 

delegated approvals and respond appropriately when requested. 

A report providing information relating to details of any delegated authority exercised during the 

Christmas/New Year period will be submitted to the February 2012 round of meetings. 


The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule of Delegations to the Chief 

Executive Officer authorised each year by the Council. 


No unbudgeted expenditure will be incurred unless by an absolute majority decision of the 



Not applicable. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Not Required" as 

the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief 

Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the 

powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 of the Act, 

from 22 December 2011 to 20 February 2012 provided:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant 

Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation; 

in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business 

of a general nature, a majority of all Elected Members are in agreement; 

(iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority is 

submitted for information to the Council meeting to be held on 28 February 2012; 




(iv) the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business to be considered under 

delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period; 

(v) Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the 

timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that 

the status quo position will be maintained (ie no change). 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0 




CR11.168 NAMING OF BUILDING - PERRY LAKES HOCKEY PAVILION 


To consider a request from the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club to name the YMCC Hockey 

Clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve. 

BACKGROUND: 

A request has been received from the President of the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club, 

seeking the Council's consent to name the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve 

after long standing club members Dr Des and Mrs Pam Kelly. 

DETAILS: 

In support of the request, the President advises that:- 

"Des Kelly joined the YMCA Hockey Club in 1957 and he and his wife have continuously 

contributed to the club's development to this day. In 1958 he was a member of the club's top 

team which won promotion to the State's top division and the team has remained there ever 

since, celebrating 50 seasons at this level in 2008. This year, the top men's team was 

successful once again in winning the Grand Final. The club has been one of the most 

successful of any clubs participating in the top men's and women's divisions in the history of 

hockey in Western Australia. 

Des has been instrumental in guiding all the main phases of the development of the club as it 

grew as a fledgling force from its many locations including Langley Park, the Esplanade, 

Hollywood and to its present location at Perry Lakes in 1969. From 1957 to 1960 Des and 

other club members raised funds and physically constructed the club's first clubrooms, a 

modest building on the Hollywood grounds, the present site of the Sir Charles Gairdner 

Hospital. Des was elected President from 1968 to 1970, during which he guided the forced 

relocation of the club to the present site. This was achieved with the assistance of the Perth 

City Council. 

Over many years Des played senior hockey, coached juniors, held many administrative 

positions within the club and became involved in veterans hockey for over 20 years. 

He was made a Life Member of the club in 1973. 

In 1985 he was involved in a major club effort to fund and build stage two of the Perry Lakes 

clubhouse, which has well served the members ever since. 

Over the years Des has achieved much in the hockey fraternity: 

Member of the Executive council of the WA Hockey Association for 10 years including the office 

of Vice President 

Member of the Organising Committee of the 1979 World Cup held at the Perth Hockey Stadium 

Member of the Organising Committee of the 1985 World Champions Trophy held in Perth 

Manager of the top YMCA men's team for a number of years in the 1980s, including 1985 when 

the team won all four major tournaments of the WA Hockey Association 

Granted Life Membership of the WA Hockey Association 

As President of the club in 1992/1993, he guided the amalgamation with the Coastal City 

Ladies Hockey Club to form the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club, or YMCC for short. 




In recent years, Des and Pam have continued their strong contribution which includes support 

for the involvement of the club in the Shenton Hockey facility development, liaison with 

Cambridge Council for the preparation of hockey fields each weekend, which has witnessed up 

to 700 boys, girls, men and women enjoying the grounds, active roles in the YM Junior Carnival 

held at Perry Lakes since 1972 when over 50 teams from all over WA compete in a carnival 

atmosphere and numerous other smaller but extremely important volunteer contributions to the 

club and the community. 

While Des has been at the forefront of all major club developments over a number of years, 

Pam too has strongly contributed with ideas, with support and in management of behind-thescenes 

running of the club with regard to uniforms, canteen services, procurement of personnel 

for a variety of necessary roles and in general being available for any activity required. The 

club values highly the strong contributions made by a number of members over many years 

and none more highly than that of Pam Kelly. 

PERSONAL BACKGROUND 

Dr D R Kelly AM began working life as a Civil Engineer and worked in the Wa Public Service for 

49 years. He was Chief Executive Officer in the Department of Mines and the Department of 

Resources Development and had a close association with the mining industry for 40 years. 

In 1992 he was awarded an Australia Medal (AM) for service to the mining industry. He has 

also been awarded a Centenary Medal and an Australian Sports Medal. 

Pam and Des secured a block of land in Pandora Drive, City Beach and built a home there in 

1967, where they have lived ever since. Their children attended Kapinara Primary School and 

City Beach High School and their grandchildren now attend Kapinara and Wembley Primary 

schools. As well their children and grandchildren also play hockey with the YMCC Hockey 

Club. 

With respect, in consideration of the strong voluntary contribution made by Des and pam Kelly 

to the enjoyment of outdoor leisure activity at the Perry Lakes site, engaged in by thousands of 

juniors and seniors over a long period of time, it is recommended that the hockey clubrooms at 

Perry Lakes be named the DES AND PAM KELLY PAVILION." 

The request is signed by Mr Patrick Knott, President, on behalf of the Board and Members of 

the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club. 

The Council's policy on naming reserves and buildings provides, in part, that: 

" All buildings may be named generally to reflect the locality in which the building is situated for 

easy identification. 

Features of buildings (a room, courtyard or garden for example) particularly features of regional 

buildings, may be named in honour of an individual who has made a significant contribution to 

the locality in general. 

In exceptional and/or unique circumstances or to recognise outstanding achievement, a 

building may be named after an individual." 


Policy 1.2.8 

Naming of Reserves and Buildings 





Nil 


The Council's Strategic Plan provides for meeting the needs of our communities through strong 

community consultation, engagement and collaboration. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. . In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


That consideration be given to naming the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve 

the Des and Pam Kelly Pavilion. 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve be named the Des and Pam Kelly 

Pavilion. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Langer 

Cr Walker 




That the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve be named the Des and Pam 

Kelly Pavilion. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.169 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NOVEMBER 2011 


To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. 

DETAILS: 

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a 

list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised 

and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and 

Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all 

payments issued for this month. 


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. 


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. 


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan key 

outcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – 

Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Account Payment Listing 




That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) 

Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts as detailed below and attached, be 

confirmed: 




(i) 

CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Municipal Fund 01-November-2011 04-November-2011 41848 - 41946 $202,935.63 




Golf Course 01-November-2011 07-November-2011 00259 - 00260 $2,278.50 

Golf Course 24-November-2011 30-November-2011 00151 - 00154 $271.24 

Total Cheque Payments $759,776.65 

(ii) 

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 01-November-2011 30-November-2011 Inv 372 - Inv 378 $7,446,432.42 

Direct Bank Charges 01-November-2011 30-November-2011 Sup 136 - Sup 137 $20,305.85 

Accounts Payable 01-November-2011 03-November-2011 E 5499 - E 5535 $46,501.86 




Accounts Payable 16-November-2011 16-November-2011 E 5585 - E5635 $339,126.42 



Golf Course 01-November-2011 11-November-2011 E 0092 - E 0092 $47,449.54 



Payroll 01-November-2011 30-November-2011 Pay 370 to Pay 377 1,011,855.00 

Total EFT Payments $10,663,009.62 

Carried 8/0 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $11,422,786.27 




CR11.170 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 2011 


To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds 

and the financial performance of each investment (ie. interest earned) year to date. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment 

products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity 

guidelines as set out in the policy. 

DETAILS: 

Investment Portfolio Performance 

At its December 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to reduce the cash rate 

by a further 0.25% to 4.25%. 

The Reserve Bank is concerned about the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe which is still 

to be resolved and its noticeable impact on growth in Asia which has begun to slow down. It is 

expected that global growth will continue to slow throughout the forthcoming year. Economists 

are predicting further interest rates cuts during 2012. 

On the local economy, the mining industry continues to perform strongly although other industry 

sectors such as retail continue to struggle. The Reserve Bank's latest interest rate cut should 

give some relief to Australian households and business. Unemployment continues to remain 

close to five per cent. Inflation is expected to remain between the Reserve Bank's target of 2% 

to 3%. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term of 

two to three months are around 5.5% and 5.6%. Interest rates for securities for periods greater 

than six months are between 5.5% and 5.7% with the major Australian banks. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day 

period) was 4.88% for November 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure 

of future interest rates) was 4.59% at 30 November 2011. As the Council’s investment portfolio 

is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 4.50% for November 2011 is the 

more appropriate performance measure. 

Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash 

rate with a weighted average interest rate of 5.80%. The weighted average investment period 

of 143 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the 

major Australian banks) for this period which were an average of 5.6%. 




Investment Portfolio Performance for November 2011 

The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 

12 month period November 2010 to November 2011. 

Interest Rates 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

Investment Performance 

For November 2010 to November 2011 

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate 

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the 

Town's investment portfolio, since November 2008. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For November 2008 to November 2011 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Nov-08 Feb-09 May-09 Aug-09 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 




The total investment at the end of November 2011 is $27.8 million which consists of Municipal 

Funds of $16.2 million, Reserve Funds of $2 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $9.6 

million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from November 

2010 to November 2011. 

Millions 

30 

Investment Portfolio 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Nov 10 Dec 10 Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 

Reserves Endowment Municipal 




The investment performance as at the end of November 2011 is as follows: 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

November 

2011 

Income 

Total 

Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Floating Rate Notes . 

ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.07% $2,071 $498,763 1.80% 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.24% $4,026 $947,140 3.41% 

Sub-total $6,097 $1,445,903 5.21% 

Term Deposits and Bank 

Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 5.94% $5,033 $1,039,371 3.74% 

ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $4,932 $1,010,685 3.64% 

ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $2,466 $505,342 1.82% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1" 5.80% $4,955 $1,053,690 3.79% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit $593 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 5.80% $1,901 $522,053 1.88% 


BANKWEST - Term Deposit $160 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 5.85% $4,488 $1,004,488 3.62% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit $1,683 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 138 "A1+" 5.65% $376 $81,510 0.29% 






NAB - Term Deposit $8,488 

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.68% $2,472 $2,271,459 8.18% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 6.13% $4,031 $822,034 2.96% 

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.12% $2,630 $537,846 1.94% 




BOQ - Term Deposit $2,757 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 185 "A1+" 5.79% $9,803 $2,073,387 7.47% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 6.00% $4,932 $1,014,301 3.65% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.75% $3,686 $788,724 2.84% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit $407 

StGeorge - Term Deposit $5,960 

StGeorge - Term Deposit $1,324 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 5.70% $144 $307,437 1.11% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.83% $4,792 $1,015,493 3.66% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 5.75% $2,363 $505,592 1.82% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 90 "A1" 5.95% $2,456 $505,070 1.82% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 152 "A1" 5.87% $4,953 $2,204,953 7.94% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 151 "A1" 5.87% $844 $750,844 2.70% 

Sub-total $127,525 $26,321,359 94.79% 

61.78% 

Total Investments $133,622 $27,767,262 100.00% 

Weighted Average 143 5.80% 





The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the 

guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment. 


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is 

therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed 

monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. 

The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual 

investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below: 

Budget 

2010/2011 

Actual as at 

Nov 2010 % 

Budget 

2011/2012 

Actual as at 

Nov 2011 % 

General * $544,500 $264,431 48.6% $607,000 $311,006 51.2% 

Reserves $304,200 $136,340 44.8% $160,000 $48,441 30.3% 

Endowment Lands $576,400 $243,671 42.3% $419,900 $232,890 55.5% 

Total Investments $1,425,100 $644,442 45.2% $1,186,900 $592,337 49.9% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $33,805 and Ocean Mia late settlement penalty interest of 

$2,823. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity to 

Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity to 

Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - November 2011. 




That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2011 forming part of the Notice Paper 

be received. 

Carried 8/0 




CR11.171 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - 

NOVEMBER 2011 


To review the financial position for the period ended 30 November 2011 and report on 

permanent and timing variances. 

BACKGROUND: 

This year's budget has $36.46 million allocated for operational expenditure (including $6 million 

of non-cash items) and $22.55 million for capital expenditure. 

Major works highlighted in the budget include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$9 million for the design and construction of surf clubrooms and cafe/restaurant at City 

Beach (subject to commercial feasibility); 

$674,000 for remaining work on the Wembley Golf Course and Pro Shop; 

$500,000 for the redevelopment of the City Beach Pavilion; 

$500,000 for the shared path network across the Town; 

$500,000 for path improvements around Lake Monger; and 

$378,000 for planning and designing the first stage of the Wembley Sports Park. 

Local Governments are required to report on variations to the monthly budgets and this report 

provides a list of detailed explanations has been provided for budget line items where 

permanent variations are $30,000 or more and timing variances are $100,000 or more. 

DETAILS: 

A table of key financial indicators is provided below comparing year to date actual figures 

against the year to date budget. 

Details 

Amended 

Budget 

2011/2012 

($000's) 

YTD 

Budget 

30 Nov 11 

($000's) 

YTD 

Actual 

30 Nov 11 

($000's) 

Balance Sheet 

Current Assets* 40,386 

Current Liabilities (8,555) 

Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 31,831 

*Current assets include investments of: 

General 16,155 

Reserves 2,009 

Endowment Lands 9,602 

27,766 

Capital Expenditure 22,614 5,635 2,786 




Details 

Amended 

Budget 

2011/2012 

($000's) 

YTD 

Budget 

30 Nov 11 

($000's) 

YTD 

Actual 

30 Nov 11 

($000's) 

Operations 

Revenue 39,740 27,315 27,451 

Expenditure 36,479 15,509 14,295 

Operating Profit/(Loss) 3,261 11,806 13,156 

Other 

Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) (80) 15,486 16,048 

Transfers from/(to) Reserves (1,191) (656) 388 

Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 8,802 3,541 (860) 

I. The Balance Sheet 

The following observations are made: 

 

 

Cash assets at 30 November 2011 are $28.5 million, down from $28.7 million at the 

end of October 2011. The inflow of rates monies predominantly from instalments 

has offset operational and capital expenditures during the month to minimise a 

decline in cash of only $0.2 million. 

Current receivables at end of November are $6.3 million, down from $8.2 million at 

the end of October 2011. During the month, an inflow of $1.8 million of rates monies 

was received and rates outstanding at the end of the month represent $5.7 million 

of the total current receivables. 

II. 

Financial Operations 

Net Result from Operations 

Net Operating Result 

20 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Month Budget Ended 

Actual 




Revenue 

Total revenue is 100.5% of the year to date budget with $27.5 million actual revenue 

against a year to date budget of $27.3 million. 

Permanent Differences for Revenue 

There are no permanent variances for revenue above $30,000 as at 30 November 2011. 

Timing Differences for Revenue 

There are no new timing variances for revenue above $100,000 as at 30 November 2011. 

Expenditure 

The expenditure for the period ended 30 November 2011 was below the year to date 

budget with actual expenditure being $14.3 million against year to date budget of $15.5 

million, a variance of $1.2 million or 9%. 

The majority of this variance represents materials and contracts expenditure not spent 

with a number of maintenance programmes and projects yet to be commenced, and with 

invoicing lagging (works completed during the month not yet invoiced). 

Material and contract expenses as at 30 November are $3.6 million against year to date 

budget of $4.7 million. 

Permanent Differences for Expenditure 

There are no new permanent variances above $30,000 to report on. 

Timing Differences for Expenditure 

There are no new timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 30 November 2011. 

Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement 

The surplus as at 30 November 2011 is $16 million which is close to year to date budget 

of $15.5 million. This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day 

operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works. 




Cash Surplus 

20 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

III. 

Capital Works Programs 

Budget 

Actual 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period 

ended 30 November 2011 is $2.8 million against year to date budget of $5.6 million, a 

variance of $2.8 million. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows buildings $0.5 million 

against year to date budget of $1.1 million. A number of major project timelines have 

already been reviewed and adjusted. The remaining capital project timelines are 

currently under review as part of the mid year budget review which is expected to bring 

year to date budgets more in line with actual progress, 

Parks and Reserves expenditure is $0.5 million against year to date budget of $1.1 

million, roads and lanes $0.6 million against year to date budget of $1.9 million and 

footpaths $0.2 million against year to date budget of $0.5 million. 

Capital works projects are very much seasonally influenced with major road works being 

carried out during summer. 

VI. 

Budget Reallocations 

No budget reallocations or adjustments have been received: 


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The 

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, 

expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying 

significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement. 


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact 

on Council funds. 





The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix 

Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to 

assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Extract of Management Financial Statements - 30 November 2011 

2. Monthly Financial Statements - November 2011 

3. Budget Variation Report 

4. Wembley Golf Course Monthly Financial Statements and commentary (Confidential) 




That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 November 2011 be received and the 

variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 


10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

10.1 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 2010/11 - DECISIONS 


To consider any decisions made at the Annual General Meeting of Electors, held on 

Wednesday 14 December 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

This report is submitted to Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.33 of the 

Local Government Act 1995 which states that all decisions made at an electors' meeting are to 

be considered at the next ordinary Council meeting. 

DETAILS: 

The Annual General Meeting of Electors of the Town of Cambridge was held commencing at 

7.06 pm on Wednesday, 14 December 2011. There were 5 ratepayers and residents present. 

Annual Report 

The business of the meeting was considered, with the contents of the Annual Report for 

2010/2011 being approved by the meeting. 

Moved by Cr Alan Langer, seconded by Cr Corinne MacRae 

That in accordance with the requirements of section 5.33 the Local Government Act 

1995, the Annual Report for the 2010/2011 financial year be adopted. 

Carried 

Garden Competition 

The Mayor then conducted the Award Ceremony for the Annual Garden Competition, 

presenting the following prizes:- 

Best Street/Part Street 

Nil 

Best Commercial / Group Housing Front Garden: 

Highly Commended: Nil 

Winning Garden: 

Dr Kevin Bown 

Ocean Gardens Retirement Village 

60 Kalinda Drive 

CITY BEACH' ($400 plus trophy) 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 221

COUNCIL 


Best Water Wise Front Garden: 

Highly Commended: Mr William and Mrs Lorraine Donaldson 

240 Jersey Street 

WEMBLEY ($250 plus certificate) 


Mr Colin and Mrs Susan Yates 

8 Turriff Road 

FLOREAT ($400 plus trophy) 

Best Residential Front Garden: 

Highly Commended: Dr Gregory Makin 

31 Aruma Way 

CITY BEACH ($250 plus certificate) 


Ms Natalie Naglan 

6 Calver Place 

CITY BEACH ($400 plus trophy) 

Public Question Time 

The Mayor then advised that the next item of General Business related to Public Question 

Time. 

Written Questions: 

The Mayor advised that a number of questions had been submitted in writing prior to the 

meeting. The questions had been responded to in writing and the questions, answers and 

relevant attachments were available to the public at the meeting. 

Questions raised by Electors at the Meeting: 

Nil 

The meeting closed at 7.12 pm. 

No decisions requiring the consideration of the Council were made. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Annual General Meeting of Electors - 2 December 2010 - Minutes 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer 

That the report relating to the conduct of the 2010/2011 Annual General Meeting of 

Electors held on Wednesday 14 December 2011, be received. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 


10.2 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT - 

TENDER T20‐11 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 


To award Tender T20-11 Architectural Services for Surf Club Building and Commercial 

Facilities Development at City Beach. 

BACKGROUND: 

In June 2011, Council considered a report outlining the proposed tender actions for the Surf 

Club and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development. 

Council determined, inter alia, that the engagement of the Architects will be determined by 


In October 2011, Council considered a further report relating to the Tender for Architectural 

Services for this project and decided to short list two firms to undertake further work to refine 

their designs to assist the Council in awarding the tender. 

As part of the decision, the two preferred architects have presented their designs to the Elected 

Members at a forum held on 29 November 2011. 

The outcomes of these presentations have assisted in the recommendation of a preferred 

tenderer. 

DETAILS: 

Tender Evaluation 

Two preferred architects were invited to refine their design and present to the Elected 

Members. The revised designs and outcomes of the presentation augmented information and 

assessment conducted previously by the Tender Assessment Panel. 

The assessment has identified Christou Design Group as the recommended architect at an 

indicative budget fee of $536,000, which includes approximately $50,000 of specialist sub 

consultant services. 

The tender assessment is provided as a confidential attachment. 


Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations Part 4 Section 18 Clause (4a) 

provides: 

"to assist the local government in deciding which tender would be the most advantageous to it 

to accept, a tenderer may be requested to clarify the information provided in the tender." 

It is viewed that this process is consistent with this Regulation. 


COUNCIL 



The opportunity for development of the Surf Club site supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic 

Plan vision of Delivering Our Services. It is an action in response to our strategy of maintaining 

quality community and civic buildings. 

The project, once completed, also contributes to other Strategic Outcomes notably: 

Planning for Our Community 

Capacity to Deliver - (Financial Sustainability) 


This matter has been assess 8/0ed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation 

Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

SUMMARY: 

The preferred architect is Christou Design Group. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Tender Assessment (Confidential) 


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the tender for Tender T20-11 for architectural services for Surf Club and 

Commercial Facilities Development be awarded to Christou Design Group at an 

indicative cost of $536,000 for the project; 

Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until a lease agreement 

is in place between the Town and City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club. 

Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer 

That clause (ii) be deleted and two further clauses be added as follows:- 

(ii) 

a report to Council be prepared on the new lease agreement between the Town and 

the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club; 

(iii) Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until Council has 

approved the new lease. 


At 8.20 pm, Members agreed that, in accordance with Section 5.23 (2)(e) of the Local 

Government Act 1995, further discussion of the tender assessment be held behind closed 

doors prior to the conclusion of the meeting. 


COUNCIL 



That the following matter be discussed behind closed doors in accordance with Section 

5.23(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995. 

Carried 8/0 

Discussion resumed behind closed doors at 8.52 pm. (Refer Item 13. Cr Bradley left the 

meeting at 8.50 pm.) 


That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the tender for Tender T20-11 for architectural services for Surf Club and 

Commercial Facilities Development be awarded to Christou Design Group at an 

indicative cost of $536,000 for the project; 

a report to Council be prepared on the new lease agreement between the Town and 

the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club; 

(iii) Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until Council has 

approved the new lease. 

Carried 6/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer and Walker 

Cr MacRae 


COUNCIL 


10.3 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW - SUBMISSION 


To consider the Town's submission to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel in 

response to its recently released Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel Issues Paper. 

BACKGROUND: 

On 24 June 2011, the Minister for Local Government, Hon John Castrilli MLA, announced an 

independent review of Perth metropolitan local government and broader governance structures. 

The Minister appointed an independent panel, the Metropolitan Local Government Review 

Panel, to examine the social, economic and environmental challenges facing metropolitan 

Perth. 

The panel is chaired by Professor Alan Robson, Vice Chancellor of The University of Western 

Australia. Other members are Dr Peter Tannock, former Vice Chancellor of the University of 

Notre Dame Australia and Dr Sue van Leeuwen, Chief Executive Officer of Leadership WA. 

The Terms of Reference of the independent Metropolitan Governance Review Panel are to: 

1. Identify current and anticipated specific regional, social, environmental and economic 

issues affecting, or likely to affect, the growth of metropolitan Perth in the next 50 years. 

2. Identify current and anticipated national and international factors likely to impact in the next 

50 years. 

3. Research improved local government structures, and governance models and structures for 

the Perth metropolitan area, drawing on national and international experience and 

examining key issues relating to community representation, engagement, accountability 

and State imperatives among other things the panel may identify during the course of the 

review. 

4. Identify new local government boundaries and a resultant reduction in the overall number of 

local governments to better meet the needs of the community. 

5. Prepare options to establish the most effective local government structures and governance 

models that take into account matters identified through the review including, but not limited 

to, community engagement, patterns of demographic change, regional and State growth 

and international factors which are likely to impact. 

6. Present a limited list of achievable options together with a recommendation on the preferred 

option. 

The Panel recently released its Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel Issues Paper 

(Attached) for public comment, with submissions due by 23 December 2011. 

The Issues Paper poses a series of key questions to assist with the submission process. 


COUNCIL 


The Panel expects to release draft conclusions of the review in March 2012 and will invite 

further comments at that time. 

The Panel will report to the Minister for Local Government by 30 June 2012. 

DETAILS: 

The Town is preparing a draft submission to Issues Paper responding to the Panel’s questions 

as they relate to the Town and, where relevant, as they relate to the Perth metropolitan area 

and the local government sector. 

The themes of the Town's draft submission are: 

1. There should be a transitional approach to the long term structure of local government 

in Perth with a minimum level of capability and capacity established. 

2. No major shift in responsibilities between state and local government except waste 

disposal and improvements could be made in the efficiencies and working relationships 

between the state and local governments 

3. Community of interest and localism is the key to successful local government. 

It is considered that the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel’s recently released 

Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel Issues Paper provides an opportunity for the 

Town to comment on issues that are fundamental to the reform of local government in the 

metropolitan area. 


Nil 


Nil 


In accordance with the objective of the Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 "Capacity to Deliver", two 

goals are relevant: 

 

 

Open and transparent governance 

Financial sustainability 


This matter was assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria, no consultation is proposed as this report is to consider the 

Council's response to Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel - Issues Paper and Supplementary 

Questions 

2. Town's draft submission - to be distributed. 


COUNCIL 




That the submission responding to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel 

Issues Paper be approved. 

Amendment 


That the motion be amended by adding the words "the Chief Executive Officer be 

authorised to make minor amendments to incorporate comments from Elected 

Members." 



That the submission responding to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel 

Issues Paper be approved and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make minor 

amendments to incorporate comments from Elected Members. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 


10.4 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL - CITY OF STIRLING WITHDRAWAL 


To consider the valuation prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for the value of the 

current and future rights and obligations, including assets and liabilities, of the Mindarie 

Regional Council attributable to the City of Stirling. To also consider City of Stirling's request in 

relation the value to be paid upon withdrawal. 

BACKGROUND: 

As a result of the Supreme Court action initiated by the City of Stirling in mid 2010 and 

mediation held in August 2010, it is proposed that the City of Stirling withdraw from the 

Mindarie Regional Council. 

A Heads of Agreement was entered into by the parties to negotiate in good faith during the 

period until 30 April 2011 in relation to the adjustment of assets and liabilities of the Mindarie 

Regional Council to enable the City of Stirling to withdraw. 

The negotiating period expired and the Town decided in May 2011 not to approve the extension 

of the expiry date of the Heads of Agreement but agreed to participate in negotiations to 

facilitate the withdrawal of the City of Stirling. For the Heads of Agreement to continue it 

required all parties to agree and as the Town did not support the extension, negotiations are no 

longer being carried out under that arrangement. 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were appointed to assist the Mindarie Regional Council and 

its members to value City of Stirling's interest for the purpose of adjusting the assets and 

liabilities of the regional council. 

The valuation exercise was to be undertaken in two stages as follows: 

1. Preliminary Report for the identification of a preferred method of valuation. 

2. Final Report based on the methodology from Stage 1 containing a valuation of the 

current and future rights and obligations, including assets and liabilities of the Mindarie 

Regional Council. 

After the completion of Stage 1, the Town at its April 2011 meeting considered the methodology 

proposed by PWC based on a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) and decided not to accept the 

proposed methodology. It was considered at the time that the DCF method would be based on 

assumptions of future cash flows and is purely hypothetical and not appropriate for a 

cooperative arrangement such as the MRC for the following reasons: 

(a) 

(b) 

MRC is an entity owned by the members with the primary function of receiving waste for 

disposal in the most efficient manner on a cost recovery basis. 

MRC was not set up to make a profit for the owners and this is enunciated in the financial 

precept that member’s fees would be set at the cost of tipping. 


COUNCIL 


(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

From the 2004/05 financial year the MRC no longer distributed surpluses, therefore any 

variation in actual cost of tipping is to be accumulated in an under/over’s account and 

allocated to members in their proportion of tonnes tipped for each year of operation. 

It is only the casual tonnes (surplus profit) that are to be distributed to the owners in 

equity proportions. 

Whilst we are customers as well as owners, it was never intended that we charge 

ourselves a commercial rate of tipping including a risk premium to be distributed as profit 

in equity proportions. 

MRC does not have an objective to maximise profit for the owners. 

A DCF may be appropriate to value a business that has a profit objective and where 

future cash flows can be reliably estimated. Variability in assumptions can have a 

significant impact on the final result. 

The NPV of an operation run on a cost recovery basis should be zero. 

Nevertheless, at a CEO group meeting held in May 2011 it was agreed to proceed with the 

valuation approach proposed by PWC with Cambridge dissenting. 

PWC completed the second stage report in August 2011. This report assessed the value of 

MRC using two scenarios with Scenario A being calculated at $39 million and Scenario B $35.3 

million. PWC stated that they considered the value determined under Scenario B to be more 

robust and their preferred value. 

The City of Stirling has a one-third equity share of MRC and this would translate to $13 million 

under Scenario A and $11.8 million for Scenario B. 

The City of Stirling considered the valuation prepared by PWC and determined at its 

September 2011 meeting that the valuation should be the average of both Scenarios A and B 

($12.38 million) and discounted by 10% to assist in resolving this matter equating to a value of 

$11.14 million. 

Now that the valuation exercise has been completed it is necessary for the members of the 

MRC to negotiate a price to be paid upon the withdrawal of the City of Stirling. 

DETAILS: 

Valuation 

PWC have calculated the valuation based on the DCF method as detailed in the following table. 

Low 

($m) 

$135 p/t 

High 

($m) 

$140 p/t 

Preferred 

($m) 

Tipping Fee (ex GST) 

Value of MRC as a whole 

- Scenario A 30.1 47.8 39.0 

- Scenario B 29.3 41.3 35.3 

Value of City of Stirling pro rata one-third interest 

- Scenario A 10.0 15.9 13.0 

- Scenario B 9.8 13.8 11.8 


COUNCIL 


PWC note that the value of the City of Stirling’s interest in the MRC is higher under Scenario A 

“due to the incremental value associated with the assumed acquisition and exploitation of a 

replacement landfill site when the existing air space at Tamala Park is exhausted”. PWC 

acknowledge that under this scenario, “the actual costs may be significantly different from those 

estimates. For this reason we consider the pro-rata values determined under Scenario B to be 

more robust and our preferred values”. 

Effectively PWC have rejected Scenario A as a basis for the valuation. The Town supports the 

view that Scenario A should be rejected as it highlights one of the deficiencies of the DCF 

method in relation to the validity of the assumptions used and the potential to significantly affect 

the result as identified in Town’s decision to not support the DCF method in April 2011. 

The Town considers Scenario A as a highly inappropriate basis to assess the valuation of MRC 

because it provides the owners (including Stirling) with the benefit of the positive cash flows 

derived from a future investment decision to purchase a landfill site after the closure of Tamala 

Park. At the proposed time of the capital investment it is assumed that City of Stirling will not 

be a member of the MRC, so how could they possibly benefit in terms of this valuation from the 

speculative decision of the capital purchase of an unknown site, for an unknown amount and at 

unknown operation and transport costs? This is a purely hypothetical scenario and should not 

have been considered as a reasonable way of calculating a valuation of MRC. 

The Town has further concerns about the assumptions used relating to the DCF valuation as it 

is based on the assumption that the members will sell the operations of MRC to a private 

operator and that the members will continue to tip at Tamala Park at a higher fee per tonne 

than the members currently pay so that the new owner will be able to make a return on their 

investment. Members currently pay a tipping fee of $123 (ex GST) per tonne and the valuation 

assumes that the Low valuation is based on $135 (ex GST) per tonne and the High valuation at 

$140 (ex GST) per tonne (refer to the table above). 

In reality, the market value of tipping is significantly less than this. It is understood that the City 

of Stirling has negotiated a fee to tip its waste at Red Hill landfill managed by the Eastern 

Metropolitan Regional Council at $94 (inc GST) per tonne which is $85.50 (ex GST). The City 

of Canning went to tender several years ago for the disposal of its waste to landfill and is 

currently in the third year of a contract with Sita and is also paying $94 (inc GST) per tonne. 

Both these disposal rates demonstrate that the market rate for tipping is much lower than the 

assumptions made in the PWC valuation. The fees charged by MRC are higher because of 

their investment in a Resource Recovery Facility to divert waste from landfill which operates at 

a higher cost. Clearly, if members were ambivalent to resource recovery they could tip their 

waste direct to landfill at a much lower cost. 

It is difficult to accept that the members would agree to sell MRC to a private operator and then 

enter into contracts to pay a higher tipping cost so that the operator could make a profit when 

there are lower cost alternatives in the market. 

The MRC operates as a cost recovery business to keep the cost of tipping down for members. 

It is not operated as an investment or wealth generation facility for the members. Therefore a 

valuation that assumes profits is a flawed approach to valuing the business operations and this 

is consistent with the Town’s decision in April 2011 not to support the methodology. The 

members do not plan to sell the operations of the MRC but to continue to dispose of waste at 

the site. 

The method used by PWC does not account for the post closure obligation of the owners of 

MRC of the Tamala Park site such as monitoring and any possible rehabilitation of the site that 

are unknown at his stage. Any agreement for the City of Stirling to withdraw should be 

conditional upon them retaining their post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in 

proportion to the tonnes tipped to the total of members’ tonnes over the life of the landfill. 


COUNCIL 


Discount 

PWC have advised in their valuation that "a discount should be applied to the pro rata value to 

reflect the fact that the City of Stirling is not able in its own right to force a sale of the business 

and the realisation of the assets. It can only do so with the agreement of the other Councillors 

representing the member Councils". They further noted that discounts applied to the valuation 

of privately held shareholdings are often greater than that applied to publically traded 

shareholdings which fall in the range 15% to 25%. In this case discounts up to 50% can be 

applied. 

City of Stirling - Initial Proposal 

As noted in the background, the City of Stirling considered the valuation prepared by PWC and 

determined at its September 2011 meeting that the valuation should be the average of both 

Scenarios A and B ($12.38 million) and discounted by 10% to assist in resolving this matter 

equating to a value of $11.14 million. 

As part of the withdrawal process, they also proposed to withdraw from the financial guarantee 

withy respect to the Biovison contract relating to the operation of the Resource Recovery 

Facility (RRF) and to retain their shareholding in the land at the Tamala Park site. 

It is considered that the City of Stirling should retain its responsibilities under the RRF 

guarantee as that was part of the condition to enter into the contract with the operator and 

along with the other members. The Town would not want to accept any further exposure to this 

guarantee. 

In relation to the City of Stirling retaining its shareholding in the land, it is not considered that 

this is a matter for negotiation with respect to the withdrawal of the City of Stirling from the MRC 

as the MRC lease the land from the seven owners including the Town of Cambridge. 

Mindarie Regional Council 

The MRC considered the City of Stirling's proposal to withdraw at its meeting held on 8 

December 2011 and decided: 

That: 

1. A Working Group comprising the Mindarie Regional Council Chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer, and the participant local government mayors and/or their elected representatives, 

be established to consider options for the membership, structure and the operations of the 

Mindarie Regional Council. 

2. The City of Stirling be requested to seek from the Hon. Minister for Local Government a 

further 3 months’ extension to their current withdrawal request from the Mindarie Regional 


3. The Working Group deliberations include all options, including progressing the withdrawal 

of the City of Stirling from the Mindarie Regional Council. 


COUNCIL 


City of Stirling - Second Proposal 

Following the MRC meeting of last week, the City of Stirling has now reconsidered its proposal 

and has advised that its Council decided on 14 December 2011: 

to continue with the withdrawal process 

request the Minister for Local Government to extend the withdrawal process for 3 

months (to 31 Match 2010) 

not participate in the working group established by MRC on 8 December 2011 

reduce their request for a payout to 75% of the PWC averaged valuation 

not to seek withdrawal as a guarantor from the RRF guarantee. 

The Council also decided that if the agreements to effect the City of Stirling's withdrawal from 

MRC are not effected by 31 March 2012, they will recommence the Supreme Court 

proceedings against the MRC and the other participants. 

In relation to the reduced payout amount referred to above, a 25% discount would reduce the 

amount to $9.285 million ($12.38 million average valuation @ 75%) from the earlier request of 

$11.14 million. 

As indicated in the analysis of the PWC methodology, it is considered that Scenario A does not 

have any merit and any discussion on valuation using that method should be based on 

Scenario B only. Scenario B determined the City of Stirling's one-third share at $11.8m, 

therefore at a 10% discount this would be reduced to $10.62 million and at 25% the reduced 

amount would be $8.85 million. 

It is noted that the City of Stirling are no longer seeking to withdraw from the RRF guarantee 

which is consistent with the Town's position. 

Financial Costs 

Should the members agree to pay the City of Stirling $9.285 million to withdraw, the Town will 

be liable for $1.16 million of that payment (one eighth). In addition, the tipping costs have 

increased approximately $20 per tonne due to the reduced waste being delivered by the City of 

Stirling which creates an extra cost to the Town of $200,000 per year. The valuation prepared 

by PWC does not take into account the additional costs to the remaining members as a result 

of the City of Stirling withdrawing from the MRC as it is not part of the business value. 

However, any negotiation with the City of Stirling to withdraw needs to take into account the 

adverse financial impact on the remaining members. As a continuing member, it is deemed 

acceptable to pay a higher tipping price due to the reduced tonnes that will result in extending 

the life of the landfill, but not to also be paying a high exit price for the withdrawal of a member. 

It is also considered that any payment to the City of Stirling should come from MRC funds and 

the remaining participants should not be required to make a proportional payment to MRC to 

facilitate the payment. The City of Stirling payment should be paid as follows: 

from City of Stirling's paid in capital which at 30 June 2011 is $844,000 as stated in the 

audited financial statements 

paid their share of the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. under/over’s 

account) which had a balance as at 30 June 2010 of $1.926 million in total with Stirling's 

share being $667,000. Note: this amount needs to be updated with the 2011 end of 

year financial results; 

any residual amount negotiated be paid from annual operational surpluses of the 

regional council over a period of time inclusive of interest; 


COUNCIL 


A further matter to consider is the Town's continued membership of the MRC. If the City of 

Stirling is able to withdraw from the MRC on favourable terms with a payment of approximately 

$9 million then it may also be in the Town's financial interest to withdraw and achieve a similar 

pro rata payment of around $2.25 million. The Town would the need to find an alternative 

waste disposal site to tip waste. The Town's current waste strategy is to reduce the amount of 

waste sent to landfill and if successful will see the tonnages reduce over time. If the Town 

wanted to pursue this action it is considered necessary to act now at the same time the City of 

Stirling withdraw. If not it is unlikely that the Town would ever achieve such favourable 

conditions in the future. This matter would need serious consideration and evaluation of the 

impacts before proceeding. 


The withdrawal of a participant in a Regional Council is to follow the process outlined in Section 

699 of the Local Government Act 1960. 

If negotiations in relation to the adjustment of assets and liabilities of the Mindarie Regional 

Council are not finalised in good faith, the City of Stirling has the option to resume the Supreme 

Court Action. 


The financial implications relate to the impact of the potential change in ownership of the 

Mindarie Regional Council. The net assets of the Mindarie Regional Council at 30 June 2010 

were approximately $27.5 million. The financial implications for the Town are detailed earlier in 

this report. 


In accordance with the objective of the Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 "Capacity to Deliver", two 

goals are relevant: 

 

 

Open and transparent governance 

Financial sustainability 


This matter was assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is administrative in 

providing information to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


COUNCIL 


ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That:- 

(i) the valuation of the Mindarie Regional Council determined by 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers not be accepted due to the flawed basis of the 

assumptions used to calculate the value; 

(ii) 

the following be noted: 

(a) position of the City of Stirling in relation to the value of their shareholding in 

the Mindarie Regional Council, request to withdraw from the Resource 

Recovery Facility guarantee and retention of their shareholding in the Tamala 

Park land; 

(b) that the Heads of Agreement to negotiate the withdrawal of the City of Stirling 

expired on 30 April 2011 and has not been renewed or extended; 

(c) the Town of Cambridge agrees to continue participating in the negotiations to 

facilitate the withdrawal if the City of Stirling. 

(iii) the decision of Mindarie Regional Council to set up a working group comprising 

the regional council Chairman and CEO, and mayors of the member councils to 

consider options for the membership, structure and operations of the Mindarie 

Regional Council be noted; 

(iv) Mayor Simon Withers represent the Town of Cambridge on the Working Group 

proposed in (iii) above; 

(v) 

in relation to negotiation for the withdrawal of the City of Stirling from the Mindarie 

Regional Council the Town’s position is that the City of Stirling: 

(a) be paid their paid-in capital contributions; 

(b) be paid their share of the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. 

under/over’s account); 

(c) be paid any residual value based on negotiations for a financial settlement to 

be negotiated; 

(d) be paid be from current accumulated Mindarie Regional Council funds in 

relation to (a) and (b) above and any additional payments, should there not be 

sufficient funds held by the regional council, be paid from annual operational 

surpluses of the regional council over a period of time inclusive of interest; 

(e) not be released from its liabilities under the Resource Recovery Facility 

guarantee to Biovision; 

(f) retain its post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in proportion to 

the tonnes tipped to the total of members tonnes over the life of the landfill; 

(g) retain its shareholding in the land at the Tamala Park site. 


COUNCIL 


Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That:- 


PricewaterhouseCoopers not be accepted as a basis for determining the 

withdrawal payment to the City of Stirling due to the flawed basis of the 

assumptions used to calculate the value, namely that the remaining members will 

incur a “commercial” surcharge to the tipping fees; 

(ii) 


(a) the position of the City of Stirling in relation to the value of its shareholding in 

the Mindarie Regional Council, retaining its liability relating to the Resource 

Recovery Facility guarantee and retention of its ownership share in the land at 

the Tamala Park landfill site; 

(b) that the Heads of Agreement to negotiate the withdrawal of the City of Stirling 


(c) the Town of Cambridge agrees to continue participating in the negotiations to 

facilitate the withdrawal of the City of Stirling; 

(iii) 

the City of Stirling's withdrawal from the Mindarie Regional Council will reduce the 

City of Stirling’s tipping costs and increase the tipping costs of the remaining 

members of Mindarie Regional Council, and the City of Stirling has offered no 

compensation for the increased tipping costs to the remaining members; 

(iv) in relation to negotiations for the withdrawal of the City of Stirling from the 

Mindarie Regional Council, the Town’s position is that the City of Stirling: 

(a) be paid no more than its: 

(i) paid-in capital contributions; and 

(ii) share of the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. unders/overs 

account); 

from current accumulated Mindarie Regional Council funds; 

(b) not be released from its liabilities under the Resource Recovery Facility 


(c) retain its post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in proportion to 


(d) retain its ownership share in the land at the Tamala Park landfill site; 

(v) 

in the event that Mindarie Regional Council agrees to pay the City of Stirling an 

amount greater than that detailed in (iv)(a) above, this Council applies to the 

Minister for Local Government to withdraw from Mindarie Regional Council in 

accordance with Section 699 of the Local Government Act 1960 at the same time 

and on the same financial terms as the City of Stirling for the following reasons: 

(a) the payment to the City of Stirling in excess of that detailed in (iv)(a) above 

will add greater financial risk to the members of the Mindarie Regional Council 

without any compensation for the increased cost of tipping that will be met by 

the members; 

(b) it is unlikely that the Town would be able to withdraw from the Mindarie 

Regional Council on similar terms in the future; 


COUNCIL 


(c) 

the financial interests of the Town's ratepayers are better served by receiving 

a payment on similar terms as the City of Stirling for its share of the equity in 

Mindarie Regional Council than remaining a member of Mindarie Regional 


(vi) a further report be prepared and presented to Council on the implications of 

withdrawing from the Mindarie Regional Council. 



That:- 


PricewaterhouseCoopers not be accepted as a basis for determining the 

withdrawal payment to the City of Stirling due to the flawed basis of the 

assumptions used to calculate the value, namely that the remaining members will 

incur a “commercial” surcharge to the tipping fees; 

(ii) 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the position of the City of Stirling in relation to the value of its shareholding in 

the Mindarie Regional Council, retaining its liability relating to the Resource 

Recovery Facility guarantee and retention of its ownership share in the land 

at the Tamala Park landfill site; 

that the Heads of Agreement to negotiate the withdrawal of the City of Stirling 


the Town of Cambridge agrees to continue participating in the negotiations to 

facilitate the withdrawal of the City of Stirling; 

(iii) 

the City of Stirling's withdrawal from the Mindarie Regional Council will reduce the 

City of Stirling’s tipping costs and increase the tipping costs of the remaining 

members of Mindarie Regional Council, and the City of Stirling has offered no 

compensation for the increased tipping costs to the remaining members; 

(iv) in relation to negotiations for the withdrawal of the City of Stirling from the 

Mindarie Regional Council, the Town’s position is that the City of Stirling: 

(a) be paid no more than its: 

(i) paid-in capital contributions; and 

(ii) share of the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. unders/overs 

account); 

from current accumulated Mindarie Regional Council funds; 

(b) not be released from its liabilities under the Resource Recovery Facility 


(c) retain its post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in proportion to 


(d) retain its ownership share in the land at the Tamala Park landfill site; 

(v) 

in the event that Mindarie Regional Council agrees to pay the City of Stirling an 

amount greater than that detailed in (iv)(a) above, this Council applies to the 

Minister for Local Government to withdraw from Mindarie Regional Council in 

accordance with Section 699 of the Local Government Act 1960 at the same time 

and on the same financial terms as the City of Stirling for the following reasons: 


COUNCIL 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the payment to the City of Stirling in excess of that detailed in (iv)(a) above 

will add greater financial risk to the members of the Mindarie Regional 

Council without any compensation for the increased cost of tipping that will 

be met by the members; 

it is unlikely that the Town would be able to withdraw from the Mindarie 

Regional Council on similar terms in the future; 

the financial interests of the Town's ratepayers are better served by receiving 

a payment on similar terms as the City of Stirling for its share of the equity in 

Mindarie Regional Council than remaining a member of Mindarie Regional 


(vi) a further report be prepared and presented to Council on the implications of 

withdrawing from the Mindarie Regional Council. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 


11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil 

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Meeting Behind Closed Doors 


That the following matter be discussed behind closed doors in accordance with Section 

5.23(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995. 

Carried 8/0 

At 8.48 pm, Mayor Withers requested all persons other than Elected Members and Council 

Officers to leave the Council Chamber. 

Cr Bradley left the meeting at 8.50 pm. 

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - ANNUAL REVIEW 

Prior to consideration of this item, the Chief Executive Officer, in accordance with Section 5.65 

of the Local Government Act 1995, declared an interest in this matter. 


Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That the confidential Final Performance Appraisal report, as attached, prepared by the 

CEO Performance Review Committee be received and the recommendations contained 

therein be adopted. 

Carried 7/0 


COUNCIL 


14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and 

declared the meeting closed at 9.07 pm.

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?