Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong><br />
20 December 2011
MEETING OF COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
INDEX OF MINUTES<br />
1. Opening .............................................................................................................................. 1<br />
2. Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 1<br />
3. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................ 2<br />
4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 5<br />
5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 5<br />
6. Applications for Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence .................................................................................. 5<br />
7. Confirmation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong> .................................................................................................... 6<br />
8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ........................................................ 6<br />
9. Committee Reports ............................................................................................................ 6<br />
Development Committee ................................................................................................... 7<br />
DV11.111 Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, Cnr Bent Street, City Beach - Two Storey<br />
Dwelling with Undercr<strong>of</strong>t Garage - Referred Back 10<br />
DV11.112 Lots 70, 71 and 72 (No. 334-336) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley - Proposed<br />
Five Level Mixed Use Development (Cafe, Shops, Offices, Consulting<br />
Rooms and Twenty Two Multiple Dwellings) 20<br />
DV11.113 Lots 50 and 500 (No 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville -<br />
Proposed Office Building (WALGA Headquarters) 30<br />
DV11.114 Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade, Corner Southport Street, West Leederville<br />
- Mixed Use Development - Three Storey Buillding with Undercr<strong>of</strong>t - Offices<br />
and Restaurant 50<br />
DV11.115 Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way Wembley - Two x Two-Storey Grouped<br />
Dwellings 63<br />
DV11.116 Lot 196 (No. 43) Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with<br />
Undercr<strong>of</strong>t Garage 71<br />
DV11.117 Lot 82 (No. 25) Brighton Street West Leederville - Two Storey Dwelling<br />
with Undercr<strong>of</strong>t 75<br />
DV11.118 Lot 1346 (No. 33) Ulster Road, Corner Donegal Road, Floreat - Two Storey<br />
Dwelling With Undercr<strong>of</strong>t Garage - Amended Plans 81<br />
DV11.119 Lot 561 (No. 356) Salvado Road Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling 84<br />
DV11.120 Lot 1198 (No. 8) Dumfries Road Floreat - Additions to Single Dwelling<br />
(Ro<strong>of</strong> Material) 89<br />
DV11.121 Lot 41 (No. 69) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Garage<br />
(Retrospective Approval) 93<br />
DV11.122 Lot 758 (No. 313) The Boulevard, City Beach - Ancillary Accommodation 97<br />
DV11.123 Lot 231 (No. 93) Empire Avenue, City Beach - Pergola 102<br />
DV11.124 Access and Parking Strategy - Part One Draft Report - Referred Back 105<br />
DV11.125 Application - Four 'Non-complying events' (concerts) in a 12 month period<br />
at WA Athletics Stadium, Mt Claremont 110<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
i
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.126 Holyrood Street Heritage Design Concept Quotation 113<br />
DV11.127 Proposed Long Term Half Road Closure - MacEwan Street, West<br />
Leederville 115<br />
DV11.128 Proposed Scheme Amendment for Additional Use 'Consulting Rooms'<br />
Group - 'Dental Surgery' - Lot 353 (No 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat 118<br />
DV11.129 Draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville - Proposed Amendments to<br />
Reflect West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study 123<br />
DV11.130 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for November 2011 132<br />
DV11.131 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 135<br />
Community and Resources Committee 136<br />
CR11.153 Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) - Footpaths 139<br />
CR11.154 Road Asset Management and 20 Year Program For Road Resurfacing 144<br />
CR11.155 Road Improvement - Capital Works Five Year Program from 2012/13 149<br />
CR11.156 <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009 - Works Program for 2011/12 156<br />
CR11.157 Infrastructure Parks 2012/2013 Proposed Budget Works 161<br />
CR11.158 Lake Monger Reserve Water Quality Monitoring 167<br />
CR11.159 Station Street (Barrett Street to Creech Lane) - Parking Restriction<br />
Amendments 170<br />
CR11.160 Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 8 December 2011 173<br />
CR11.161 Financial Assistance - Floreat Surf Life Saving Club - Purchase <strong>of</strong> Side-by-<br />
Side Surf Rescue Vehicle 177<br />
CR11.162 Proposed 'SIDS and Kids Sunshine Beach Run' at City Beach 179<br />
CR11.163 Fee Review 2011 - Wembley Golf Course 183<br />
CR11.164 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf<br />
Course Hospitality Development - Tender T37-11 Hospitality Leasing<br />
Specialist 192<br />
CR11.165 Herdsman Main Drain Stormwater - Potential Reuse Project 195<br />
CR11.166<br />
Wembley Sports Park - Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study<br />
Outcomes 200<br />
CR11.167 Delegated Authority 2011/2012 - Christmas/New Year Recess 203<br />
CR11.168 Naming <strong>of</strong> Building - Perry Lakes Hockey Pavilion 206<br />
CR11.169 Payment <strong>of</strong> Accounts - November 2011 209<br />
CR11.170 Investment Schedule - November 2011 211<br />
CR11.171 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - November 2011 216<br />
10. <strong>Council</strong> Reports ........................................................................................... 221<br />
10.1 Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors 2010/2011 - Decisions 221<br />
10.2 Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities Development - Tender<br />
T20-11 Architectural Services 223<br />
10.3 Metropolitan Local Government Review - Submission 226<br />
10.4 Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> - City <strong>of</strong> Stirling Withdrawal 229<br />
11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 230<br />
12. Motions <strong>of</strong> Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 230<br />
13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 230<br />
13.1 Chief Executive Officer - Annual Review 230<br />
14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 231<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
ii
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE<br />
COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
1. OPENING<br />
The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm.<br />
2. ATTENDANCE<br />
Present:<br />
Mayor:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lors:<br />
Officers:<br />
Simon Withers<br />
Rod Bradley (Out at 8.50 pm)<br />
Louis Carr<br />
Sonia Grinceri<br />
Tracey King<br />
Alan Langer<br />
Corinne MacRae<br />
Colin Walker<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Neil Costello, Manager Governance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Apologies:<br />
Nil<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence:<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 1
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Written Questions<br />
Mary Russell, 422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Floreat<br />
Question 1<br />
Can the council please provide a progress report on what preventative measure have<br />
been undertaken to prevent recurring flooding?<br />
Response<br />
Preventative measures were listed for action in council report CR 11.124 October 2011<br />
and the following works commenced:<br />
Raise crossover to 119 completed in July 2011. This was effective during this<br />
storm.<br />
Clean manhole <strong>of</strong> all silt. Completed in July 2011<br />
Install additional soakwells in The Boulevard / Selby Street. Three <strong>of</strong> six were<br />
installed commencing prior to the Monday 12 December 2011 storm.<br />
Preliminary design <strong>of</strong> an underground sump for Selby Street has been completed<br />
and is under final design review and costing at the moment. It is proposed to<br />
present this design and cost to <strong>Council</strong> in February 2012. This is the longer term<br />
solution which means the vacant sump land will not require excavation.<br />
Sand bags have been supplied for all adjacent properties together with rubber<br />
humps to assist.<br />
Question 2<br />
Can the council indicate when measures will be put in place to prevent further flooding to<br />
422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street?<br />
Response<br />
The long term solution will be presented to council in Feb 2012 and when funding is<br />
approved works can be implemented.<br />
Question 3<br />
Can the <strong>Council</strong> provide information on what compensation is available to owners for<br />
damage to their properties and furnishings?<br />
Response<br />
As advised by <strong>Council</strong>'s liability insurers, No compensation is available for owners for<br />
storms which exceed original stormwater design assumptions.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 2
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Verbal Questions<br />
Pamela van der Muelen, Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Re: Item DV11.115 - Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Question<br />
Will <strong>Council</strong> consider approving one crossover instead <strong>of</strong> two crossovers at Lot 24 Jukes<br />
Way?<br />
Response<br />
Mayor Withers advised that the application for Lot 24 Jukes Way is on the agenda for<br />
consideration at tonight's meeting.<br />
Steven Beckett, 22 Bent Street, City Beach<br />
Re: Item DV11. 111 - Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
What is the statutory timeframe for neighbours' to respond to plans new or revised?<br />
Response<br />
The Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA require consultation where an application seeks the<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> under the performance provisions <strong>of</strong> the Codes. Where neighbours<br />
considered by <strong>Council</strong> to be affected by the proposal are consulted, they are to be given<br />
at least 14 days to comment.<br />
The Codes go on to require any comment received by the <strong>Council</strong> to be passed back to<br />
the applicant who then has a further ten days to respond. In this case, the submitted<br />
plans were amended in response to the neighbour comment received.<br />
The Codes do not require any further consultation, however, the neighbours raising<br />
concerns about this application were advised <strong>of</strong> the amended plans and given the<br />
opportunity to provide further comment. This consultation included a site meeting with Mr<br />
Beckett and Manager Development.<br />
Question 2<br />
Why was I given short notice outside <strong>of</strong> the statutory time frame to assess and respond to<br />
revised plans for 2 Adori Place?<br />
Response<br />
This is addressed in Question 1 above.<br />
Question 3<br />
Are you aware that the revised cone <strong>of</strong> vision plan submitted by Webb and Browne<br />
Neaves is incorrect?<br />
Response<br />
The cone <strong>of</strong> vision drawings submitted by the applicant were part <strong>of</strong> the applicant's<br />
justification and are difficult to verify, however, such drawings can only indicate a view<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 3
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
from one particular point and as such, are <strong>of</strong> limited use in assessing the overall effect <strong>of</strong><br />
this proposal on neighbours.<br />
Question 4<br />
Is the <strong>Council</strong> aware that the overheight issue has not been addressed?<br />
Response<br />
Amendment to the plans relate to boundary setbacks. The applicant is still seeking<br />
assessment under performance criteria regarding building height.<br />
Question 5<br />
Will <strong>Council</strong> defer the item so that the issue with Cone <strong>of</strong> Vision and over height <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling can be correctly assessed by the <strong>Town</strong>'s planning department and that further<br />
consultation between the <strong>Town</strong>, the applicant and myself can take place?<br />
Response<br />
Mayor Withers advised that this matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting.<br />
Anne Kordic, 32 Barrett Street, Wembley<br />
Question<br />
When can I get a written reply to 7 questions asked at the last month's <strong>Council</strong> meeting?<br />
Response<br />
It is confirmed that there has been no written response provided to Ms Kordic and this<br />
can be provided in the next two to three weeks. It is noted that the response provided at<br />
the last <strong>Council</strong> meeting is included in the minutes <strong>of</strong> that meeting and that the Manager,<br />
Development has met on site with Ms Kordic since the last meeting to discuss the<br />
concerns she has raised.<br />
Sasha Schweikert, 23 Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Re: Item DV11.115 - Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Question 1<br />
Has a proper traffic assessment study been undertaken?<br />
Response<br />
Infrastructure Services have assessed the plans and determined that they meet the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s access/crossover requirements.<br />
Margaret Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley<br />
Question 1<br />
Re: DV11.112 - Lots 70, 71 and 72 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley<br />
Ms Putt made reference to a perspectives sketch <strong>of</strong> the proposed development for 334-<br />
336 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley. Ms Putt questioned whether <strong>Council</strong> was aware that<br />
this drawing did not provide a full impression <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 4
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Response<br />
The drawing referred to specifically focuses on the view from Jersey Street, in particular,<br />
illustrating the proposed driveway and pedestrian access from the development to Jersey<br />
Street.<br />
Kim Doepel<br />
Re: Item DV11.115 - Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Question 1<br />
Is it possible to ask the applicant to remove the crossover to the front unit and turn the<br />
garage sideways to allow access from the common accessway serving the rear two<br />
units?<br />
Response<br />
This would result in the front setback <strong>of</strong> the front property being almost entirely paved or<br />
built upon allowing very little opportunity for garden area and thereby detracting from the<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the development within the overall streetscape. As such, it would not be<br />
supported from a planning point <strong>of</strong> view.<br />
Mr Jim Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley<br />
Question 1<br />
Why is the question that I asked at Development Committee not recorded in the minutes?<br />
Response<br />
It was accepted that this was an omission and that it would be rectified.<br />
4. PETITIONS<br />
A petition signed by 371 residents <strong>of</strong> City Beach was submitted by Wendy Appleyard, 14<br />
Lentara Crescent, City Beach calling on the <strong>Town</strong> to "fund and establish community<br />
security patrols as soon as possible. To be presented at the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community and<br />
Resources Committee meeting 12 December 2011."<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That in accordance with Clause 3.5 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, the petition be received<br />
and referred to the appropriate Committee.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
5. DEPUTATIONS<br />
Nil<br />
6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 5
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> held on 22 November 2011<br />
be confirmed.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION<br />
Nil<br />
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> the following reports, members <strong>of</strong> the public present at the<br />
meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything<br />
they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s position. They<br />
were advised to wait for written advice from the <strong>Council</strong> before taking any action on any<br />
matter that they may have before the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the following items which were nominated for individual debate.<br />
Development: Items DV11.111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121<br />
and 126<br />
Community and Resources: Items CR11.153, 155, 160 and 168<br />
Declarations <strong>of</strong> Interest:<br />
Item DV11.119 - Cr Carr- Impartiality Interest<br />
Item CR11.155 - Cr MacRae - Proximity Interest<br />
Item 13.1 - Chief Executive Officer - Financial<br />
Interest<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 6
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee meeting held on 13 December 2011 was submitted<br />
as under:<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee open at 6.03<br />
pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.03 pm 8.52 pm<br />
Cr Rod Bradley 6.03 pm 8.52 pm<br />
Cr Tracey King 6.03 pm 7.48 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 6.03 pm 8.52 pm<br />
Cr Louis Carr (Deputy) 7.48 pm 8.52 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Mayor Simon Withers<br />
Cr Louis Carr<br />
Cr Colin Walker<br />
Officers:<br />
Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
8.52 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
John Chadwick, Treasurer, Wembley West Leederville Residents Association<br />
Re: Item DV11.112 - Lots 70, 71 and 72 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley<br />
Question<br />
Will <strong>Council</strong> undertake and implement a comprehensive traffic plan for streets in proximity<br />
to this development which takes into account expected increased traffic flows and street<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 7
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
parking in the area associated with the development and the proposal that vehicles will<br />
exit the development's car park directly opposite the entry/exit <strong>of</strong> the existing IGA etc<br />
shopping precinct and within 40 metres on the <strong>Cambridge</strong>/Jersey Streets traffic lights?<br />
Our question/request is predicated by the strong belief that without the proper planning<br />
and implementation <strong>of</strong> a traffic plan, this will be a very unsafe area for both occupants <strong>of</strong><br />
motor vehicles and pedestrians.<br />
Response<br />
The application was accompanied by a traffic management plan and reviewed by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s traffic engineers and it confirms that the development will not duly impact on traffic<br />
in the area.<br />
Pamela van der Meulen, Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Re: Item DV11.115 - Lot 43 (No 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley<br />
Question<br />
Last month, 24 residents <strong>of</strong> Jukes Way submitted a petition asking the <strong>Council</strong> to enforce<br />
its own rules with regard to separation, setback and spacing <strong>of</strong> buildings. These rules are<br />
designed to prevent property development by one land holder from harming the<br />
investment and lifestyle <strong>of</strong> their neighbours. Does the <strong>Council</strong> intend to enforce these<br />
rules without deviation in Jukes Way?<br />
If not, what does the <strong>Council</strong> say to the neighbour whose investment and lifestyle is down<br />
graded by the <strong>Council</strong> granting special favours to another individual?<br />
Is the local community given a voice in this matter? Or is this decision made exclusively<br />
by persons who don't live in the street and don't have to live with the outcome.<br />
Finally, would the <strong>Council</strong> consider eyebrow treatment for the verge?<br />
Response<br />
This item will be discussed at tonight's meeting.<br />
Mr Jim Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley<br />
Re: Phasing <strong>of</strong> Traffic Lights at Jersey Street, Wembley<br />
Question:<br />
Has the <strong>Town</strong> received a copy <strong>of</strong> a Main Roads WA letter sent to myself regarding traffic<br />
signal light timing at the pedestrian crossing at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Jersey/<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street?<br />
Response<br />
Director Infrastructure advised that he had not received a copy <strong>of</strong> the letter from Main<br />
Roads WA but would follow it up with Mr Putt tomorrow.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 8
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Item DV11.112<br />
Item DV11.113<br />
Item DV11.114<br />
Item DV11.115<br />
Item DV11.119<br />
Item DV11.120<br />
Item DV11.121<br />
Item DV11.128<br />
Trevor Legg, neighbour<br />
Mark Jeavans, on behalf <strong>of</strong> applicant<br />
Peter Kartsidimas, on behalf <strong>of</strong> applicant<br />
Carlo Mencetti, owner<br />
Sacha Schweikert, neighbour<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>f Cooper, neighbour<br />
Alan Ariti, applicant<br />
Anthony Rechichi, applicant and Ray Paolucci, owner<br />
Kim Doepel, on behalf <strong>of</strong> applicant<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee held on<br />
Tuesday 15 November 2011 as contained in the November 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be<br />
confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Item DV11.119 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 9
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.111 LOT 249 (NO. 2) ADORI PLACE, CNR BENT STREET, CITY BEACH - TWO<br />
STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE - REFERRED BACK<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage requiring<br />
assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> building wall height, buildings setback from the boundary and site works.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 320DA - 2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Mr John Woolfrey & Mrs Joanne Woolfrey<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
LAND AREA: 888 m²<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Subject property slopes from north to south by approximately 3 metres and from east to<br />
west by approximately 2 metres.<br />
Proposed two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage utilising the level <strong>of</strong> the undercr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling.<br />
Finished floor level (FFL) <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling at 12.986 is slightly higher than the<br />
FFL <strong>of</strong> the existing single storey with undercr<strong>of</strong>t dwelling at 12.81.<br />
Variations are proposed for the requirements relating to building wall height, buildings<br />
setback from the boundary and site works.<br />
Delegated Authority<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s Delegation <strong>of</strong> Authority Policy delegates certain powers to the Director<br />
Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine minor variations to the<br />
acceptable development provisions.<br />
A variation to the planning provision regarding retaining within the primary street setback area<br />
on Adori Place is proposed. No objections were received from the adjoining owners during the<br />
neighbour consultation period and due to the topography this variation is considered to meet the<br />
relevant performance criteria and is therefore not discussed further in this report.<br />
An assessment against the performance criteria for the aforementioned variation has been<br />
prepared by the Administration and is available to elected members on request.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 10
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wall height variation unavoidable due to the heavily excavated site created when the<br />
original home was built. The cross fall <strong>of</strong> the site from the NE corner (RL 16.27) to the SE<br />
corner (RL 9.24) leaves an average level <strong>of</strong> approximately 12.75, similar to the proposed<br />
FFL <strong>of</strong> the new home.<br />
Impact <strong>of</strong> the retaining in the street setback area is intended to be reduced by greening<br />
the embankment with plants and utilizing stone pitching to reduce the overall use and<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> limestone retaining wall.<br />
Our view is that the overall finished result will be aesthically more pleasing than the<br />
existing non permeable masonary fencing facing Bent Street at present.<br />
The upper floor is only 150 square metres which is less than 20% <strong>of</strong> the lot size. A much<br />
larger upper floor area could have been proposed, having greater impact on the corner<br />
site.<br />
The new dwelling on the adjacent corner is testament to this as the upper floor covers the<br />
entire ground floor area and dominates the corner and creates more bulk relative to the<br />
site and setbacks achieved.<br />
Proposed dwelling "averages" out the heights <strong>of</strong> the surrounding dwellings and in fact<br />
long term will reduce the overall impact <strong>of</strong> No. 4 Adori.<br />
The impact <strong>of</strong> No. 4 Adori is accentuated by the low form <strong>of</strong> the existing under cr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
bungalow at No. 2 Adori. The proposed dwelling at No. 2 and the existing dwelling at No.<br />
4 Adori are worlds apart in term <strong>of</strong> their impact on the streetscape.<br />
We have now reduced the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in an effort to reduce the overall bulk <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
home. In addition, the ridge and overall height complies.<br />
Seeking a reduction to the ground floor rear setback only. Upper floor setback complies in<br />
relation to the rear setback. The setback to Bent Street is in excess <strong>of</strong> the minimum<br />
required.<br />
Upper floor could have been much larger and extended to the NE corner <strong>of</strong> the site. This<br />
has not been done to preserve the corridor <strong>of</strong> vision to the NW.<br />
Primary street setback well in excess <strong>of</strong> what is required.<br />
Primary entertaining area has been moved to the NW corner <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling<br />
little or no impact on neighbours. If the 6 metre rear setback was achieved the primary<br />
entertaining area would have to be located immediately adjacent to the dwelling at No. 22.<br />
The secondary street setback <strong>of</strong> 3.78 metres complies under council guidelines.<br />
The homes in the surrounding area vary and are a diverse mix <strong>of</strong> homes from several<br />
decades past along with newer homes and renovations. In our opinion the aesthetics <strong>of</strong><br />
the home do not detract from the streetscape and may well enhance it.<br />
The ground floor walls on the rear elevation will be virtually unseen. The gutter level <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ground floor is at or below the general fence line height between the two properties.<br />
The upper floor wall complies with required setbacks and as demonstrated on the<br />
submitted diagram a corridor <strong>of</strong> vision has been maintained to the NW and SW.<br />
Concerted effort made to reduce the upper floor to maintain the corridor <strong>of</strong> vision to the<br />
NW.<br />
No losses <strong>of</strong> privacy to the rear neighbour as the openings to the upper floor on the rear<br />
elevation are minor openings. No. 22 Bent currently overlooks the existing pool at No. 2<br />
Adori.<br />
Increasing the residential privacy <strong>of</strong> No. 22 Bent by locating the primary entertaining area<br />
(Alfresco) to the NW corner with only a drying court at ground level.<br />
Sought to reduce any impact potential impact in terms <strong>of</strong> site works by the suggested FFL<br />
<strong>of</strong> the new home. At this level the existing pool and level along the common boundary can<br />
be maintained with no need for sheet piling or major works on the common boundary.<br />
If the FFL was to be reduced there would be an immediate requirement for major<br />
earthworks along the common boundary. As a responsible builder we would be seeking to<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 11
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
obtain a dilapidation report by a suitably qualified pr<strong>of</strong>essional at No. 22 before any<br />
demolition or site works are undertaken.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Submission one (No.1 Talgarth Way, City Beach)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The finished eave height <strong>of</strong> 8.45 metres (minus ro<strong>of</strong>) <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling far exceeds<br />
the permitted wall height <strong>of</strong> 6.5 metres on the south elevation facing Bent Street.<br />
Object to the 1 metre tiered retaining wall proposed on the Bent Street (south elevation)<br />
as this will effectively allow the house to be constructed on a pad that is above natural<br />
ground level, making the overall finished height <strong>of</strong> the house far in excess <strong>of</strong> what is<br />
permitted.<br />
The large bulky house will dominate the entire corner <strong>of</strong> Bent Street & Adori Place, which<br />
in turn will erode the existing residential amenity <strong>of</strong> an existing aesthetically pleasant<br />
street that is not dominated by large homes, therefore the house should be constructed at<br />
natural ground level and made to comply and setback further from Bent Street.<br />
The house at 4 Adori Place, which was constructed some ten years ago should not be<br />
used as an example or a reason for this house to be constructed in the same way.<br />
Submission two (No. 22 Bent Street, City Beach)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The dwelling is too big and bulky and does not follow the <strong>Town</strong>'s building guidelines.<br />
I object to the pad being above regulation height which is above natural ground level. The<br />
proposed dwelling should be constructed at the natural ground level.<br />
The overall elevation on the south elevation is 8.45 metres (with a 1 metre pad) makes<br />
the dwelling 2 metres above regulation height. The dwelling at 2 Adori Place is near to 10<br />
metres high with pad.<br />
The building does not comply with building guidelines concerning height & does not<br />
comply with the boundary guidelines.<br />
The dwelling at 2 Adori will impact greatly, as it is being built forward to the existing<br />
boundary fence at the south elevation in Bent Street.<br />
The dwelling at 2 Adori does not conform to the aesthetics <strong>of</strong> other dwellings in Bent<br />
Street.<br />
The occupants at 22 Bent Street will be looking at a massive wall with a loss <strong>of</strong> residential<br />
privacy & amenity.<br />
This loss <strong>of</strong> privacy to the 22 Bent Street dwelling is further compounded by the massive<br />
dwelling already existing at 4 Adori and now with the proposed building at 2 Adori I will be<br />
further loosing residential amenity and this dwelling will dominate my privacy.<br />
As the immediate adjoining property to the east I am objecting to this in very strong terms.<br />
Concern about scope <strong>of</strong> the earthworks that will be undertaken. 22 Bent Street may lose<br />
its boundary wall during construction <strong>of</strong> the pad & dwelling at 2 Adori. Due to the land<br />
being so dry this will cause land subsidence.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 12
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Submission three (No. 23 Bent Street, No. 3 Adori Place, No. 4 Adori Place, No. 5 Adori Place<br />
City Beach)<br />
<br />
<br />
We have viewed the plans for the proposed dwelling and conclude that its development<br />
will not impinge on our privacy or amenity.<br />
We feel it is appropriate "fit" with the exiting streetscapes <strong>of</strong> both Adori Place and Bent<br />
Street and will not detract from the general aesthetics <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
Assessment Against the Performance Criteria<br />
Building height<br />
Proposed<br />
Maximum wall height 8.45 metres (west and<br />
south elevations)<br />
7.0 metres (east elevation)<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
6.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Given the excavated nature <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling at the subject property, a wall height<br />
variation occurs on the Adori Place (west) elevation and the Bent Street (south) elevation as<br />
measured from the natural ground level. The visual impact on the primary and secondary<br />
streetscapes has been reduced through the use <strong>of</strong> feature walls, balcony, windows and porch<br />
providing horizontal and vertical articulation. These architectural features provide interesting<br />
facades as viewed from Adori Place and Bent Street.<br />
The proposed dwelling meets is compliant with the overall height limit <strong>of</strong> 9.5 metres allowable in<br />
City Beach. Amended plans have been received from the applicant reducing the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch from<br />
32 degrees to 26 degrees in an effort to protect the view corridors to the south-west and northwest<br />
from the rear adjoining residence immediately to the east. It should be noted that even at<br />
32 degrees the ro<strong>of</strong> height met requirements. The wall height variation on the eastern elevation<br />
is not considered to have an undue impact on the rear property at No. 22 Bent Street in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
access <strong>of</strong> northern light to major openings <strong>of</strong> habitable rooms or active habitable spaces with<br />
any shadow falling on the existing pool area <strong>of</strong> the subject property at No. 2 Adori Place.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed wall height variation complies with the performance<br />
criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling is consistent with surrounding dwellings and does not have a<br />
significant impact on amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 13
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Rear setback (ground floor)<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
1.5 - 4.45 metres to rear<br />
(east) boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
6 metres<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed rear setback variation to the ground is not considered to adversely impact on the<br />
adjoining property on the rear (east) side due to the east-west orientation <strong>of</strong> the lot. Direct sun<br />
to major openings and active habitable spaces will not be compromised. The proposed walls on<br />
the rear elevation are located adjacent to the driveway and front setback area <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
property to the east.<br />
Privacy between the two properties will be protected with all windows on the rear (east)<br />
elevation meeting the privacy provisions <strong>of</strong> the R Codes. A significant portion <strong>of</strong> the ground floor<br />
will be concealed by the existing dividing fence on the eastern boundary due to this property<br />
being at a lower level, reducing the perception <strong>of</strong> building bulk as viewed from the rear adjoining<br />
property at No. 22 Bent Street.<br />
It should be noted that the upper floor is set back a minimum <strong>of</strong> 6 metres from the rear<br />
boundary.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria for<br />
the following reason:-<br />
<br />
a large portion <strong>of</strong> the ground floor will be concealed by the existing dividing fence and<br />
therefore building bulk is minimised.<br />
Site works<br />
Retaining within 3.0 metres<br />
<strong>of</strong> street alignment<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Maximum height <strong>of</strong> 2.9<br />
metres within the secondary<br />
street (Bent Street) setback<br />
area<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Maximum height <strong>of</strong> 0.5 metre<br />
Development that retains the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural level <strong>of</strong> a site, as seen from the<br />
street or other public place, or from an adjoining property.<br />
The impact <strong>of</strong> the proposed retaining wall within the secondary street setback area is<br />
considered to be reduced by the proposed landscaping <strong>of</strong> the embankment with the use <strong>of</strong><br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 14
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
planting and stone pitching between the retaining and the property boundary. This treatment will<br />
result in the impression that the slope <strong>of</strong> the site has been maintained.<br />
The proposed secondary street setback area is also considered to be an improvement on the<br />
existing solid wall/fence located on the southern property boundary with the front setback area<br />
being more open, consistent with the adjoining property immediately to the east.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed height <strong>of</strong> the retaining wall within the secondary<br />
street setback area complies with the performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
retains the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural level <strong>of</strong> a site, as seen from the street or other<br />
public place, or from an adjoining property.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage submitted<br />
by Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place as shown on the plans dated<br />
4 November 2011 subject to the following condition:<br />
(i)<br />
a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> vegetation, to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 15
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Committee Meeting 15 November 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(ii)<br />
the fencing on top <strong>of</strong> the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be wrought iron or<br />
clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Scheme No. 1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES<br />
the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage as submitted by Webb & Brown-<br />
Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 4<br />
November 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> vegetation, to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
the fencing on the top <strong>of</strong> the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be wrought iron<br />
or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 22 November 2011<br />
During discussion, Cr Langer considered that the dwelling height had a negative impact on the<br />
outlook <strong>of</strong> the neighbour to the east and the streetscape and therefore recommended that the<br />
application be referred back to the Development Committee.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That the item relating to Lot 249 (No.2) Adori Place, City Beach be referred back to the<br />
Development Committee to enable amended plans to be submitted which reduce the height <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling and the amount <strong>of</strong> fill in the Bent Street frontage.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post <strong>Council</strong> Meeting 22 November 2011)<br />
The applicant has met with the Administration and discussed the proposal and submitted<br />
amended plans on 6 December 2011. The amendments included:-<br />
Minimum ground floor setback to rear (east) boundary increased from 1.510 metres to<br />
3.959 metres.<br />
Minimum upper floor setback to rear (east) boundary increased from 6.0 metres to 8.297<br />
<br />
metres.<br />
Minimum ground floor setback to Bent (secondary) Street increased from 3.780 metres to<br />
5.202 metres.<br />
Minimum upper floor setback to Bent (secondary) Street increased from 3.780 to 5.202<br />
metres.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 16
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
It is considered that the amended plans submitted address the concerns raised in the<br />
November <strong>Council</strong> meeting regarding the negative impact on the neighbour to the east and the<br />
streetscape. The setbacks on the ground and upper floor to Bent Street have been pushed back<br />
well in excess <strong>of</strong> the required 3.75 metres to a minimum setback <strong>of</strong> 5.202 metres. This has not<br />
only reduced the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling on the Bent Street elevation but has also<br />
protected the outlook <strong>of</strong> the eastern neighbour to the south-west.<br />
The ground and upper floor setbacks to the rear (east) boundary have also been increased to<br />
3.959 metres and 8.297 metres respectively. To protect the amenity <strong>of</strong> the rear neighbours, as<br />
well as the Bent Street streetscape, the dwelling has been centered on the lot creating<br />
significantly larger open areas between the proposed dwelling and the east and south side<br />
boundaries. In addition, the proposed retaining wall on the Bent Street elevation has been<br />
staggered, breaking up the length <strong>of</strong> the wall and providing visual articulation as viewed from<br />
Bent Street.<br />
It should be noted that at the time <strong>of</strong> writing this report the neighbours who have objected to the<br />
development have not been notified <strong>of</strong> the amended plans but will be contacted prior to the<br />
committee meeting. Any comments raised by the neighbours will be presented at this meeting.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Scheme No. 1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES<br />
the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage as submitted by Webb & Brown-<br />
Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 6<br />
December 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> vegetation, to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
the fencing on the top <strong>of</strong> the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be wrought iron<br />
or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Members remained concerned that the matter <strong>of</strong> building height had been<br />
satisfactorily addressed and, as such, were not prepared to adopt the recommendation at this<br />
stage.<br />
The Administration was requested to provide further information on how the floor plan has<br />
changed and its effect on the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling prior to the next meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to <strong>Council</strong> for determination.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 17
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Scheme No. 1, <strong>Council</strong><br />
APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage as<br />
submitted by Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as<br />
shown on the plans dated 6 December 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> vegetation,<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building<br />
licence;<br />
the fencing on the top <strong>of</strong> the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be<br />
wrought iron or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required.<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that, in order to address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns raised by<br />
the neighbours, the setback to both upper and ground floors to Bent Street should be increased<br />
by a minimum <strong>of</strong> 0.5 metres.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iii)<br />
the setback to both the upper and ground floors to Bent Street being increased by a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 0.5 metres.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
During discussion, Cr Bradley suggested that the item be referred back to the Development<br />
Committee to enable further discussion to be held with the applicant and neighbours.<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley<br />
That the item relating to Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach be referred back to the<br />
Development Committee for further consideration.<br />
Refer Back lapsed for want <strong>of</strong> a seconder.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Scheme No. 1, <strong>Council</strong><br />
APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage as<br />
submitted by Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 249 (No. 2) Adori Place, City Beach as<br />
shown on the plans dated 6 December 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> vegetation,<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building<br />
licence;<br />
the fencing on the top <strong>of</strong> the retaining wall on the Bent Street frontage to be<br />
wrought iron or clear glass only. A separate planning application will be required;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 18
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(iii)<br />
the setback to both the upper and ground floors to Bent Street being increased by a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 0.5 metres.<br />
Carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 19
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.112 LOTS 70, 71 AND 72 (NO. 334-336) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY -<br />
PROPOSED FIVE LEVEL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (CAFE, SHOPS,<br />
OFFICES, CONSULTING ROOMS AND TWENTY TWO MULTIPLE DWELLINGS)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a three storey mixed use development containing shops, <strong>of</strong>fices,<br />
cafés, consulting rooms and twenty two multiple dwellings, seeking variations to the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1) Policy Manual with respect to plot ratio.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
ZONING:<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
LAND AREA:<br />
74DA-2010<br />
Nurburgring Pty Ltd<br />
Fringe Architects<br />
TPS 1: Local Centre<br />
Office - "AA" (Planning Approval required)<br />
Shop - "AA" (Planning Approval required)<br />
Consulting rooms (group) - "SA" (use not permitted<br />
without <strong>Council</strong> approval following public consultation)<br />
Dwelling (multiple) - "SA" (use not permitted without<br />
<strong>Council</strong> approval following public consultation)<br />
3066 square metres<br />
The applicant submitted an application for a four storey mixed use development in March 2010<br />
which was assessed and subsequently advertised for public comment during September 2010.<br />
That application had a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 67 car bays and a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1.86. Approximately 20<br />
submissions were made plus a petition with 12 signatories. The main concerns raised included<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> only one entry/exit point <strong>of</strong>f Jersey Street, insufficient car parking, increased<br />
traffic in the locality and the scale <strong>of</strong> the development.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the submissions received, the applicant redesigned the proposal to address the<br />
issues raised. Amended plans were received in August 2011 and have been readvertised.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Subject site has frontage to <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and a 5.0 metre wide access let to Jersey<br />
Street.<br />
Vehicle entry is via <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and vehicle exit is via Jersey Street.<br />
There is a basement <strong>of</strong> carparking, some parking at ground level, and a level <strong>of</strong><br />
carparking between the <strong>of</strong>fice level and the multiple dwellings.<br />
22 multiple dwellings are proposed made up <strong>of</strong> 18 two bedroom units and 4 one bedroom<br />
units.<br />
8 ground floor retail tenancies totalling 935 square metres <strong>of</strong> nett lettable area.<br />
20 first floor <strong>of</strong>fice tenancies totalling 1630 square metres <strong>of</strong> nett lettable area.<br />
3 consulting rooms.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 20
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal is split into two buildings - 'Green Space North' (facing the residential zone<br />
to the rear) and 'Green Space South' (facing <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street). The rear building is 4<br />
storeys high; the front building is 5 storeys high.<br />
The upper two floors <strong>of</strong> Green Space South are set in from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. The upper<br />
floor setback <strong>of</strong> the residential dwellings to Green Space North meet the acceptable<br />
development provisions for the R40 residential density coding.<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We believe the mixed use building satisfies the intent for new development for the<br />
Wembley town Centre. The development proposes to add a range <strong>of</strong> uses to the ground<br />
floor retail strip fronting <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street that either replaces existing uses or adds new<br />
and improved uses for the community.<br />
The site has been clearly divided into two major buildings - a four storey mixed use rear<br />
(north) building and a five storey mixed use front (south) building. Both buildings are<br />
joined by a full width east/west green space and overhead walkways and balconies.<br />
The building has been designed so that upper residential floors are significantly setback<br />
from the primary street frontage so that the building reads as a predominantly three storey<br />
commercial building from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
The building to the rear has been designed to meet R40 residential density standards and<br />
has been carefully screened to prevent overlooking into adjoining residential properties.<br />
The proposal meets car parking standards for all <strong>of</strong> the proposed uses.<br />
Neighbour Submission<br />
Multiple dwellings and Consulting Rooms (group) are classified as 'SA' uses under the Local<br />
Centre Zone. Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme such uses are required to be<br />
advertised for before <strong>Council</strong> determines the application.<br />
The application was advertised to all owners within 100 metres <strong>of</strong> the development site along<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street as well as residential properties to the north <strong>of</strong> the subject site.<br />
Eight submissions were received during the advertising period and are attached in a schedule<br />
<strong>of</strong> submissions with responses to the issues raised provided by the applicant.<br />
The basis <strong>of</strong> the submissions were as follows:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Concerned with the increase <strong>of</strong> traffic into the area.<br />
Concerned with the location <strong>of</strong> the exit point onto Jersey Street and its proximity to the<br />
entry/exit to the shops (IGA etc) on the eastern side <strong>of</strong> Jersey Street.<br />
Concerned that the height <strong>of</strong> the development is out <strong>of</strong> context with the locality.<br />
Location <strong>of</strong> ramps, parking areas will create a disturbance to the residential area at the<br />
rear.<br />
Proximity <strong>of</strong> residential units to abutting residential properties will result in a loss <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 21
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Comment<br />
Land Use<br />
The subject site is zoned 'Local Centre' under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and falls within the<br />
Wembley Planning Precinct. Policy 6.4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual prescribes<br />
the development standards for all commercial development in this precinct and has been used<br />
to assess the application. The Wembley Centre has a range <strong>of</strong> uses and would best be<br />
described as a commercial strip or town centre. The uses proposed are precisely what is<br />
expected in the area and considered compatible to surrounding land uses and the intent and<br />
function <strong>of</strong> the centre. The inclusion <strong>of</strong> shops and cafes at the ground floor level will provide a<br />
continuation <strong>of</strong> retail activity along this portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and a link to the notion <strong>of</strong> a<br />
town centre. The consulting rooms reintroduce a medical practitioner into the town centre (lost<br />
when the Post Office Medical Centre site was redeveloped). The twenty two proposed<br />
dwellings will provide 24 hour occupancy <strong>of</strong> the site and add to the vibrancy <strong>of</strong> the centre.<br />
Building Design<br />
The proposed development comprises two buildings separated by a green space. The front<br />
(southern) building is five storeys high with the fourth and fifth storeys comprising residential<br />
apartments. These are set back from the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street frontage so that the building reads<br />
as three storeys at street level. The building has a glass façade facing <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and a<br />
canopy protruding over the footpath. The ground floor will contain shops and cafes facing onto<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street as well as incorporating an alfresco laneway through to the rear <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development and along the access way to provide a pedestrian route through to Jersey Street.<br />
The rear (northern) building is four storeys with the fourth storey having six residential<br />
apartments. These are set back from the rear boundary in accordance with setback provisions<br />
for residential buildings at an R40 density coding. Along the side boundaries, the building will<br />
be constructed boundary to boundary.<br />
Adjoining neighbours to the rear have raised concerns over the potential loss <strong>of</strong> privacy from<br />
the proposed residential dwellings at the rear <strong>of</strong> the development. It is noted that these<br />
dwellings meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> the R40 density coding with regard to setbacks and privacy<br />
provisions. The main living areas <strong>of</strong> the apartments have been set back further than required<br />
by the R Codes to further aid visual and acoustic privacy. It is considered that additional<br />
acoustic sound dampening could be incorporated into the privacy screens as a condition <strong>of</strong><br />
planning approval which the applicant has agreed to. In addition, screening <strong>of</strong> the vehicle<br />
ramps and the provision <strong>of</strong> a 2.4 metre high solid wall along the northern boundary would also<br />
contribute to reducing the impact <strong>of</strong> the development on the adjoining residential properties to<br />
the north.<br />
The overall height <strong>of</strong> the building is approximately 17 metres (five storeys at <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street).<br />
A height limit is not stated in the precinct policy, however, the policy states that new<br />
development should be built up to the street boundary and be <strong>of</strong> a height and scale similar to<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> existing buildings. At present, the majority <strong>of</strong> existing buildings in the locality are<br />
single or two storey but recently there has been a move towards more intense development<br />
with a range <strong>of</strong> building heights within the centre. Recent develops such as the mixed use<br />
development on the corner <strong>of</strong> Simper and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Streets, 339 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (cnr<br />
Jersey Street) and the 'Activ' building are examples <strong>of</strong> development that contribute to the<br />
changing streetscape.<br />
In addition, <strong>Council</strong> granted approval for a five storey mixed use development directly opposite<br />
the subject property at No. 343 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street at its meeting on 25 May 2010 ((Item<br />
DV10.40).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 22
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Plot Ratio<br />
Policy 6.4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual states that all development located in<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street between Pangbourne and Simper Streets shall have a maximum plot ratio <strong>of</strong><br />
1.0:1.0. The applicant proposes a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.62:1.0.<br />
The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with desired planning outcomes for<br />
the area for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existing buildings on the site are ageing, small in scale and have limited presence on<br />
the streetscape. The proposal presents an opportunity enhance the streetscape and<br />
provide an interesting mix <strong>of</strong> uses along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
The Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre is increasingly becoming more intensive in use and services<br />
more than just the day to day needs <strong>of</strong> local residents. In addition, there has been<br />
significant interest for larger scale redevelopments among landowners in locations within<br />
the immediate locality <strong>of</strong> the subject lot. The town centre presents an ideal location for<br />
many <strong>of</strong> these proposed uses and contains the necessary infrastructure to support such<br />
development. The opportunity therefore exists for the centre to be utilised as a mixed<br />
precinct <strong>of</strong> some significance.<br />
The State Planning Policy 4.2 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel' has identified the<br />
Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre as an activity 'district centre' which should be developed with a<br />
mix <strong>of</strong> commercial and residential uses given its proximity to public transport.<br />
The State Government "Directions 2031" strategic plan for Perth identifies the need for all<br />
local government areas to provide for additional housing and housing choice within their<br />
localities. Development within an activity centre and with good access to public transport<br />
should be encouraged to provide medium density with a range <strong>of</strong> housing types available.<br />
The proposed development provides twenty two single and two bedroom residential units<br />
thus providing greater housing choice within the Wembley Precinct.<br />
The proposal is consistent with the plot ratio <strong>of</strong> recently developed and approved<br />
development within the area (the five storey mixed use development opposite the subject<br />
site was approved with a plot ratio o1.64:1.0.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposal will improve the streetscape and is in line with current<br />
interest for redevelopment in the locality. Further, the existing intensity <strong>of</strong> activity in the area is<br />
conducive with the scale and bulk <strong>of</strong> the proposed development. The variation to plot ratio<br />
requirements it therefore supported.<br />
Traffic and Car Parking<br />
The applicant has provided a traffic statement by a traffic engineer as part <strong>of</strong> the application.<br />
This demonstrates that the application provides car parking for the development in accordance<br />
with the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy 6.1 with 162 bay being provided and 160 bays required.<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> the Transport Statement is provided as an attachment to the agenda. This statement<br />
has been examined by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services and is considered to address <strong>of</strong><br />
concerns previously identified by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Engineering Consultant. The analysis <strong>of</strong> the traffic<br />
generated by the proposed development is seen to be able to be readily accommodated within<br />
the practical capacity <strong>of</strong> the surrounding streets.<br />
With regard to the additional traffic exiting onto Jersey Street and the potential conflict with<br />
traffic from the nearby IGA complex, the transport statement notes the following:-<br />
<br />
The centre to centre distance between the two exit points is approximately 8-9 metres.<br />
This stagger is considered adequate for the safe operation <strong>of</strong> the crossovers.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 23
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The right turning traffic from the proposed development exit will introduce a slight increase<br />
in the opposing traffic flow that a vehicle from the IGA complex will need to negotiate.<br />
This increase is estimated to be less than 17 or 38 vehicles in the am and pm peak hours<br />
ie less than 1 a minute. It should be noted that at present vehicles would be exiting this<br />
crossover.<br />
The crossovers are located approximately 30 to 40 metres from the traffic signals on<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong>/Jersey Street intersection which will assist in providing regular gaps for exiting<br />
vehicles to enter the traffic system.<br />
The crossovers are located within a low speed environment <strong>of</strong> 50 km/hour or less due to<br />
the proximity <strong>of</strong> the signals.<br />
The IGA complex has a second access onto Pangbourne Street which provides an<br />
alternative exit should drivers not wish to use the Jersey Street exit. Traffic will naturally<br />
find an equilibrium between the two exit points provided.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposal was assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1, the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Policy Manual, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and Draft<br />
Parking Policy.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>s Strategic Plan 2009-2020,<br />
specifically priority area “Planning for Our Community’ and the goals <strong>of</strong> ‘attractive and diverse<br />
shopping and business areas’ and ‘transport choice’.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The proposed land uses are consistent with the local centre zoning <strong>of</strong> the site. The proposed<br />
development encourages activity along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and provides for a number <strong>of</strong> services<br />
for the local community.<br />
The provision <strong>of</strong> twenty two multiple dwellings within the development provides for greater<br />
housing choice within the Wembley precinct and takes advantage <strong>of</strong> the site's proximity to a<br />
public transport route.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed development, notwithstanding the neighbours<br />
concerns, is consistent with the objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme and with the future<br />
planning for the Wembley Planning Precinct and therefore subject to appropriate conditions to<br />
address concerns raised, is supported.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 24
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Schedule <strong>of</strong> submissions.<br />
2. Transport Statement prepared by Donald Veal Consultants Pty Ltd.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to vehicular access/egress for the<br />
site, in particular, the exit point onto Jersey and the potential conflict with traffic from the IGA.<br />
The Administration was requested to provide further traffic engineering advice in relation to<br />
proposed road treatments on Jersey Street and how this would be affected by the proposed<br />
development. Further, advice was requested on whether there are measures that can be taken<br />
in relation to overall site access that would improve traffic conditions at the Jersey Street exit<br />
point.<br />
Developer contribution towards the provision <strong>of</strong> public art for the development was raised and<br />
the Administration was requested to provide advice on an appropriate contribution prior to the<br />
next meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 December 2011)<br />
To facilitate the implementation <strong>of</strong> public art throughout the <strong>Town</strong>, a percentage <strong>of</strong> development<br />
costs for private developments could be allocated to the provision <strong>of</strong> public art. In this regard, a<br />
request 1% <strong>of</strong> development construction costs is generally consistent with other local authorities<br />
where public art planning policies have been adopted.<br />
Public art is defined as an artistic work that is created and located for public accessibility and is<br />
work that has been designed by an artist for enhancement <strong>of</strong> a particular public realm. The<br />
developer could either provide the public art to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> or pay a contribution<br />
in lieu <strong>of</strong> providing public art.<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> a Public Art Policy is currently being drafted for consideration by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
However, to ensure successful implementation <strong>of</strong> a public art planning policy, the preparation <strong>of</strong><br />
supporting documentation, such as guidelines and strategies will also be required.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a five storey mixed use development as<br />
submitted by Fringe Architects at Lots 70, 71 and 72 (No. 334-336) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street,<br />
Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 22 September 2011 subject to the<br />
following conditions:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> the lots prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
a Parking Management Plan being submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence<br />
detailing the operation <strong>of</strong> the car park, including the management <strong>of</strong> tandem bays,<br />
staff, residential and visitor allocation and general traffic flow;<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to the Parking Management Plan;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 25
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
(k)<br />
preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin/Waste Management Plan indicating the<br />
storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
any signage on site being subject to a separate development application;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding<br />
area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the<br />
subject site for the parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles on site and how traffic<br />
management will be undertaken. The Construction Management Plan shall be<br />
submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
all commercial car parking bays being made available to staff and customers at all<br />
times during the business day;<br />
a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
building licence, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs and<br />
lawns to be approved by the <strong>Town</strong>. The landscaping areas as shown on the<br />
approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the parking ramp to level 2 being enclosed, incorporating sound dampening<br />
devices to the ramp-way and to provide screening from headlights to the adjoining<br />
residential property to the north;<br />
a 2.4 metre high solid wall to be constructed along the northern boundary to the<br />
adjoining residential properties;<br />
the proposed balconies to the six residential units facing the rear boundary to<br />
incorporate sound dampening devices within the privacy screening. Details to be<br />
provided at building licence stage.<br />
Footnote:<br />
The applicant is advised that the proposed development should be designed and<br />
constructed in such a manner so that existing and possible future noise levels<br />
associated with the surrounding commercial uses, that could potentially affect future<br />
occupiers, are reasonably successfully attenuated.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 26
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(l)<br />
public art up to a value <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be<br />
incorporated in the development, or, in lieu <strong>of</strong> the applicant being unable to provide<br />
this to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, a contribution <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development be made to the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building, for<br />
expenditure on public art in the near vicinity <strong>of</strong> the development.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(b)<br />
(n)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the access point on <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street being altered to allow vehicles to exit (left<br />
turn out only) as well as enter from both directions. Suitable signs are to be<br />
provided to direct vehicle movements accordingly and a 2.5 metre deep by 2 metre<br />
wide truncation be provided on the tenancy adjacent to the driveway <strong>of</strong> the street<br />
boundary.<br />
the solid wall to be built on the northern boundary to be reduced to no higher than<br />
0.75 metres for a distance <strong>of</strong> 3 metres from the Jersey Street property boundary.<br />
Any infill panels above this section <strong>of</strong> wall can be nothing more than metal palings<br />
which allow a clear view through to the footpath on Jersey Street.<br />
further to the above approval, the applicant be advised that, at Building Licence<br />
stage, <strong>Council</strong> is prepared to assess the ground floor café/restaurant and retail<br />
tenancies at a rate <strong>of</strong> 1 bay per 30 square metres <strong>of</strong> floor area if the 17 bays on the<br />
second floor along the frontage onto <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street are converted to <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
space;<br />
in relation to (ii) above, <strong>Council</strong> delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to<br />
approve amended plans which satisfy those requirements.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i) in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a five storey mixed use development as<br />
submitted by Fringe Architects at Lots 70, 71 and 72 (No. 334-336) <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 22 September 2011 subject<br />
to the following conditions:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> the lots prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
the access point on <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street being altered to allow vehicles to exit<br />
(left turn out only) as well as enter from both directions. Suitable signs are to<br />
be provided to direct vehicle movements accordingly and a 2.5 metre deep by<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 27
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
2 metre wide truncation be provided on the tenancy adjacent to the driveway<br />
<strong>of</strong> the street boundary.<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
(k)<br />
(l)<br />
a Parking Management Plan being submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building<br />
licence detailing the operation <strong>of</strong> the car park, including the management <strong>of</strong><br />
tandem bays, staff, residential and visitor allocation and general traffic flow;<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to the Parking Management Plan;<br />
preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin/Waste Management Plan indicating<br />
the storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building<br />
licence to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
any signage on site being subject to a separate development application;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact<br />
on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is<br />
provided within the subject site for the parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles on site<br />
and how traffic management will be undertaken. The Construction<br />
Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the<br />
issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
all commercial car parking bays being made available to staff and customers<br />
at all times during the business day;<br />
a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> a building licence, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs<br />
and lawns to be approved by the <strong>Town</strong>. The landscaping areas as shown on<br />
the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the parking ramp to level 2 being enclosed, incorporating sound dampening<br />
devices to the ramp-way and to provide screening from headlights to the<br />
adjoining residential property to the north;<br />
a 2.4 metre high solid wall to be constructed along the northern boundary to<br />
the adjoining residential properties;<br />
the proposed balconies to the six residential units facing the rear boundary to<br />
incorporate sound dampening devices within the privacy screening. Details<br />
to be provided at building licence stage.<br />
(m) public art up to a value <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be<br />
incorporated in the development, or, in lieu <strong>of</strong> the applicant being unable to<br />
provide this to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, a contribution <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be made to the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong><br />
the building, for expenditure on public art in the near vicinity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 28
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(n)<br />
the solid wall to be built on the northern boundary to be reduced to no higher<br />
than 0.75 metres for a distance <strong>of</strong> 3 metres from the Jersey Street property<br />
boundary. Any infill panels above this section <strong>of</strong> wall can be nothing more<br />
than metal palings which allow a clear view through to the footpath on Jersey<br />
Street;<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
further to the above approval, the applicant be advised that, at Building Licence<br />
stage, <strong>Council</strong> is prepared to assess the ground floor café/restaurant and retail<br />
tenancies at a rate <strong>of</strong> 1 bay per 30 square metres <strong>of</strong> floor area if the 17 bays on the<br />
second floor along the frontage onto <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street are converted to <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
space;<br />
in relation to (ii) above, <strong>Council</strong> delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to<br />
approve amended plans which satisfy those requirements.<br />
Footnote:<br />
The applicant is advised that the proposed development should be designed and<br />
constructed in such a manner so that existing and possible future noise levels<br />
associated with the surrounding commercial uses, that could potentially affect future<br />
occupiers, are reasonably successfully attenuated.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 29
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.113 LOTS 50 AND 500 (NO 168-170) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE -<br />
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING (WALGA HEADQUARTERS)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a multi storey <strong>of</strong>fice building to be occupied by the Western<br />
Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) for their new headquarters that was<br />
previously approved under Clause 45 <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 subject to further<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> details.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
DA REFERENCE:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
72DA-2011<br />
Qube Railway Parade Pty Ltd and Western Australian<br />
Local Government Association (WALGA)<br />
HASSELL<br />
Commercial<br />
Office, Restaurant - 'AA' (<strong>Council</strong> approval required)<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
ZONING:<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
LAND AREA: Lot 500 - 1,111m 2 , Lot 50 - 3,137m 2<br />
(Combined Area - 4248m 2 )<br />
Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval <strong>of</strong> details'<br />
In the 12 year life <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, WALGA was the first to request for<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> a development proposal under Clause 45: Approval subject to later Planning<br />
Approval <strong>of</strong> Details.<br />
Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval <strong>of</strong> details' states:-<br />
1. Where an application for planning approval is for a development that includes the carrying<br />
out <strong>of</strong> any building or works, the <strong>Council</strong> may grant approval subject to matters requiring<br />
the subsequent approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>. These matters may include the siting, design,<br />
external appearance <strong>of</strong> the buildings, means <strong>of</strong> access or landscaping.<br />
2. The <strong>Council</strong> may decline to deal with an application requiring later approval <strong>of</strong> details or<br />
call for further details if it thinks fit.<br />
3. Where the <strong>Council</strong> has granted approval subject to matters requiring the later approval <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Council</strong>, application for approval <strong>of</strong> those matters must be made not later than the<br />
expiration <strong>of</strong> two years from the date <strong>of</strong> the first planning approval.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 22 March 2011 (Item DV11.11)<br />
WALGA submitted a concept plan showing a six/seven storey <strong>of</strong>fice building with two levels <strong>of</strong><br />
basement parking. The concept plan included pedestrian access in the form <strong>of</strong> a wide<br />
landscaped area with a centrally located pedestrian path situated along the eastern boundary,<br />
connecting Nicolson Street and Railway Parade.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> considered the application for a multi storey <strong>of</strong>fice building to be occupied by the<br />
Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) for their new headquarters under<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 30
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Clause 45 'Approval Subject to Later Planning Approval <strong>of</strong> Details' <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1 and decided:<br />
That <strong>Council</strong> declines to deal with the application (dated 17 February 2011), requiring a later<br />
approval under Clause 45 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1: Approval Subject to Later<br />
Planning Approval <strong>of</strong> Details submitted by the Western Australian Local Government<br />
Association (WALGA) for an <strong>of</strong>fice building on lots 50 and 500, 168/170 Railway Parade, West<br />
Leederville for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the application does not meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme in<br />
relation to plot ratio and on-site parking provision; and<br />
the proposal put forward in the letter from WALGA dated 15 March 2011 does not<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer the ceding <strong>of</strong> a 6.0 metre wide strip <strong>of</strong> land across the rear <strong>of</strong> the site for a road<br />
reservation free <strong>of</strong> cost.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 24 May 2011 (Urgent Business Item 11.1)<br />
Following the <strong>Council</strong> decision in March 2011 above, a request was received from WALGA for<br />
the matter to be reconsidered. WALGA <strong>of</strong>fered to cede a full 6 metre strip <strong>of</strong> land free <strong>of</strong> cost<br />
to the <strong>Council</strong> for access purposes and also reaffirmed their undertaking to provide the<br />
pedestrian access. <strong>Council</strong> reconsidered the application and decided:<br />
That in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, the<br />
application for approval subject to later planning approval <strong>of</strong> details under Clause 45 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Scheme submitted by the Western Australian Local Government Association dated 17 February<br />
2011, and subsequent submission dated 20 May 2011 for the development <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500<br />
(Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville for a multi level <strong>of</strong>fice building with basement<br />
parking, be approved subject to:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the conditions set out in paragraph 1; and<br />
the matters set out in paragraph 2 requiring the subsequent approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
1. Conditions<br />
The application is approved subject to the following conditions, each to be satisfied in a<br />
manner, form and substance satisfactory to the <strong>Town</strong>:-<br />
1.1 The building to include no more than 5,100 m² <strong>of</strong> commercial <strong>of</strong>fice floor space<br />
and up to a further 1,000 m² <strong>of</strong> floor space to be used for incidental purposes.<br />
1.2 The building to include an undercr<strong>of</strong>t carpark yielding a minimum carparking<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> 162 car bays, which is accepted by the <strong>Council</strong> as being sufficient for<br />
the volume <strong>of</strong> floor space specified in condition 1.1 subject to the following:-<br />
(a)<br />
To <strong>of</strong>fset the reduced provision for on-site car parking, as it relates to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Parking Policy (up to 41 bays), the following measures must be put<br />
in place to facilitate and encourage the use <strong>of</strong> alternate transport modes to<br />
access the <strong>of</strong>fice development:-<br />
(i)<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> suitable end <strong>of</strong> trip bicycle facilities to include bicycle<br />
parking, lockers and showers with associated change room facilities<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 31
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(ii) Preparation <strong>of</strong> (and subsequent adherence to) a transport<br />
management plan for staff and visitors to the building (the plan is to<br />
include incentives for use <strong>of</strong> alternate modes including cost subsidy<br />
for public transport fares and priority parking for car pooling); and<br />
Note: If these conditions are not met, parking will have to be provided<br />
in accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s parking policy or cash-in-lieu paid at a<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay.<br />
1.3 The building height is to be <strong>of</strong> no more than seven storeys above existing ground<br />
level (six storeys <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice space plus a ground floor area with the capacity for a<br />
café/restaurant and other services and facilities).<br />
1.4 Building setbacks from all boundaries and Railway Parade to be generally as<br />
proposed in the concept drawings and site plan submitted by the applicant with<br />
the application.<br />
Note: The land area within the ROW (see condition 1.6 below) is to be included<br />
in the calculation <strong>of</strong> any setback that may be required in any future development<br />
<strong>of</strong> the rear <strong>of</strong> the site. The width <strong>of</strong> the ROW is considered a sufficient setback for<br />
buildings up to three storeys in height.<br />
1.5 An agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owner <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path<br />
through the site.<br />
The pedestrian path must:<br />
(a) Provide for unrestricted public access (except for occasional closure<br />
necessary to prevent the establishment <strong>of</strong> an easement by prescription)<br />
connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade;<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
Be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 5.3 metres in width; and<br />
Be constructed and maintained generally along the alignment shown on the<br />
plans submitted with this application.<br />
Notification <strong>of</strong> this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site land<br />
under Section 70A <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act.<br />
1.6 An agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owner <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme under which the owner agrees to cede to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> without compensation for the purpose <strong>of</strong> a future ROW a strip <strong>of</strong> land six<br />
(6) metres wide across the northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the site. This strip <strong>of</strong> land is to<br />
be subdivided from Lot 50 at the time Lots 50 and 500 are amalgamated (to<br />
accommodate the development) and ceded free <strong>of</strong> cost to the <strong>Town</strong> at that time.<br />
1.7 The amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500 prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> any<br />
development.<br />
2. Matters requiring later planning approval <strong>of</strong> details<br />
The application is approved subject to the later approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> to the following<br />
matters:-<br />
2.1 Siting <strong>of</strong> the buildings.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 32
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
2.2 The means <strong>of</strong> access to the building and through the site.<br />
2.3 The landscaping <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
2.4 Such other matters as are normally the subject <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> consideration <strong>of</strong> a<br />
detailed application for planning approval which are not covered in paragraph 2.<br />
Note: The following specific matters are raised for the attention <strong>of</strong> the owner<br />
when preparing building design:<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
The traffic analysis accompanying the application has been undertaken on<br />
the basis <strong>of</strong> 152 bays being provided on site. Should the detailed design<br />
propose more than this number, further traffic analysis will be required.<br />
Traffic engineering design issues have been raised in the assessment <strong>of</strong><br />
the application in relation to access at both Nicholson Street and Railway<br />
Parade. These matters will require further assessment and have to be<br />
satisfactorily resolved at detailed planning stage. Any resulting works<br />
required in the streets must be at the owner's cost.<br />
Adequate on-site turn-around provision must be made to accommodate<br />
rubbish trucks and any other large service vehicles that may have reason<br />
to visit the site.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
The subject lots are located on the north side <strong>of</strong> Railway Parade and are surrounded by<br />
commercial developments to the east and west and residential properties to the north. Vehicle<br />
access is currently taken from Railway Parade, however, the rear <strong>of</strong> Lot 50 adjoins the<br />
Nicholson Street road reserve.<br />
WALGA and Qube Railway Parade Pty Ltd propose to develop both lots and the application<br />
submitted for further approval <strong>of</strong> details show:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Four storey <strong>of</strong>fice building above two ground floor tenancies (one to be occupied as a<br />
café) with a total floorspace <strong>of</strong> 6,100m 2 and combined total height <strong>of</strong> 5 storeys.<br />
157 bays over two levels <strong>of</strong> basement parking and 5 bays provided at-grade to the rear <strong>of</strong><br />
the development (162 bays in total). The two levels <strong>of</strong> basement parking are not<br />
internally linked, with the upper basement accessed from Railway Parade and the lower<br />
basement accessed from Nicholson Street.<br />
A minimum front street setback <strong>of</strong> 5.5 metres from Railway Parade and a rear setback<br />
from Nicholson Street <strong>of</strong> 45 metres.<br />
Nil and 3 metre setbacks from the western boundary and 3 metre and 10 metre setbacks<br />
from the eastern boundary to allow for light and ventilation to the building and a minimum<br />
setback at ground level <strong>of</strong> 11.3 metres to accommodate the pedestrian access way along<br />
the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the property. The ro<strong>of</strong> extends to the eastern boundary.<br />
Pedestrian access in the form <strong>of</strong> a wide landscaped and paved area along the eastern<br />
boundary providing for a public pedestrian connection between Nicholson Street and<br />
Railway Parade.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 33
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The proposed development is also seeking to achieve a 5-Star Green Star Office rating from<br />
the Green Building <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
Also accompanying the application is a Development Application Summary Report, a Traffic<br />
Impact Assessment Report, a Landscaping Concept Plan and a Waste Management Plan.<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
In conclusion the Applicant provides:<br />
The proposed development <strong>of</strong> the WALGA <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> 168-170 Railway Parade, West Leederville<br />
will significantly contribute to realising the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study<br />
objectives. The development will vastly improve built form within the area, public spaces,<br />
increase concentration <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fices, cafes and create a permanent pedestrian link between<br />
Nicholson Street and Railway Parade.<br />
The proposed development complies with the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1, Policy 6.5: Precinct<br />
P5: West Leederville and the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study relevant to the<br />
site, highlighting the value the development brings to the precinct and the benefits it will bring to<br />
surrounding sites.<br />
Development <strong>of</strong> the site will promote environmental principles, increase accessibility between<br />
public transport and enhance the pedestrian activity within the area.<br />
The WALGA development will greatly improve the character and amenity <strong>of</strong> the area with a<br />
compliant scheme that:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Aims to provide a 5-Star Green Star building, minimising greenhouse gas emissions and<br />
maximising efficiency through design;<br />
Activates two street frontages by landscaped forecourt, courtyard, café and restaurant;<br />
Provides a high quality contemporary and sustainable architectural solution that will lead<br />
and influence future developments within the area;<br />
Provides safe and accessible public spaces that are comfortable for pedestrians to use<br />
both day and night;<br />
Provides passive surveillance for pedestrians moving throughout the site;<br />
Provides excellent facilities for cyclists and takes advantage <strong>of</strong> access to public transport<br />
to minimise the use <strong>of</strong> private vehicle trips; and<br />
Increase connectivity <strong>of</strong> the local transport network.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> when previously considering the application for the subject lots (submitted in the form <strong>of</strong><br />
a concept plan) outlined a series <strong>of</strong> conditions to be met, as well as matters requiring the further<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> details. Each <strong>of</strong> these conditions and matters are commented on below, under their<br />
respective headings in relation to the development application submitted.<br />
Conditions<br />
1.1 5,100 m² <strong>of</strong> commercial <strong>of</strong>fice floor space and up to 1,000 m² <strong>of</strong> floor space for<br />
incidental purposes<br />
The plans submitted show a combined floorspace <strong>of</strong> 6,100m 2 which is proposed to be<br />
allocated for use as <strong>of</strong>fice, café and incidental purposes, meeting the above condition.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 34
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The café is located on the ground floor near the Railway Parade frontage, providing<br />
activation along the street and pedestrian access way.<br />
1.2 Undercr<strong>of</strong>t carpark yielding a minimum carparking provision <strong>of</strong> 162 car bays<br />
<strong>Council</strong> supported the provision <strong>of</strong> 162 car bays (being a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 41 bays as required<br />
under the Scheme) subject to the following measures being put in place to facilitate and<br />
encourage alternate transport modes:-<br />
<br />
<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> end <strong>of</strong> trip bicycle facilities (bicycle parking, lockers and showers and<br />
associated change room facilities); and<br />
Preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the building.<br />
In absence <strong>of</strong> these above measures being put in place or if less than 162 bays are<br />
provided, cash-in-lieu for parking is required at a rate <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay.<br />
The development provides for 157 bays over two basement levels and an additional 5<br />
bays at-grade to the rear, providing a total <strong>of</strong> 162 bays. It is noted that out <strong>of</strong> the bays<br />
provided, 37 (23%) bays are marked for 'small cars only'. The Australian Standard allows<br />
for the provision <strong>of</strong> small car bays (2.3 metres by 5 metres) and as such these bays can<br />
be supported. The development also provides for 5 disabled parking bays.<br />
No parking bays, at this stage, have been set aside (and marked as such) for the use <strong>of</strong><br />
service and delivery vehicles. Prior to the building occupation, provision <strong>of</strong> service and<br />
delivery vehicle parking should be included as part <strong>of</strong> the preparation <strong>of</strong> the transport<br />
management plan (which is discussed further below).<br />
To encourage alternative transport modes, bicycle end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities are provided in the<br />
upper basement level. The facilities provided are considered adequate for the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building and include 12 enclosed bicycle lockers, a number <strong>of</strong> open bicycle racks, six<br />
showers with associated change rooms (male and female) and secure clothing lockers.<br />
Also, the design <strong>of</strong> access ways to the end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities allow sufficient manoeuvring for<br />
people with bicycles.<br />
In regards to the preparation <strong>of</strong> the transport management plan, the applicant has<br />
provided an undertaking to comply with this condition. Some initiatives raised in the traffic<br />
impact assessment report (which accompanied the application) include public transport<br />
information boards, the provision <strong>of</strong> end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities and the operation <strong>of</strong> a car pooling<br />
scheme with parking spaces reserved for this purpose.<br />
It is considered appropriate to maintain as a condition <strong>of</strong> approval the preparation <strong>of</strong> (and<br />
subsequent adherence to) a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the<br />
building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. The transport management plan should be<br />
lodged with the <strong>Town</strong> prior to occupation <strong>of</strong> the building. This will allow future tenants to<br />
be party to the preparation <strong>of</strong> the plan. The transport management plan should also<br />
include service and delivery vehicle needs, the marking and management <strong>of</strong> the small car<br />
parking bays and maintenance <strong>of</strong> the bicycle end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities.<br />
1.3 Building height is to be <strong>of</strong> no more than seven storeys above existing ground level<br />
The plans show a five storey building, however it is noted that there is a slight step up<br />
from Railway Parade (approximately 0.7 metres) and the ground floor has a ceiling height<br />
<strong>of</strong> 4.8 metres.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 35
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
1.4 Building setbacks from all boundaries and Railway Parade to be generally as<br />
proposed in the concept drawings and site plan<br />
The building achieves similar setbacks from Railway Parade, the western and eastern<br />
side boundaries and from the rear boundary (Nicholson Street) to that <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />
concept plan considered by <strong>Council</strong> in May 2011.<br />
1.5 An agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owner <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path through<br />
the site<br />
<strong>Council</strong> requires the provision <strong>of</strong> a pedestrian path (minimum width <strong>of</strong> 5.3 metres)<br />
connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade and being generally located as shown in<br />
the concept plans.<br />
The applicant proposes a permanent 11 metre wide landscaped access way to provide<br />
unrestrictive access through the site between Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. The<br />
pedestrian path runs along the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the building and connects to a serpentine<br />
universal access path and a terraced lawn area leading to Nicholson Street.<br />
The applicant advises that the process to enter into an agreement with the <strong>Town</strong> under<br />
Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme has been initiated. This condition therefore needs to be<br />
retained until the agreement is finalised prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
1.6 An agreement being entered into to cede to the <strong>Town</strong> without compensation for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> a future ROW a strip <strong>of</strong> land six (6) metres wide across the northern<br />
boundary <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
The plans show a section <strong>of</strong> land (6 metres wide) at the rear <strong>of</strong> the property set aside for<br />
future rights <strong>of</strong> way (ROW).<br />
This six metre strip <strong>of</strong> land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at the time Lots 50 and 500 are<br />
amalgamated in order to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant<br />
advises that the process to enter into an agreement to ensure this land is ceded to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> without compensation has been initiated. Again this requirement should remain as<br />
a condition <strong>of</strong> approval and should be finalised prior to the building licence being issued.<br />
The landscaping plan submitted to accompany the application shows the land to be ceded<br />
for the ROW will be constructed with concrete paving to allow for vehicle and pedestrian<br />
access to the site, as well as the eastern section being landscaped. It is considered this<br />
treatment is an appropriate interim measure until the ROW is needed.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 36
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
1.7 Amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500 prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> any development<br />
The applicant advises that the process to have the two lots amalgamated has<br />
commenced, however since the amalgamation is yet to be finalised this should remain as<br />
a condition <strong>of</strong> approval.<br />
Matters requiring later planning approval <strong>of</strong> details<br />
2.1 Siting <strong>of</strong> the buildings<br />
The proposed siting <strong>of</strong> the building is similar to that which was shown in the concept plan,<br />
albeit the design <strong>of</strong> the building has changed. The siting <strong>of</strong> the building is consistent with<br />
the Railway Parade street setbacks identified in the West Leederville Planning and Urban<br />
Design Study, allows for the provision <strong>of</strong> a safe, accessible and attractive pedestrian<br />
access way through the site and the large rear setback minimises the impact <strong>of</strong> building<br />
bulk and height on the adjacent residential properties along Nicholson Street.<br />
2.2 The means <strong>of</strong> access to the building and through the site<br />
Vehicle Access and Traffic Impact Assessment Report<br />
In regards to vehicle access, <strong>Council</strong> requires further traffic analysis to be undertaken if<br />
more than 152 parking bays are proposed on site and also for the applicant to<br />
satisfactorily resolve the traffic engineering design issues raised in relation to access from<br />
both Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. It was noted that any resulting works to<br />
resolve these matters are to be at no cost to the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Access from Railway Parade<br />
Access to the upper level basement car park (which contains 76 car bays) is provided<br />
from Railway Parade, which represents that 47% <strong>of</strong> vehicle traffic associated with the<br />
development with access the site from Railway Parade. This equates to:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
53 arrivals in the AM peak<br />
6 departures in the AM peak<br />
14 arrivals in the PM peak<br />
47 departures in the PM peak<br />
It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 318 vehicle<br />
movements per day onto Railway Parade, distributed east and west, representing an<br />
increase in traffic volumes <strong>of</strong> less than 2%. The traffic impact assessment concludes that<br />
the proposed development will have no material impact on the operation <strong>of</strong> Railway<br />
Parade, as the additional traffic is within daily fluctuation levels.<br />
To facilitate right hand turn movements into the development it is proposed to provide a<br />
2.7 metre wide painted median to allow vehicles to store whilst waiting to turn into the<br />
development. This treatment will avoid traffic along Railway Parade queuing behind<br />
turning vehicles and possibly impacting on the roundabout at Southport Street. Details <strong>of</strong><br />
the above proposed road treatment should be provided to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong><br />
with the building licence application. All associated works would be at the expense <strong>of</strong> the<br />
applicant.<br />
The proposed ramp from Railway Parade has a maximum gradient <strong>of</strong> 1 in 4 and was<br />
raised with the applicant as a concern. In response, the applicant contends that the ramp<br />
gradient meets the Australian Standards 2890.1; however take note <strong>of</strong> the steep queuing<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 37
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
areas and advise that this issue will be further considered when the operational aspect <strong>of</strong><br />
the parking is finalised.<br />
Further, the barriers proposed adjacent to the vehicle access to avoid pedestrians falling<br />
into the void, will be designed to avoid interfering with sightlines and could, as a<br />
suggestion, be constructed from transparent materials. Plans showing the final barrier<br />
design are to be provided with the building licence application.<br />
Access from Nicholson Street<br />
Access to the lower level basement car park (which contains 81 car bays) is provided<br />
from Nicholson Street. It is also noted the 5 at-grade bays are also to be accessed from<br />
Nicholson Street. This represents that 53% <strong>of</strong> vehicle traffic associated with the<br />
development with access the site from Nicholson Street. This equates to:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
59 arrivals in the AM peak<br />
6 departures in the AM peak<br />
16 arrivals in the PM peak<br />
52 departures in the PM peak<br />
It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 359 vehicle<br />
movements per day onto <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Nicholson Street. This will increase<br />
traffic volumes on Nicholson Street to 500 vehicle movements per day and represent less<br />
than 2% increase in traffic volumes along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
The Traffic Impact Assessment Report and associated SIDRA analysis identifies that<br />
queuing <strong>of</strong> vehicles will occur along Nicholson Street during the PM peak period and<br />
vehicles will experience delays entering onto <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, particularly for vehicles<br />
heading eastwards.<br />
To accommodate the queuing <strong>of</strong> vehicles, the applicant has requested that the <strong>Town</strong><br />
consider modifying parking signage to indicate 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm<br />
weekdays for the section <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street on the western side between <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street and Bromham Lane. Currently, the parking signs allow for two hour parking 8am to<br />
6pm weekdays, with the exception <strong>of</strong> residential permits.<br />
Further traffic issues, associated with accessing the site via Nicholson Street are still<br />
being resolved with the applicant and further advice will be provided in regard to this<br />
matter at the Development Committee.<br />
Pedestrian Access<br />
In regard to the design and location <strong>of</strong> pedestrian access through the site, it is considered<br />
that this meets the intent <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and<br />
provides for improved connectivity between Railway Parade and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. The<br />
design accommodates universal access, is adequately landscaped and paved and has<br />
decorative features to make it attractive and inviting for pedestrians. The proposed café<br />
and lobby area will assist with activating the pedestrian access.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 38
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
2.3 The landscaping <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
The applicant has provided a landscaping and paving concept plan to accompany the<br />
application.<br />
The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study requires green forecourts along<br />
Railway Parade to s<strong>of</strong>ten the overall visual impact as viewed from the street. The<br />
landscaping concept plan shows the inclusion <strong>of</strong> planter boxes located around the front<br />
elevation <strong>of</strong> the building, breaking up the areas <strong>of</strong> paving. The main pedestrian entry, and<br />
similarly, the location <strong>of</strong> the café are oriented towards Railway Parade. Both these<br />
activities require their adjacent areas to be paved to allow for pedestrian movement and<br />
seating. Further, it is noted the inclusion <strong>of</strong> the basement car park, limits the level <strong>of</strong><br />
landscaping that could reasonably be accommodated. On balance, it is considered that<br />
the inclusion <strong>of</strong> the planter boxes meet the intent <strong>of</strong> the study and provide green relief<br />
along the front elevation.<br />
It is considered with the inclusion <strong>of</strong> planter boxes, located around the front elevation <strong>of</strong><br />
the building, provides for this desired 'green' forecourt.<br />
The rear <strong>of</strong> the site (as viewed from Nicholson Street) is proposed to be landscaped, with<br />
terraced lawn areas and a winding universal access pedestrian path leading up to the<br />
building. A landscaping strip is also provided for the length <strong>of</strong> the pedestrian access way<br />
along the eastern boundary, screening the adjacent commercial building, which is<br />
currently constructed to the boundary.<br />
Different paving treatments are also proposed to provide interest and to break up the<br />
different pedestrian areas.<br />
The layout <strong>of</strong> landscaping and paving is generally supported as shown in the concept<br />
plan, however further details <strong>of</strong> plantings and a reticulation plan should be submitted with<br />
the building licence application for approval. On-going maintenance <strong>of</strong> the landscaping<br />
would also be required.<br />
2.4 Other matters<br />
Waste Management<br />
The applicant proposes to engage a private waste service provider to collect waste and<br />
recycling once the building is operational, as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
For the <strong>of</strong>fices:<br />
General waste and paper collected minimum 3 times per week<br />
Recyclables collected weekly<br />
Organic waste collected twice weekly<br />
For the café:<br />
General waste collected minimum 3 times per week<br />
Cardboard and recyclables collected weekly<br />
Used cooking oil collected on request<br />
A bin storage area is provided to the rear <strong>of</strong> the development next to the driveway to enter<br />
into the basement car park from Nicholson Street. The bin storage provided is considered<br />
adequate in size to contain both the bins for the development and also room for the<br />
manoeuvring <strong>of</strong> bins.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 39
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
It is proposed that the waste/recycling vehicles will enter the premises from Nicholson<br />
Street by turning left into land ceded for the new ROW and reverse to park next to the<br />
waste compound. The doors to the bin storage area face towards the ROW to allow for<br />
easy access. The applicant has provided a swept path representation to demonstrate<br />
adequate turn-around area is provided to accommodate the waste vehicles or any other<br />
large service vehicles that may have reason to visit the site.<br />
Also, to minimise the disruption to residents along Nicholson Street, waste and recycling<br />
vehicles should only access the site during the hours <strong>of</strong> 7am to 7pm.<br />
Previous neighbour comments<br />
Whilst there was no specific requirements under the TPS to advertise the proposal,<br />
owners and residents <strong>of</strong> property abutting the development site were invited to view the<br />
concept plans when they were first submitted in February 2011. Three submissions were<br />
received from residents <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street, which outlined the following concerns:<br />
Vehicular access from Nicholson Street;<br />
Details regarding access for service vehicles and rubbish collection;<br />
Storm water management<br />
Opening hours for the restaurant<br />
Disruption and vibration during building construction (in the event <strong>of</strong> approval)<br />
Vehicular access from Nicholson Street and waste management are discussed above.<br />
In regards to operating hours <strong>of</strong> the café, the applicant advises that the café initially will<br />
only operate during business hours (7am - 6pm) on weekdays and will predominantly<br />
service the <strong>of</strong>fice and possibly surrounding neighbours and businesses in the vicinity.<br />
Should the hours <strong>of</strong> operation change, further approval would be sought and information<br />
provided regarding the availability <strong>of</strong> basement parking for customers.<br />
Information regarding future storm water and construction management is provided at the<br />
building licence stage for approval. To assist with the preparation <strong>of</strong> these plans, the<br />
owner can be advised <strong>of</strong> the above residents concerns.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposal was assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1 and the<br />
objectives and intent <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 and<br />
Priority Area 'Planning for Our Community' in regard to the goals for 'attractive and diverse<br />
business areas' and 'transport options'.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 40
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The requirements for consultation are provided for under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme. Whilst there were no specific requirements under the TPS to advertise the<br />
proposal, an invitation to view the plans was sent to owners and residents <strong>of</strong> properties abutting<br />
Nicholson Street, as well as, the adjoining properties owners at 164-166 and 172 Railway<br />
Parade when the application was lodged with the <strong>Town</strong> in February 2011. Comments received<br />
where reported to <strong>Council</strong> in March 2011.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> approved the concept plan for a multi level <strong>of</strong>fice building with basement parking on the<br />
subject lots under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval <strong>of</strong> details' subject to a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> conditions, as well as matters requiring the further approval <strong>of</strong> details by <strong>Council</strong>,<br />
being satisfactorily met.<br />
A number (i.e. most) <strong>of</strong> these conditions and matters have been satisfactorily met with this<br />
application. However, the traffic issues raised in relation to access from Nicholson Street are<br />
still being resolved with the applicant and further advice regarding this matter will be provided at<br />
the Development Committee.<br />
At this stage, however, the applicant requests, in order to accommodate queuing <strong>of</strong> vehicles<br />
during the PM peak period, the <strong>Town</strong> consider modifying parking signage to indicate 'no<br />
parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays for the section <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street on the western side<br />
between <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Bromham Lane. Modifications to the signs are to be at the<br />
expense <strong>of</strong> the applicant.<br />
Other matters not yet resolved are to continue to be a condition <strong>of</strong> approval. Those matters to<br />
remain a condition <strong>of</strong> approval are:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Preparation <strong>of</strong> (and subsequent adherence to) a transport management plan for<br />
staff and visitors to the building.<br />
An agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owner <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path<br />
through the site.<br />
An agreement being entered into to cede to the <strong>Town</strong> without compensation for<br />
the purpose <strong>of</strong> a future ROW a strip <strong>of</strong> land six (6) metres wide across the<br />
northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500 prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> any<br />
development.<br />
Details <strong>of</strong> the proposed road treatment for Railway Parade to be provided to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. All associated works are to be at the expense <strong>of</strong> the<br />
applicant.<br />
Submission <strong>of</strong> a detailed landscaping plan including specification <strong>of</strong> plant types<br />
and installation method and a reticulation plan.<br />
The application for a 5 storey <strong>of</strong>fice building with a ground floor café tenancy (WALGA<br />
Headquarters) is recommended for approval, subject to various conditions addressing matters<br />
raised in the body <strong>of</strong> this report and further advice being received on traffic issues in relation to<br />
Nicholson Street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 41
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
further to <strong>Council</strong>'s approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> details' <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on 24 May 2011,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for approval <strong>of</strong> further details for a multi level <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
building with basement car parking and a ground floor café tenancy submitted by<br />
HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville as shown<br />
on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the following conditions:<br />
(a)<br />
an agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owners <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian path through<br />
the site, prior to occupation <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
The pedestrian path must:<br />
1. provide for unrestricted public access (except for occasional closure<br />
necessary to prevent the establishment <strong>of</strong> an easement by prescription)<br />
connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade;<br />
2. be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 11 metres in width; and<br />
3. be constructed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted with this<br />
application.<br />
Notification <strong>of</strong> this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site land<br />
under Section 70A <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act;<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
an agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owners <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, under which the owner agrees to cede to the <strong>Town</strong><br />
without compensation for the purpose <strong>of</strong> a future ROW a strip <strong>of</strong> land six (6) metres<br />
wide across the northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the site, prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the building<br />
licence. This strip <strong>of</strong> land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at the time Lots 50 and<br />
500 are amalgamated (to accommodate the development) and ceded free <strong>of</strong> cost to<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> at that time;<br />
the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500 into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title prior to<br />
the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the building<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building;<br />
The transport management plan is to include incentives for use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes<br />
<strong>of</strong> travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority parking for car<br />
pooling, service and delivery vehicle parking, management <strong>of</strong> the small car bays<br />
and maintenance <strong>of</strong> the bicycle end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities;<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the transport management plan;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> detailed construction plans at the building licence stage, for the<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, <strong>of</strong> the proposed 2.7 metre wide painted median to be<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 42
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
provided within the Railway Parade road reserve to facilitate right turn movements<br />
associated with the development. All associated works are to be at the expense <strong>of</strong><br />
the applicant;<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> the proposed barriers adjacent to the vehicle access to<br />
Railway Parade to provide for adequate vehicle and pedestrian sightlines to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan, prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
building licence, including the specification <strong>of</strong> plant types and installation methods to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the landscaped areas, as shown on the landscaping plan, to be installed and<br />
reticulated prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building and thereafter maintained to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
(k) implementation <strong>of</strong> and adherence to the Waste Management Plan dated 1<br />
December 2011 submitted with the application to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
Infrastructure Services. Waste and recycling vehicles are only to access the site<br />
during the hours <strong>of</strong> 7am to 7pm;<br />
(l)<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> a Construction Management Plan detailing how the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding<br />
area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the<br />
subject site for the parking <strong>of</strong> construction vehicles and for the storage <strong>of</strong> building<br />
materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the surrounding road network. The<br />
construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior<br />
to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours <strong>of</strong><br />
operation outside these times will require the approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(ii)<br />
Parking restrictions on the western side <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street between <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
and Bromham Lane be introduced during the PM peak period. The parking signs be<br />
modified to 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays. Associated costs with these<br />
modifications are to be at the expense <strong>of</strong> the applicant.<br />
Footnotes:<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. Crossovers that are not required to access the development shall be removed and the<br />
footpath and kerbing reinstated.<br />
2. Stormwater must be contained on-site.<br />
3. Adjacent residents along Nicholson Street have raised concerns <strong>of</strong> disruption and<br />
vibration during building construction and are to be taken into consideration during the<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> the Construction Management Plan.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 43
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that visitor parking for the building be confined to the upper<br />
basement level.<br />
Developer contribution towards the provision <strong>of</strong> public art for the development was raised and<br />
the Administration was requested to provide advice on an appropriate contribution prior to the<br />
next meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That clause (i)(d) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended by adding the words "All visitor parking to the<br />
building is to be provided on the upper basement accessed from Railway Parade."<br />
That a further footnote be added as follows:-<br />
4. Access from Nicholson Street may be closed in the future when the east and west right <strong>of</strong><br />
way to Abbotsford Street and Southport Street is achieved.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 December 2011)<br />
To facilitate the implementation <strong>of</strong> public art throughout the <strong>Town</strong>, a percentage <strong>of</strong> development<br />
costs for private developments could be allocated to the provision <strong>of</strong> public art. In this regard, a<br />
request 1% <strong>of</strong> development construction costs is generally consistent with other local authorities<br />
where public art planning policies have been adopted.<br />
Public art is defined as an artistic work that is created and located for public accessibility and is<br />
work that has been designed by an artist for enhancement <strong>of</strong> a particular public realm. The<br />
developer could either provide the public art to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> or pay a contribution<br />
in lieu <strong>of</strong> providing public art.<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> a Public Art Policy is currently being drafted for consideration by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
However, to ensure successful implementation <strong>of</strong> a public art planning policy, the preparation <strong>of</strong><br />
supporting documentation, such as guidelines and strategies will also be required.<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
further to <strong>Council</strong>'s approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> details' <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on<br />
24 May 2011, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for approval <strong>of</strong> further details for<br />
a multi level <strong>of</strong>fice building with basement car parking and a ground floor café<br />
tenancy submitted by HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade,<br />
West Leederville as shown on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the<br />
following conditions:<br />
(a)<br />
an agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owners <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site, under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian<br />
path through the site, prior to occupation <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 44
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The pedestrian path must:<br />
1. provide for unrestricted public access (except for occasional closure<br />
necessary to prevent the establishment <strong>of</strong> an easement by prescription)<br />
connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade;<br />
2. be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 11 metres in width; and<br />
3. be constructed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted with<br />
this application.<br />
Notification <strong>of</strong> this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site<br />
land under Section 70A <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act;<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
an agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owners <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, under which the owner agrees to cede to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> without compensation for the purpose <strong>of</strong> a future ROW a strip <strong>of</strong> land<br />
six (6) metres wide across the northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the site, prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> the building licence. This strip <strong>of</strong> land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at<br />
the time Lots 50 and 500 are amalgamated (to accommodate the development)<br />
and ceded free <strong>of</strong> cost to the <strong>Town</strong> at that time;<br />
the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500 into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title<br />
prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the<br />
building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building;<br />
The transport management plan is to include incentives for use <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
modes <strong>of</strong> travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority<br />
parking for car pooling, service and delivery vehicle parking, management <strong>of</strong><br />
the small car bays and maintenance <strong>of</strong> the bicycle end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities;<br />
All visitor parking to the building is to be provided on the upper basement<br />
accessed from Railway Parade.<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the transport management plan;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> detailed construction plans at the building licence stage, for<br />
the approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, <strong>of</strong> the proposed 2.7 metre wide painted median to<br />
be provided within the Railway Parade road reserve to facilitate right turn<br />
movements associated with the development. All associated works are to be<br />
at the expense <strong>of</strong> the applicant;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> the proposed barriers adjacent to the vehicle access<br />
to Railway Parade to provide for adequate vehicle and pedestrian sightlines to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan, prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> a building licence, including the specification <strong>of</strong> plant types and installation<br />
methods to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the landscaped areas, as shown on the landscaping plan, to be installed and<br />
reticulated prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building and thereafter maintained to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 45
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(j)<br />
details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
(k) implementation <strong>of</strong> and adherence to the Waste Management Plan dated 1<br />
December 2011 submitted with the application to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services. Waste and recycling vehicles are only to<br />
access the site during the hours <strong>of</strong> 7am to 7pm;<br />
(l) submission <strong>of</strong> a Construction Management Plan detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact<br />
on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is<br />
provided within the subject site for the parking <strong>of</strong> construction vehicles and<br />
for the storage <strong>of</strong> building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the<br />
surrounding road network. The construction management plan shall be<br />
submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours<br />
<strong>of</strong> operation outside these times will require the approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(ii)<br />
Parking restrictions on the western side <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street between <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street and Bromham Lane be introduced during the PM peak period. The parking<br />
signs be modified to 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays. Associated costs<br />
with these modifications are to be at the expense <strong>of</strong> the applicant.<br />
Footnotes:<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. Crossovers that are not required to access the development shall be removed and<br />
the footpath and kerbing reinstated.<br />
2. Stormwater must be contained on-site.<br />
3. Adjacent residents along Nicholson Street have raised concerns <strong>of</strong> disruption and<br />
vibration during building construction and are to be taken into consideration during<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> the Construction Management Plan.<br />
4. Access from Nicholson Street may be closed in the future when the east and west<br />
right <strong>of</strong> way to Abbotsford Street and Southport Street is achieved.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 46
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iii) public art up to a value <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be<br />
incorporated in the development, or, in lieu <strong>of</strong> the applicant being unable to provide<br />
this to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, a contribution <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development be made to the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building, for<br />
expenditure on public art in the near vicinity <strong>of</strong> the development.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
further to <strong>Council</strong>'s approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> details' <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on<br />
24 May 2011, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for approval <strong>of</strong> further details for<br />
a multi level <strong>of</strong>fice building with basement car parking and a ground floor café<br />
tenancy submitted by HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade,<br />
West Leederville as shown on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the<br />
following conditions:<br />
(a)<br />
an agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owners <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site, under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, to provide for a permanent pedestrian<br />
path through the site, prior to occupation <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
The pedestrian path must:<br />
1. provide for unrestricted public access (except for occasional closure<br />
necessary to prevent the establishment <strong>of</strong> an easement by prescription)<br />
connecting Nicholson Street and Railway Parade;<br />
2. be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 11 metres in width; and<br />
3. be constructed and maintained as shown on the plans submitted with<br />
this application.<br />
Notification <strong>of</strong> this planning condition must be lodged against the title to site<br />
land under Section 70A <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act;<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
an agreement being entered into between the <strong>Town</strong> and the owners <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
under Clause 49 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, under which the owner agrees to cede to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> without compensation for the purpose <strong>of</strong> a future ROW a strip <strong>of</strong> land<br />
six (6) metres wide across the northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the site, prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> the building licence. This strip <strong>of</strong> land is to be subdivided from Lot 50 at<br />
the time Lots 50 and 500 are amalgamated (to accommodate the development)<br />
and ceded free <strong>of</strong> cost to the <strong>Town</strong> at that time;<br />
the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lots 50 and 500 into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title<br />
prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 47
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(d)<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff and visitors to the<br />
building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building;<br />
The transport management plan is to include incentives for use <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
modes <strong>of</strong> travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority<br />
parking for car pooling, service and delivery vehicle parking, management <strong>of</strong><br />
the small car bays and maintenance <strong>of</strong> the bicycle end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities;<br />
All visitor parking to the building is to be provided on the upper basement<br />
accessed from Railway Parade.<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the transport management plan;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> detailed construction plans at the building licence stage, for<br />
the approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, <strong>of</strong> the proposed 2.7 metre wide painted median to<br />
be provided within the Railway Parade road reserve to facilitate right turn<br />
movements associated with the development. All associated works are to be<br />
at the expense <strong>of</strong> the applicant;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> the proposed barriers adjacent to the vehicle access<br />
to Railway Parade to provide for adequate vehicle and pedestrian sightlines to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan, prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> a building licence, including the specification <strong>of</strong> plant types and installation<br />
methods to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the landscaped areas, as shown on the landscaping plan, to be installed and<br />
reticulated prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building and thereafter maintained to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
(k) implementation <strong>of</strong> and adherence to the Waste Management Plan dated 1<br />
December 2011 submitted with the application to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services. Waste and recycling vehicles are only to<br />
access the site during the hours <strong>of</strong> 7am to 7pm;<br />
(l) submission <strong>of</strong> a Construction Management Plan detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact<br />
on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is<br />
provided within the subject site for the parking <strong>of</strong> construction vehicles and<br />
for the storage <strong>of</strong> building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the<br />
surrounding road network. The construction management plan shall be<br />
submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence;<br />
(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours<br />
<strong>of</strong> operation outside these times will require the approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(ii)<br />
Parking restrictions on the western side <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street between <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street and Bromham Lane be introduced during the PM peak period. The parking<br />
signs be modified to 'no parking' between 4pm to 6pm weekdays. Associated costs<br />
with these modifications are to be at the expense <strong>of</strong> the applicant;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 48
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(iii) public art up to a value <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be<br />
incorporated in the development, or, in lieu <strong>of</strong> the applicant being unable to provide<br />
this to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, a contribution <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development be made to the <strong>Town</strong>, prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building, for<br />
expenditure on public art in the near vicinity <strong>of</strong> the development.<br />
Footnotes:<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. Crossovers that are not required to access the development shall be removed and<br />
the footpath and kerbing reinstated.<br />
2. Stormwater must be contained on-site.<br />
3. Adjacent residents along Nicholson Street have raised concerns <strong>of</strong> disruption and<br />
vibration during building construction and are to be taken into consideration during<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> the Construction Management Plan.<br />
4. Access from Nicholson Street may be closed in the future when the east and west<br />
right <strong>of</strong> way to Abbotsford Street and Southport Street is achieved.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 49
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.114 LOT 1 (NO. 156) RAILWAY PARADE, CORNER SOUTHPORT STREET, WEST<br />
LEEDERVILLE - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - THREE STOREY BUILLDING<br />
WITH UNDERCROFT - OFFICES AND RESTAURANT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a mixed use development requiring assessment under<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1 and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0445DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Odgaard Industries Pty Ltd<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Michael Little Designs<br />
ZONING:<br />
Commercial<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Office - 'AA' (Planning Approval required)<br />
Restaurant - 'AA' (Planning Approval requiredl)<br />
LAND AREA: 718 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Proposed net floor area: 1172m 2<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The subject site is on the corner <strong>of</strong> Railway Parade and Southport Street. Currently<br />
situated on the site is a single storey commercial building occupied by Odgaard Jewellers.<br />
A small parking area is located in front <strong>of</strong> the building facing Railway Parade.<br />
The site slopes down approximately 2.8 metres from the south-western corner (Railway<br />
Parade) to the north-eastern corner (Southport Street).<br />
The proposed development comprises:-<br />
o<br />
o<br />
o<br />
Undercr<strong>of</strong>t: six car parking bays directly perpendicular to, and accessed from, a<br />
widened driveway easement adjacent to the rear/north boundary <strong>of</strong> the site. This<br />
driveway easement is accessed from Southport Street.<br />
Ground floor: One tenancy (proposed café) fronting Railway Parade with alfresco<br />
dining in the Railway Parade street frontage, and the main car parking area (13 car<br />
parking bays and bicycle racks), accessed from a new driveway <strong>of</strong>f Southport<br />
Street.<br />
First floor: three <strong>of</strong>fice tenancies ranging in size from 113m 2 to 278m 2 , end <strong>of</strong> trip<br />
facilities, and a cleaner’s room.<br />
o Second floor: three <strong>of</strong>fice tenancies ranging in size from 113m 2 to 278m 2 , end <strong>of</strong> trip<br />
facilities, and a cleaner’s room.<br />
There is a total <strong>of</strong> 1172m 2 <strong>of</strong> commercial net floor area, which equates to a plot ratio <strong>of</strong><br />
1.63:1 for the site.<br />
19 car parking bays are proposed. <strong>Cambridge</strong>'s parking policy requires a total <strong>of</strong> 58 car<br />
bays. Shortfall is 67%.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 50
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following information in relation to the proposed development, in<br />
particular the car parking shortfall:<br />
A road widening scheme has seen a sacrifice <strong>of</strong> approximately 3 metres from the rear <strong>of</strong><br />
the site to accommodate the widening (an existing 3 metres on the right-<strong>of</strong>-way <strong>of</strong>f<br />
Southport Street). This presented some challenges to site coverage and vehicle parking<br />
for the design as the site is only 15 metres wide.<br />
Parking area was crucial and resulted in 19 premium bays to be allocated to the seven<br />
tenants proportionately. We believe allocating 2 or 3 bays per tenancy to be sufficient in<br />
an area on 2 main transport lines for train and bus routes. The varying modes <strong>of</strong><br />
transport to work are met by an end <strong>of</strong> trip facility. This negates the need <strong>of</strong> a cash-inlieu<br />
basis for the cost <strong>of</strong> bays as there is no proposal or servicing <strong>of</strong> any public parking<br />
lots in the immediate area. The majority <strong>of</strong> staff could easily use public transport to ride<br />
into work. If a cash in lieu policy was suggested by <strong>Council</strong>, the only economically<br />
viable option would be to remove Tenancy 1 on the ground floor and replace it with on<br />
site parking. This would create an entire ground floor <strong>of</strong> parking to service the two floors<br />
above.<br />
The current Parking Management Plan would be as follows:-<br />
Tenancy 1<br />
Tenancy 2<br />
Tenancy 3<br />
Tenancy 4<br />
Tenancy 5<br />
Tenancy 6<br />
Tenancy 9<br />
3 bays<br />
3 bays<br />
2 bays<br />
3 bays<br />
3 bays<br />
2 bays<br />
3 bays<br />
Railway Parade is fast becoming a series <strong>of</strong> new developments with café provisions<br />
linked into their proposals. This site is no different with a proposal for a modern café to<br />
lease the ground floor Tenancy 1. This will transform the corner site into a vibrant<br />
meeting place within the front setback area. This area has also been adequately<br />
covered by awnings over the footpath <strong>of</strong> Southport Street and the landscaping on<br />
Railway Parade.<br />
In closing, this is a landmark development along Railway Parade. Due to the contours,<br />
dimensions and access to this site, there must be careful consideration given to the<br />
underlying factors, to achieve a high level <strong>of</strong> design for a unique location.<br />
Neighbour’s submission – No. 7 Southport Street<br />
The proposed development requires the utilisation <strong>of</strong> the laneway/easement located over No. 7<br />
Southport Street to the rear <strong>of</strong> the subject site, to access the six undercr<strong>of</strong>t parking bays. This<br />
easement is used by No. 7 Southport Street, No. 158 Railway Parade, and No. 160 Railway<br />
Parade to access their rear car parking areas.<br />
The owner <strong>of</strong> No. 7 Southport Street has provided the following comments:<br />
We as owners <strong>of</strong> 7 Southport Street, West Leederville accept that the owners <strong>of</strong> Lot 156<br />
Railway Parade, West Leederville are able to utilise the laneway/easement in respect to<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 51
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
their proposed development on the attached plans that I have dated and signed on the<br />
18 th <strong>of</strong> November 2011.<br />
However, this is subject to the owners <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the back <strong>of</strong> 7<br />
Southport Street, West Leederville who also use the easement confirming that they<br />
accept the development proposal and that there may be a period when the easement is<br />
unavailable for a short time when it is replaced during construction.<br />
Also the above acceptance is conditional on the replacement and construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing easement in its full length with a suitable material to our satisfaction as the<br />
owners <strong>of</strong> 7 Southport Street, West Leederville.<br />
In response to this comment, the applicant is seeking letters <strong>of</strong> support to the proposed<br />
development from the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 158 Railway Parade and No. 160 Railway Parade who<br />
also use the easement.<br />
Comment<br />
General<br />
The subject site is zoned Commercial under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and is located within<br />
the West Leederville Precinct (sub-area Southport Street Commercial Area) under Policy 6.5:<br />
Precinct P5 - West Leederville. This policy has guidelines for plot ratio, vehicular access,<br />
building height and setbacks, which are used to assess developments in the precinct.<br />
The subject site is also located within the study area for the West Leederville Planning and<br />
Urban Design Study, more specifically the Southport Street Node. <strong>Council</strong>, when adopting the<br />
West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study in December 2010 decided that until such<br />
time as the requisite Scheme amendments are in place, <strong>Council</strong> will use the study as a guide<br />
when assessing development proposals, in particular where <strong>Council</strong> discretion is sought. This is<br />
consistent with Clause 38 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme which states the <strong>Council</strong> is to have regard to any<br />
approved planning study, amongst other considerations.<br />
In this regard, the proposal has been considered against the provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1 (in particular Policy 6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville), and also the intent,<br />
objectives and proposed development controls <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban<br />
Design Study (specifically for the Southport Street Node). In addition, some reference has been<br />
made to the report in this agenda proposing amendments to Policy 6.5 to reflect the West<br />
Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
Land use<br />
Under a Commercial zoning, the land uses proposed (<strong>of</strong>fice and restaurant) require planning<br />
approval. The proposed <strong>of</strong>fices would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and the<br />
proposed cafe would be a benefit to both workers and residents in the wider locality. The<br />
Southport Street Commercial Area is currently dominated by low to medium scale <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
buildings although there is some presence <strong>of</strong> retail. There are few businesses in the locality<br />
which cater for workers' morning teas, lunches and the like. <strong>Council</strong> has, however, recently<br />
approved a nine storey mixed use development comprising <strong>of</strong>fices, multiple dwellings, a café<br />
and a newsagent at Nos. 3-5 L<strong>of</strong>tus Street, West Leederville (see DV11.23 - 19/04/11 <strong>Council</strong><br />
minutes).<br />
In addition, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study identifies <strong>of</strong>fices and cafes,<br />
especially with alfresco facilities, as preferred uses for the Southport Street Node.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 52
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Plot ratio<br />
For the Southport Street Commercial Area, a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1 is permitted under <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No. 1 (see Policy 6.5: Precinct 5: West Leederville). This equates to 718m 2 <strong>of</strong> net floor<br />
area. The plans show a net floor area <strong>of</strong> 1172m 2 , or a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.63:1, which is 454m 2 more<br />
net floor area than the Scheme requirement.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has discretion under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme to approve additional <strong>of</strong>fice floor<br />
space outside the above policy requirement. As with the previous recent approvals in the area<br />
(eg. No. 3 L<strong>of</strong>tus Street), the increased plot ratio can be supported, being in keeping with<br />
desired planning outcomes for the area for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The prominent corner location <strong>of</strong> the site warrants individual consideration. The subject<br />
site is a key site in <strong>Cambridge</strong>, being situated on the corner <strong>of</strong> Railway Parade and<br />
Southport Street;<br />
The proposed development will result in a widened easement that is used to access the<br />
rear car parking areas <strong>of</strong> Nos. 158 and No. 160 Railway Parade and No. 7 Southport<br />
Street and will also be used by No. 156 Railway Parade;<br />
The proposed development meets the proposed development controls for the Southport<br />
Street Node outlined in the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan, including building<br />
height, street setbacks, design elements, and parking and access.<br />
In relation to the last dot point, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study does not<br />
specifically address plot ratio, but rather, deals with built form: building height and setbacks.<br />
However, it should be noted the proposed changes to the West Leederville Precinct Planning<br />
Policy (Policy 6.5) to incorporate the provisions <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban<br />
Design Study includes provisions for bonus plot ratio in the Southport Street Node. The draft<br />
policy identifies a bonus plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.2:1 for ceding <strong>of</strong> land (or secured via an easement) to<br />
sufficiently allow effective widening <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> way to allow for two-way vehicle traffic, and a<br />
bonus plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.2:1 for placing parking for the development in car parks located behind<br />
street front tenancies allowing for active street frontages. Therefore assessed against the draft<br />
policy, the plot ratio requirement for this development could be 1.4:1 rather than the current<br />
policy requirement <strong>of</strong> 1:1. The maximum permissible net floor area under the draft policy would<br />
be 167m 2 less than what is proposed.<br />
It is considered that a consistent approach to plot ratio is desirable and therefore the maximum<br />
plot ratio for this site should be limited to 1.4:1 meaning the applicant would have to reduce the<br />
net floor area <strong>of</strong> the building by 167m2. A reduction <strong>of</strong> this amount would have a consequential<br />
effect on car parking by reducing the required bays by 5.<br />
Building design, height and setbacks<br />
Policy 6.5 (Precinct P5: West Leederville) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual states<br />
that corner buildings should be at least 9.0 metres in height to promote strong urban form and<br />
that facades should be contemporary in design, articulated and detailed in order to provide<br />
variety and interest. Entrances are to be distinct and clearly identifiable within the building<br />
façade. Awnings are also to be provided with preference that they extend over the footpath to<br />
protect pedestrians from the elements. In addition, the policy states that in order to promote<br />
strong urban form, buildings should be built up to the street alignment and side boundaries.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 53
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
For the Southport Street Node, the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study outlines<br />
a number <strong>of</strong> proposed development controls. The development controls relevant to this<br />
proposal are:-<br />
Minimum 2 storeys, preferably 3 storeys, maximum 8 storeys;<br />
Maximum 3 storeys along street frontages, with any additional height to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 8<br />
storeys to be set back;<br />
Ground floor to first floor height: a minimum <strong>of</strong> 3.2 metres;<br />
Minimum 4 metre setback from Railway Parade to preserve and/or reinforce the "green"<br />
character <strong>of</strong> the node. Ground level setback to be set aside as quality landscaped space;<br />
New buildings on Southport Street shall incorporate an awning over adjacent footpaths to<br />
provide weather protection to pedestrians;<br />
Street elevations shall be articulated to include defined street front entries which are<br />
clearly identifiable from the street and projections and indentations in the floor plan with<br />
balconies, generous window reveals, related awning and ro<strong>of</strong> elements and changes in<br />
materials.<br />
As amendments are proposed to the current precinct planning policy for West Leederville<br />
(Policy 6.5) to reflect the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study, it is considered<br />
that the development controls from the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study are<br />
more relevant to the assessment <strong>of</strong> this proposal than the current precinct planning policy for<br />
West Leederville.<br />
The building is three storeys and set back from Railway Parade, and the ground floor to first<br />
floor height is over 4.0 metres. A continuous ground floor awning is proposed for almost the full<br />
length <strong>of</strong> the Southport Street frontage, and continues across the Railway Parade frontage,<br />
covering the proposed alfresco dining area. The street elevations are articulated with glazing,<br />
additional awnings on the upper levels, and feature panels.<br />
The front boundary <strong>of</strong> the site is angled, and the setback <strong>of</strong> the front wall <strong>of</strong> the building, which<br />
is perpendicular to the side boundaries, ranges from nil to 5.0 metres. Therefore the building<br />
does not achieve a 4.0 metre minimum setback as stipulated in the development controls. The<br />
greatest setback <strong>of</strong> 5.0 metres will, however, be adjacent to the corner (and roundabout),<br />
maximising sightlines for vehicles using the roundabout.<br />
The front setback area is proposed to be used for alfresco dining, however the plans submitted<br />
show a large planter box and provision for landscaping on the western side <strong>of</strong> the alfresco<br />
dining area. Depending on the quality and upkeep <strong>of</strong> the landscaping proposed, it may be<br />
sufficient to satisfy the development control objectives in contributing to the “green” character <strong>of</strong><br />
the node. A condition can be included in this regard.<br />
With regard to defined street front entry, the plans show one main pedestrian entrance to the<br />
building which is located <strong>of</strong>f Southport Street. The elevation and 3D perspective provided,<br />
however, do not clearly distinguish or identify these entrances as recommended by the above<br />
proposed development controls and also the current precinct planning policy, for example,<br />
through differences in building materials or additional height on awnings. Clearly identifiable<br />
building entrances are important for users and visitors to the building, and also improve the<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the building. A condition can be included in this regard to ensure that the main<br />
entrance to the building is clearly identifiable.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 54
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Car parking<br />
Use Requirement Required<br />
Office Office: 1 bay/30m 2 NFA 1074m 2 = 36 bays<br />
Café Restaurant: 1 bay/4.5m 2<br />
seating area<br />
Total required<br />
Total provided<br />
Shortfall<br />
98m 2 = 22 bays<br />
58 bays<br />
19 bays<br />
39 bays<br />
The applicant is proposing a 67% reduction in the total number <strong>of</strong> car bays required under<br />
Policy 5.1: Off-street Parking <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual. While the proposal<br />
does not meet the statutory requirements, it can be considered compatible with desired<br />
planning outcomes for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The requirement for 22 bays for the café is not considered critical. This is due to the<br />
supposition that patrons to these tenancies will largely come from the <strong>of</strong>fices above and<br />
or will walk from other commercial and residential properties in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject<br />
site. The potential for patrons who drive in specifically to visit the café is considered<br />
minimal. Further, from an urban design viewpoint, these sorts <strong>of</strong> uses at pedestrian level<br />
are encouraged. A more appropriate calculation for this land use may be the <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
requirement <strong>of</strong> 1 bay/30m 2 NFA.<br />
State Planning Policy 4.2 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel' (August 2010) provides, as<br />
a guide, a requirement <strong>of</strong> 1 bay per 50m 2 for <strong>of</strong>fices and notes that there should be<br />
flexibility for developers to provide less or no parking on-site and contribute cash-in-lieu<br />
towards facilities and services for common-use parking, public transport and alternative<br />
modes.<br />
For the recent development assessment for Nos. 3-5 L<strong>of</strong>tus Street and the WALGA<br />
development, a 20% discount on the number <strong>of</strong> car bays required was applied, due to the<br />
significant exposure the site has to public transport. The same can be applied to this site<br />
at No. 156 Railway Parade. The site is in close proximity to the City West Train Station<br />
and is also within walking distance from Leederville and West Leederville Train Stations.<br />
In addition bus routes run along L<strong>of</strong>tus Street and Railway Parade, with six routes also<br />
present on the nearby <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. The considerable exposure to public transport<br />
presents an excellent opportunity to encourage alternative means <strong>of</strong> transport in line with<br />
the sustainability principles pursued by State Government strategies.<br />
The applicant has also provided a wall mounted bike rack in the ground floor car park,<br />
and end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities such as showers, change rooms and lockers on the first and<br />
second floors to encourage this method <strong>of</strong> sustainable transport. Provision <strong>of</strong> bicycle<br />
parking and end-<strong>of</strong>-trip facilities is considered a desirable planning outcome, which,<br />
together with the availability <strong>of</strong> public transport in the vicinity, could justify a reduction <strong>of</strong><br />
20% <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> car bays required under the Scheme.<br />
Discounts for proximity to public transport and provision for alternative transport are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
provided for in car parking policies under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Schemes. There is a large<br />
move for metropolitan local governments to reduce car parking requirements with some<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s introducing maximum car parking requirements rather than minimums. In<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 55
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
addition, reducing the on-site car parking bays would reduce the load placed on the<br />
existing surrounding road network which is particularly congested during peak periods.<br />
<br />
<br />
The desired future character <strong>of</strong> the Southport Street Node is for larger, taller buildings, to<br />
take advantage <strong>of</strong> the Node's close proximity to West Perth, the city centre, the<br />
Leederville town centre, and the three nearby railway stations, as well as good freeway<br />
access. In order to support this increased development intensity, consideration will need<br />
to be given to reducing the car parking requirements to make such developments<br />
commercially viable.<br />
The applicant has advised that the ground floor café would have to be removed from the<br />
development is more car parking or cash-in-lieu was required to be provided. From a<br />
planning perspective, the café is preferred over additional parking due to its wider social<br />
and economic benefits to the area and the aesthetics <strong>of</strong> the building on the streetscape.<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, using the car parking ratio <strong>of</strong> 1 bay/30 m 2 NFA for the café and<br />
reducing the overall parking requirement by 20% due to the availability <strong>of</strong> public transport and<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> bicycle parking and end-<strong>of</strong>-trip facilities, the total requirement for the<br />
development is reduced from 58 bays to bays, leaving a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 35 bays. The table below<br />
shows this calculation:-<br />
Use<br />
Required<br />
Office Office: 1 bay/30m 2 NFA 1074m 2 = 36 bays<br />
Café Office: 1 bay/30m 2 NFA 98m 2 = 3 bays<br />
Total required<br />
(with 20% reduction)<br />
Total provided<br />
Shortfall<br />
31 bays<br />
19 bays<br />
12 bays<br />
Policy 5.1: Off-street Parking allows <strong>Council</strong> to consider cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking where<br />
developments have a shortfall. The policy does not, however, specify a figure for parking bays<br />
or outline the means by which cash-in-lieu contributions will deliver definite results to address<br />
future parking needs.<br />
At the <strong>Council</strong> meeting held on 22 March 2011, <strong>Council</strong> adopted a scope <strong>of</strong> works for the review<br />
<strong>of</strong> access and parking policy for commercial areas and having particular regard for the adoption<br />
<strong>of</strong> a cash-in-lieu policy to contribute towards meeting future parking needs in these areas. As<br />
this scope <strong>of</strong> works has only just been adopted, it will be at least several months before the<br />
outcomes <strong>of</strong> the study are known.<br />
It is considered acceptable to require payment <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for the shortfall identified after<br />
applying reductions for the café tenancy and for the site's proximity to public transport facilities<br />
and provision <strong>of</strong> bicycle parking and end-<strong>of</strong>-trip facilities (shortfall <strong>of</strong> 12 bays). <strong>Council</strong> has<br />
previously taken cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls at $7,500 per bay, which is simply based on<br />
at-grade parking cost. Based on this figure, cash-in-lieu required for this development would be<br />
$90,000. It should be noted that the figure <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay covers only the construction cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> an at ground car bay, and does not include any land cost.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 56
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
It should be pointed out that should the plot ratio reduction be supported the required car<br />
parking would be reduced by 5 car bays. If you then apply the 20% reduction the required<br />
number <strong>of</strong> bays would reduce from 31 down to 27 bays i.e. a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 8 bays would exist.<br />
The required cash-in-lieu therefore reducing also to $60,000.<br />
Access<br />
Parking and traffic are intrinsically linked. The number <strong>of</strong> parking bays and how the parking is<br />
managed will affect traffic to and from the site. Therefore in agreeing to the number <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
bays to be provided on-site, due regard should also be given to the traffic implications.<br />
As the development is medium scale and predominantly <strong>of</strong>fice use, the traffic generated by the<br />
proposed development can be accommodated by the standard and function <strong>of</strong> the surrounding<br />
road network. The crossover to the main, ground floor car park is at a sufficient distance away<br />
from the well-utilised roundabout on the corner <strong>of</strong> Railway Parade and Southport Street.<br />
Furthermore, the proposed development has good accessibility by all modes <strong>of</strong> transport<br />
considering the existing road network, footpaths and bicycle routes and public transport<br />
coverage <strong>of</strong> the subject locality and the provision <strong>of</strong> end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities will support nonvehicular<br />
modes <strong>of</strong> transport to the development. Of additional importance is that the proposal<br />
is minimising the amount <strong>of</strong> car trips by providing a lesser number <strong>of</strong> car parking bays than<br />
stipulated under the Scheme.<br />
Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual states<br />
that vehicular access should not be taken from Railway Parade. In addition, the development<br />
controls <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study state that:-<br />
<br />
<br />
Any on-site car parking associated with new development shall be placed in car parks<br />
either behind street front tenancies or fully below natural ground level, allowing level<br />
(universal) access to the tenancies from the street.<br />
New development must be set back from existing ROWs sufficiently to allow effective<br />
widening <strong>of</strong> the carriageway to facilitate two-way vehicular traffic. (Public access rights<br />
would be secured via an easement on the Certificate(s) <strong>of</strong> Title to ensure no loss <strong>of</strong><br />
private development rights).<br />
The proposed development satisfies the first two dot points. The plans submitted show on-site<br />
parking behind the street front café tenancy and also in an undercr<strong>of</strong>t accessed from the<br />
driveway easement <strong>of</strong> the adjoining No. 7 Southport Street (see details in ‘Neighbour’s<br />
comment’ section above).<br />
As previously described, the driveway easement <strong>of</strong> the adjoining No. 7 Southport Street is<br />
proposed to be widened from 2.66 metres to 4.66 metres to allow two way traffic flow for the full<br />
width <strong>of</strong> the rear <strong>of</strong> No. 156 Railway Parade. Whilst the easement will only be 4.66 metres (as<br />
the ground floor overhangs), at the ground level, there will be a distance <strong>of</strong> 6.2 metres from the<br />
north side <strong>of</strong> the easement to the edge <strong>of</strong> the undercr<strong>of</strong>t bays, which is more than the minimum<br />
requirement for two-way traffic and will provide adequate manoeuvring out <strong>of</strong> the undercr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
parking bays. This will greatly improve the safety <strong>of</strong> this easement, which is currently used by<br />
three properties and will also be used to access the proposed undercr<strong>of</strong>t parking bays <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development. The existing crossover to this easement is also proposed to be widened to 6.2<br />
metres.<br />
One issue with the new crossover to the ground floor car park and the proposed widening <strong>of</strong> the<br />
crossover for the rear driveway easement is that these crossovers may result in the loss <strong>of</strong> up<br />
to three street parking bays on Southport Street. However it should be pointed out that the rear<br />
driveway easement is encouraged for the benefit <strong>of</strong> not only this site but the adjoining 3 sites for<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 57
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
future redevelopment and therefore it is considered to cancel out the loss <strong>of</strong> a street bay. In<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> the double access <strong>of</strong>f Southport Street and the impact <strong>of</strong> up to two bays it is<br />
considered that this can be supported given the lot constraints in providing a suitable and<br />
workable car park area.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
If <strong>Council</strong> accepts cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> a shortfall <strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 15 bays (12 on site and 3 street parking<br />
bays) at a cost <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay, <strong>Council</strong> will receive $112,500 to be held in reserve for future<br />
parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The proposed land uses <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice and restaurant are consistent with the Commercial zoning <strong>of</strong><br />
the subject lot.<br />
The proposal is generally in keeping with the building design outcomes stipulated in Policy 6.5<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual and the West Leederville Planning and Urban<br />
Design Study, however, it is recommended that the design is slightly modified so that the<br />
building's entrances are clearly identifiable. The desire for a strong urban form, interaction with<br />
the streetscape, and landscaped gardens are all addressed by the height, scale and design <strong>of</strong><br />
the development. A high quality <strong>of</strong> landscaping is desired and should be conditioned in such a<br />
way that ensures this.<br />
A plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.63 is considered to significant, however, a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.4:1 can be supported<br />
due to the uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the site and potential for a landmark building and the character <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site surrounds. The widening <strong>of</strong> the easement will also provide benefits to three neighbouring<br />
properties. Furthermore, the desired future character <strong>of</strong> the Southport Street Node is for larger,<br />
taller buildings, to take advantage <strong>of</strong> the Node's close proximity to the city, Leederville, West<br />
Perth, three railway stations and the freeway. At a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.4:1 the parking required<br />
including concessions is reduced to 27 bays, with 19 bays provided a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 8 bays exist.<br />
Cash-in-lieu for these bays is supported with a discounted rate, having regard to the exposure<br />
<strong>of</strong> the site to public transport as well as provision <strong>of</strong> end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities for cyclists and walkers.<br />
Recommended cash-in-lieu contribution is $60,000 based on the charge <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay.<br />
Overall, the application is recommended for approval, subject to various conditions addressing<br />
matters raised in the body <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 58
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
Developer contribution towards the provision <strong>of</strong> public art for the development was raised and<br />
the Administration was requested to provide advice on an appropriate contribution prior to the<br />
next meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the applicant provide confirmation <strong>of</strong> a legal right <strong>of</strong> carriageway to the rear<br />
laneway to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Director Development and Sustainability;<br />
subject to (i) above the application for a mixed use development (<strong>of</strong>fices and<br />
restaurant) submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade,<br />
West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2011 is APPROVED<br />
subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(a) the maximum plot ratio being limited to 1.4:1;<br />
(b) the provision <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> carriage way or easement in gross over the rear 2.0<br />
metre section <strong>of</strong> the property, for the full 15.1 metre width <strong>of</strong> the property,<br />
abutting the laneway as indicated on the approved plan;<br />
(c) the construction <strong>of</strong> the rear 2.0 metre section <strong>of</strong> the property, for the full 15.1<br />
metre width <strong>of</strong> the property, abutting the laneway to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>. Details are to be provided to the <strong>Town</strong>’s Infrastructure Services for<br />
approval;<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the<br />
approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong>, the 19<br />
parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair;<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking contribution <strong>of</strong> $60,000 to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong><br />
the subject site;<br />
all awnings are to achieve a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 2.7 metres above natural<br />
ground level;<br />
(g) the preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff, visitors and<br />
residents <strong>of</strong> the building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. The plan is to<br />
include incentives for use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport including cost<br />
subsidy for public transport fares and priority parking for car pooling;<br />
(h)<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the transport management plan;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 59
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
(k)<br />
(l)<br />
(m)<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main<br />
building entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
This may include such elements as additional height, distinct ro<strong>of</strong> forms,<br />
canopies, curved walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building<br />
licence stage.<br />
details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> a building licence showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs<br />
and lawns to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin Waste Management Plan<br />
detailing the storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
building licence to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact<br />
on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is<br />
provided within the subject site or the parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles <strong>of</strong>f site.<br />
The construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence.<br />
Footnotes:<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. in relation to Condition (xi) above, a bin enclosure in accordance with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Health Local Law 2001 is required to be provided. In addition, seven<br />
bins as indicated on the plans, is considered insufficient to meet the waste<br />
requirements for a café and six <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That a further footnote be added to the motion as follows:<br />
2. <strong>Council</strong> notes the amended proposal submitted on 19 December 2011 seeking a plot<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.49:1.0 but considers that the proposals put forward in the revised<br />
submission do not sufficiently justify the increase in plot ratio. It is noted that a<br />
further extension <strong>of</strong> the balconies along the two facades has the potential to meet<br />
the 1.4:1.0 plot ratio.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 60
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That clause (e) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(e)<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking contribution <strong>of</strong> $100,000 to the <strong>Town</strong>,<br />
based on an 8 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for future<br />
parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the applicant provide confirmation <strong>of</strong> a legal right <strong>of</strong> carriageway to the rear<br />
laneway to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Director Development and Sustainability;<br />
subject to (i) above the application for a mixed use development (<strong>of</strong>fices and<br />
restaurant) submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade,<br />
West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2011 is APPROVED<br />
subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(a) the maximum plot ratio being limited to 1.4:1;<br />
(b) the provision <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> carriage way or easement in gross over the rear 2.0<br />
metre section <strong>of</strong> the property, for the full 15.1 metre width <strong>of</strong> the property,<br />
abutting the laneway as indicated on the approved plan;<br />
(c) the construction <strong>of</strong> the rear 2.0 metre section <strong>of</strong> the property, for the full 15.1<br />
metre width <strong>of</strong> the property, abutting the laneway to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>. Details are to be provided to the <strong>Town</strong>’s Infrastructure Services for<br />
approval;<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the<br />
approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong>, the 19<br />
parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair;<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking contribution <strong>of</strong> $100,000 to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, based on an 8 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for<br />
future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site.<br />
all awnings are to achieve a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 2.7 metres above natural<br />
ground level;<br />
(g) the preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff, visitors and<br />
residents <strong>of</strong> the building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. The plan is to<br />
include incentives for use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport including cost<br />
subsidy for public transport fares and priority parking for car pooling;<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the transport management plan;<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main<br />
building entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 61
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
This may include such elements as additional height, distinct ro<strong>of</strong> forms,<br />
canopies, curved walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building<br />
licence stage.<br />
(j)<br />
(k)<br />
(l)<br />
(m)<br />
details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> a building licence showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs<br />
and lawns to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin Waste Management Plan<br />
detailing the storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
building licence to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact<br />
on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is<br />
provided within the subject site or the parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles <strong>of</strong>f site.<br />
The construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence.<br />
Footnotes:<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. in relation to Condition (xi) above, a bin enclosure in accordance with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Health Local Law 2001 is required to be provided. In addition, seven<br />
bins as indicated on the plans, is considered insufficient to meet the waste<br />
requirements for a café and six <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
2. <strong>Council</strong> notes the amended proposal submitted on 19 December 2011 seeking a plot<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.49:1.0 but considers that the proposals put forward in the revised<br />
submission do not sufficiently justify the increase in plot ratio. It is noted that a<br />
further extension <strong>of</strong> the balconies along the two facades has the potential to meet<br />
the 1.4:1.0 plot ratio.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 62
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.115 LOT 43 (NO. 25A) JUKES WAY WEMBLEY - TWO X TWO-STOREY GROUPED<br />
DWELLINGS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two (2) grouped dwellings requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme Policy Manual in respect to buildings on boundary and buildings set back from the<br />
boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0267DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
W L Law<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Summit Projects<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R30<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: Parent Lot: 900m 2<br />
Strata Lot 1 (Subject Lot): 541sqm (excl. common property)<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
Unit 1: Floor Area: 256.97sqm<br />
Open Space: 49% (147.65sqm)<br />
Unit 2: Floor Area: 263.95sqm<br />
Open Space: 49% (148.00sqm)<br />
The proposed application consists <strong>of</strong>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Two double storey dwellings located to the forward <strong>of</strong> the dwelling that is currently under<br />
construction.<br />
The dwellings are located one behind the other with unit 1 having access to the main<br />
street via an exclusive driveway for its use only, and unit 2 reversing onto an approved<br />
common property driveway and entering the street in forward gear.<br />
Unit 1 proposes a parapet wall to the garage on the north-western boundary. Length <strong>of</strong><br />
6.23 metres and height <strong>of</strong> 3.334 metres.<br />
The lot is an irregular shaped lot with an approved subdivision and a common access<br />
driveway to the south-eastern side.<br />
The property is located on the elbow <strong>of</strong> the street and borders 5 properties.<br />
Background<br />
A subdivision application was lodged by the owner with the Department <strong>of</strong> Planning on 17<br />
November 2009 proposing three strata lots on Lot 43 (No. 25) Jukes Way, Wembley. The<br />
application complied with the average and minimum lot requirements.<br />
The application was approved in two stages, first with the clearance <strong>of</strong> the proposed Lot 3<br />
and common property, and then with the clearance <strong>of</strong> Lots 1 and 2 (subject lots).<br />
Stage one <strong>of</strong> the clearance was issued on the 26 November 2010 and a planning<br />
approval for a two-storey dwelling on Lot 3 was granted on 12 October 2010. A Building<br />
Licence was issued on 22 February 2011. This dwelling is currently under construction.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 63
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch and setback variations:<br />
Buildings Setback from the Boundary<br />
<br />
<br />
We wish to maintain the side setbacks to the kitchen, dining and living rooms <strong>of</strong> unit 2 as<br />
we believe that this would have no adverse impact on the amenities <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
properties.<br />
There would be no over-looking issue and the provision <strong>of</strong> sunlight and ventilation would<br />
be maintained to our proposed dwelling and the dwelling on 23 Jukes Way.<br />
Buildings on Boundary<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We would ask that <strong>Council</strong> grants approval based on the fact that this would enhance<br />
security and privacy between 23 and 25 Jukes Way.<br />
Due to the height and solar orientation <strong>of</strong> the property, there would be no overshadowing<br />
issues.<br />
To minimise disruption <strong>of</strong> the boundary fence, the proposed parapet wall would be within<br />
the dividing lot boundary.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
A letters was sent to the adjoining owners to the north-west with regards to the parapet wall and<br />
reduced setbacks to unit 2. These objections are summarised below.<br />
Submission one (No. 23B Jukes Way)<br />
Buildings on Boundary<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It would have a significant adverse affect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> our property.<br />
Ventilation and sunlight to our carport would be restricted.<br />
Direct sun to our bedrooms would be non-existent for 24 hours <strong>of</strong> the day as those are<br />
facing east.<br />
Property 23A already has a nil setback to our property on parts <strong>of</strong> its eastern border are<br />
we strongly object to the same happening on our eastern border with our property being<br />
squashed in between.<br />
Buildings Setback from the Boundary<br />
<br />
<br />
Direct sun to major openings <strong>of</strong> our family and dining area as well as outdoor living area<br />
would be restricted.<br />
Our outdoor living area gets very hot in summer as it is protected from the breeze. The<br />
proposed dwelling would see our temperature rise further secondary to impaired<br />
ventilation by direct radiation and heat convection which would not be sustainable.<br />
Since advertising the applicant has met with the Administration and decided to reduce the<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> parapet wall on the boundary by removing the storeroom. This reduced the original<br />
length <strong>of</strong> boundary wall (that was advertised) from 8.99 metres down to 6.23 metres.<br />
It should be noted that objections were received from a number <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> Jukes Way<br />
however it was considered that the proposed variations do not directly affect these residents.<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> their concerns relate to the development <strong>of</strong> three dwellings on the subject property,<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 64
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
however this has already been approved. Objections were received from No. 23B Jukes Way,<br />
No. 27A Jukes Way, No. 27B Jukes Way and No. 15 Jukes Way. A petition signed by twentyfour<br />
(24) residents <strong>of</strong> Jukes Way was also received objecting to privacy, open space, setbacks,<br />
building height and infill development.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings Setback from the Boundary<br />
Unit 2 setback kitchen and<br />
dining room from northwestern<br />
boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
1.026 metres - 2.5 metres 1.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The reduced setback to the kitchen and dining room is as a result <strong>of</strong> the angle <strong>of</strong> the boundary<br />
and the irregular lot shape. Only a small portion <strong>of</strong> the wall intrudes into the required setback<br />
and overall will have less <strong>of</strong> an impact than a compliant wall set back 1.5 metres for the length<br />
<strong>of</strong> the boundary. The wall is staggered to reduce the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining<br />
property. The upper floor complies with all setback requirements.<br />
All major openings on this elevation are set back more than the required 1.5 metres from the<br />
boundary and therefore will have little impact on privacy between the adjoining properties. The<br />
reduced setback is to the northwest, and any shadow cast from these properties will be directed<br />
to the street and the common property driveway.<br />
Notwithstanding neighbour's objections to sunlight, it is considered the staggered set backs<br />
provided allow adequate sunlight and ventilation to their dwelling.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for the<br />
following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
the reduced setback to the kitchen and dining is minor, and overall produces a better<br />
outcome than a compliant wall for the length <strong>of</strong> the boundary;<br />
the reduced setback will have little impact on overshadowing as it is to the north-western<br />
boundary, and the wall is staggered to reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining<br />
property.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 65
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Buildings on Boundary<br />
Unit 1 setback garage and<br />
storeroom from north-western<br />
boundary<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Nil<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:-<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> adjoining<br />
properties is not restricted.<br />
The reduced setback to the garage is to the north-western boundary and will therefore have<br />
little impact on access to the winter sun for the adjoining property. The wall contains no<br />
openings and will therefore not affect privacy between adjoining neighbours. Due to the minimal<br />
lot frontage, the nil setback to the garage and storeroom makes effective use <strong>of</strong> the space, and<br />
allows the required driveway width to the common access driveway.<br />
The parapet wall will be adjoining an open carport, and while the adjoining owner has raised<br />
concerns with regards to sunlight and ventilation to their vehicles, this is not considered to be a<br />
reason for objection as there will be no overshadowing <strong>of</strong> outdoor living areas or habitable room<br />
windows.<br />
Although there is a reduced setback to the garage, the remainder <strong>of</strong> the building is set back<br />
further than the requirements, and contains an open style alfresco area to minimise the overall<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining property.<br />
The reduced setback to the garage will have little impact on the streetscape as it will be setback<br />
in line with the adjoining carport and due to the location <strong>of</strong> the property on the 'elbow' <strong>of</strong> the<br />
street, will not impact on the open streetscape.<br />
Overall, subject to the above modification, it is considered that the proposal complies with the<br />
relevant performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
will have little impact on sunlight and ventilation to the adjoining property, as it is to the<br />
north-western boundary and abuts a carport.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 66
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for two (2) additional two-storey dwellings submitted by<br />
Summit Projects at Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 29<br />
September 2011, subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the impact <strong>of</strong> the garage as<br />
proposed on the adjoining neighbour.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That further conditions be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the street tree being retained;<br />
the garage to Unit 1 being moved 0.5 metres from the boundary and the wall height being<br />
reduced to 3 metres.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for two (2) additional two-storey dwellings submitted<br />
by Summit Projects at Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley, as shown on the plans<br />
dated 29 September 2011, subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 67
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(ii)<br />
the street tree being retained;<br />
(iii) the garage to Unit 1 being moved 0.5 metres from the boundary and the parapet<br />
height being reduced to 3 metres.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iv) the driveway/crossover to Unit 1 being tapered to allow an additional street tree<br />
between the subject property crossover and the adjoining property crossover to<br />
the north/west to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that the item be referred back to the Development<br />
Committee to consider alternative designs for the front unit with access being from the common<br />
driveway.<br />
Amendment carried 6/2<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Crs Carr and Grinceri<br />
Motion to Refer Back<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the item relating to Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley be referred back to the<br />
Development Committee for further consideration.<br />
Lost 3/5<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for two (2) additional two-storey dwellings submitted<br />
by Summit Projects at Lot 43 (No. 25A) Jukes Way, Wembley, as shown on the plans<br />
dated 29 September 2011, subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
the street tree being retained;<br />
(iii) the garage to Unit 1 being moved 0.5 metres from the boundary and the parapet<br />
height being reduced to 3 metres;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 68
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(iv) the driveway/crossover to Unit 1 being tapered to allow an additional street tree<br />
between the subject property crossover and the adjoining property crossover to<br />
the north/west to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 5/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 69
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.116 LOT 196 (NO. 43) DAMPIER AVENUE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY<br />
DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t requiring assessment under<br />
the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to retaining/fill<br />
and wall height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 386DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Stephen and Natalie West<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Milankov Designs and Project Management<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 1077 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Total floor area 633.8m2 (including balconies and alfresco areas)<br />
Sites slopes down approximately 2.0 metres from front (Dampier Avenue) to rear<br />
boundary and approximately 2.0 metres from left (eastern) to right (western) side<br />
boundaries.<br />
The applicant proposes to level the site to the rear so that the filled ground level is similar<br />
to the level <strong>of</strong> the proposed residence. This requires retaining <strong>of</strong> up to nearly 3.0 metres<br />
at the rear <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
The fall <strong>of</strong> the land towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the site means that the rear portion <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
is overheight with a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 9.41 metres for the flat ro<strong>of</strong> section.<br />
The dwelling has been designed with a basement garage and two storeys above this.<br />
The driveway to the garage is at maximum gradient and therefore the dwelling cannot be<br />
lowered any further.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed variations:-<br />
<br />
<br />
We have been in discussion with the majority <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring properties and have<br />
obtained their verbal approval.<br />
Due to the nature and topography <strong>of</strong> the site's natural ground line we calculate that we will<br />
be over height to the rear portion <strong>of</strong> our residence. The excess in bulk is predominately<br />
within the rear yard will not affect the general streetscape. No neighbouring properties<br />
are affected by way <strong>of</strong> overshadowing and the views from adjoining properties have not<br />
been affected.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 70
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
Our property is built within an upon sand dune landscape where severe and dramatic<br />
contour changes occur. The area in question has not been contoured and graded to iron<br />
out these dramatic changes as would be the case within a new estate in a present day<br />
scenario.<br />
The size <strong>of</strong> the lots within this precinct assist in lessening the impact <strong>of</strong> building form<br />
when considering visual bulk and scale, ventilation and sunlight and privacy matters.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Comments were received from owner <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the south and is summarised<br />
below:-<br />
<br />
Submission one (7 Hovea Crescent)<br />
I wish to strongly object to the proposed height <strong>of</strong> the retaining walls as well as to the wall<br />
to the top <strong>of</strong> the eaves because I believe these will completely obliterate any sunshine<br />
falling on much <strong>of</strong> my property during the autumn, winter and spring months. In addition, I<br />
am afraid that this proposal will severely diminish the value <strong>of</strong> my property.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Excavation or Fill<br />
Maximum filling behind street<br />
setback line<br />
Proposed<br />
Maximum <strong>of</strong> 2.964 metres<br />
along rear boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
0.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Development that retains the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural level <strong>of</strong> a site, as seen from the street or<br />
other public place, or from an adjoining property.<br />
The subject property slopes from front to rear and from left side to right side approximately 2.0<br />
metres. The adjoining property to the west has recently been developed and has filled the rear<br />
<strong>of</strong> the property so that there is an existing high retaining wall along the western boundary. The<br />
subject property shares a rear boundary with three different properties along both Hesperia<br />
Avenue and Hovea Crescent. Due to the slope <strong>of</strong> the land, the retaining wall abutting the<br />
Hesperia Avenue property ranges in height from 0 to 2.964 metres. Two retaining walls are<br />
proposed along the section <strong>of</strong> rear boundary abutting No. 7 Hovea Crescent. The bottom<br />
retaining wall (on the boundary) is 1.15 metre high with a second retaining wall being set 1.0<br />
metre in <strong>of</strong>f the boundary to allow for a planter to be provided. This retaining wall is 1.4 metres<br />
higher than the first retaining wall and would have the 1.8 metre dividing fence on top <strong>of</strong> it. The<br />
design allows for the bulk <strong>of</strong> the wall to be broken up as viewed from the adjoining property.<br />
The retaining wall to the third adjoining property to the rear is 2.0 metres long and 1.9 metres as<br />
viewed from the adjoining property. It is noted that there is a large shed in the rear corner <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property which will reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposed retaining wall.<br />
The proposed fill to the rear <strong>of</strong> the site will not impact on the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural<br />
level <strong>of</strong> the site as seen from the street. Whilst there will be obvious fill <strong>of</strong> the site as viewed<br />
from the adjoining properties to the rear, the applicant has attempted to reduce its impact by<br />
layering the retaining and using planters. It is considered that the fill and retaining will improve<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 71
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
the privacy <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties who would otherwise be overlooked by the dwelling<br />
sitting at the higher ground level.<br />
It is considered the proposal meetings relevant performance criteria and can be supported.<br />
Building height<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Maximum overall height 9.4 metres maximum 7.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to<br />
protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The dwelling is a two storey dwelling with an undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage. The garage level is as low as<br />
possible below street level and at the maximum driveway gradient. The ground finished floor<br />
level therefore sits higher than the natural ground level at any point on the site. The dwelling<br />
complies with the maximum height for a flat ro<strong>of</strong> in the front left hand corner <strong>of</strong> the dwelling but<br />
all other parts <strong>of</strong> the building are overheight with the rear right hand corner being 9.41 metres in<br />
lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres due to the fall <strong>of</strong> the land towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the lot.<br />
On the basis that the overheight section <strong>of</strong> wall is at the rear <strong>of</strong> the dwelling which has a<br />
setback <strong>of</strong> 12.0 metres from the rear boundary, it does not impact on adjoining properties in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> access to light and access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling complies with the performance criteria for<br />
the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
allows adequate direct sun to buildings and opens spaces on adjoining properties.<br />
does not impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 72
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage submitted<br />
by Milankov Designs and Project Management at Lot 196 (No. 43) Dampier Avenue, City Beach<br />
as shown on the amended plans dated 15 November 2011.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Cr MacRae suggested that the fill in the back yard should be reduced in<br />
order for the natural ground level in the south west corner to be maintained.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(i)<br />
the natural ground level in the south western corner <strong>of</strong> the property being maintained ie<br />
no fill/retaining along the boundary to be above 500 mm. The rear yard in this location<br />
then being graded back towards the entertainment area to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Details to be provided at building licence stage.<br />
Amendment carried 3/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Carr, MacRae and Pelczar<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage<br />
submitted by Milankov Designs and Project Management at Lot 196 (No. 43) Dampier<br />
Avenue, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 15 November 2011 subject to<br />
the following condition:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 73
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(i)<br />
the natural ground level in the south western corner <strong>of</strong> the property being<br />
maintained ie no fill/retaining along the boundary to be above 500 mm. The rear<br />
yard in this location then being graded back towards the entertainment area to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. Details to be provided at building licence stage.<br />
Carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 74
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.117 LOT 82 (NO. 25) BRIGHTON STREET WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY<br />
DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two-storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t requiring assessment under<br />
the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to buildings on<br />
boundaries, buildings set back from the boundary and building height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0272DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
A J Bellatoni<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Pure Base Living<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R40<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 287 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Total Floor Area: 336.88sqm<br />
o Undercr<strong>of</strong>t: 66.07sqm<br />
o Ground Floor: 187.92sqm (inc. alfresco and balcony)<br />
o Upper Floor: 148.96sqm (inc. balcony)<br />
Open Space: 45% (127.66sqm)<br />
The Lot has a 10.06 metre frontage to Brighton Street and will consist <strong>of</strong> an undercr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
garage with two storeys above.<br />
The property slopes upwards to the rear by 2.0 metres.<br />
The applicant proposes an open style fence and gate to the front <strong>of</strong> the property.<br />
An enclosed alfresco area is located north-western side <strong>of</strong> the dwelling.<br />
The dwelling is proposed to be built 'boundary to boundary' with parapet walls located on<br />
both the eastern and western side boundaries.<br />
Due to the slope <strong>of</strong> the land and the provision for an undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage, the ground floor is<br />
approximately 1.3 metres above the natural ground level at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification:<br />
Buildings Setback from the Boundary and Buildings on Boundary<br />
We would like to justify this by making the <strong>Council</strong> aware that the width <strong>of</strong> the property is<br />
restricting the setback to comply with the allowed setback stated in the R-Codes.<br />
We have provided highlight windows to all habitable rooms and obscured windows to the<br />
wet areas <strong>of</strong> the upper floor. This will stop any overlooking ot any neighbouring habitable<br />
room windows or outdoor living areas.<br />
Building Height<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 75
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
Due to the layout <strong>of</strong> the dwelling, we have designed the garage as an undercr<strong>of</strong>t so we<br />
can have a habitable room to be built on top <strong>of</strong> this to allow for this room to have a clear<br />
view <strong>of</strong> the street.<br />
We have views to the northern face <strong>of</strong> the block that we would like to maximise and the<br />
over height only falls to the front northern portion <strong>of</strong> the dwelling which we feel will have<br />
no effect on neighbouring properties with regards to overshadowing or overlooking.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The application was advertised to the two adjoining properties. One objection was received and<br />
is summarised below:<br />
Submission one (No. 27 Brighton Street)<br />
Setback from western boundary<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal clearly shows that the dwelling would be built to abut the boundary on the<br />
perimeter <strong>of</strong> my property.<br />
No. 25 and No. 27 Brighton Street are both green titled blocks and currently the houses<br />
are clearly separate as a result <strong>of</strong> the deliberate setbacks from the boundary. The<br />
intended removal <strong>of</strong> this separation as set out in the proposals through the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
the new residence at No. 25 Brighton Street up to the western boundary would effectively<br />
create 'terraced' houses, which is not in keeping whatsoever with the green titles.<br />
I am also significantly concerned that the proximity <strong>of</strong> the proposed new property to my<br />
property will significantly reduce both direct sun and daylight to habitable rooms in my<br />
property, and will also result in an invasion <strong>of</strong> my privacy.<br />
Building height<br />
<br />
<br />
I feel that these height rules are particularly important to ensure that residential areas<br />
such as Brighton Street retain a degree <strong>of</strong> conformity with regard to scale whilst not<br />
inhibiting the rights <strong>of</strong> property owners to redevelop.<br />
The height <strong>of</strong> the proposed new property will also result in significant reductions in both<br />
direct sun and daylight to the habitable rooms along the eastern side <strong>of</strong> my property. I<br />
request that the height restrictions are therefore enforced and the proposal is modified in<br />
this regard.<br />
It should be noted that objections have also been received in relation to reduction <strong>of</strong> privacy,<br />
reduction <strong>of</strong> solar access, not fitting in with other dwellings in the street and the impact on<br />
further development <strong>of</strong> No. 27 Brighton Street. The issues privacy, solar access and<br />
streetscape have all been assessed as part <strong>of</strong> this application and are deemed to meet the<br />
acceptable development standards <strong>of</strong> the R-Codes in relation to the northern (front) and<br />
western (right) boundaries. Each property is assessed individually and on their own merits and<br />
should this application be approved, it will not have any bearing on any future development<br />
application for No. 27 Brighton Street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 76
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings Setback from the Boundary<br />
Setback balcony and theatre from<br />
western (right) boundary<br />
Setback master bedroom from<br />
western (right) boundary<br />
Setback hallway from western<br />
(right) boundary<br />
Setback powder room, bathroom,<br />
bedroom 4 and bedroom 3 from<br />
western (right) boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision Proposed<br />
1.5 metres 1.2 metres<br />
1.3 metres 1.2 metres<br />
2.4 metres 2.0 metres<br />
2.4 metres 1.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The reduced setback to the western boundary is a result <strong>of</strong> the narrow lot frontage (10.06<br />
metres), and makes effective use <strong>of</strong> the space. As the lot runs north to south, the reduced<br />
setbacks to the western boundary has little impact on sunlight to the adjoining property.<br />
The building has been stepped to reduce the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk. Although concerns were<br />
raised by the adjoining property to the north regarding solar access and invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy, the<br />
upper floor contains no major openings and the reduced setback is to the western boundary,<br />
therefore sheltering the adjoining property from the harsh westerly sun. The dwelling is set back<br />
in excess <strong>of</strong> the required front setback to the primary street therefore ensuring that the reduced<br />
setbacks do not dominate the streetscape, and allowing the adjoining property to not feel 'boxed<br />
in'.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed reduced setbacks to the western boundary meet with<br />
the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
little impact on overshadowing <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property as shadow will be cast to the<br />
south;<br />
privacy will be protected between the adjoining properties as there are no major openings<br />
on the western elevation.<br />
Buildings on Boundary<br />
Setback garage from western<br />
(right) boundary<br />
Setback bar and laundry from<br />
western (right) boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Proposed<br />
1.5 metres 0 metres<br />
1.1 metres 0 metres<br />
Setback living from western (right) 1.0 metre 0 metres<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 77
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
boundary<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> adjoining<br />
properties is not restricted.<br />
The parapet walls to the living, laundry and bar will be to the western boundary and will have<br />
little impact on overshadowing as the shadow will be cast to the property to the north. The<br />
parapet wall to the garage is at a maximum height <strong>of</strong> a boundary fence. The parapet walls make<br />
effective use <strong>of</strong> the space on a narrow lot, and are located a minimum <strong>of</strong> 11.5 metres from the<br />
front boundary, therefore having little impact on the streetscape.<br />
These rooms are non habitable and do not contain major openings which overlook the adjoining<br />
property to the south, therefore not affecting visual privacy to the adjoining property. Although<br />
the adjoining owner has objected with regards to overshadowing to the outdoor living area it is<br />
considered that this area, will still have access to the winter sun and is mostly shaded by<br />
extensive tree coverage.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the buildings on the boundary address the performance criteria for<br />
the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
they make effective use <strong>of</strong> the space on a narrow lot; and<br />
they will have little affect on sunlight or ventilation to the adjoining property to the west.<br />
Building Height<br />
Maximum wall height to the<br />
underside <strong>of</strong> the eaves for pitched<br />
ro<strong>of</strong><br />
Maximum wall height for<br />
flat/concealed ro<strong>of</strong><br />
Acceptable development provision Proposed<br />
6.0 metres 5.2 metres - 6.9 metres<br />
7.0 metres 7.4 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to<br />
protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Due to the slope <strong>of</strong> the land and the provision <strong>of</strong> an undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage, the proposed dwelling<br />
exceeds the maximum permissible height to the front. The applicant has reduced the ceiling<br />
heights and floor levels to try to reduce the overall height. The majority <strong>of</strong> the over height<br />
section is adjoining the property to the east who have expressed that they have no objections to<br />
the proposed application.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 78
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
To the rear <strong>of</strong> the property, the building measures between 5.2 metres and 5.7 metres above<br />
the natural ground level and will therefore have little impact on the adjoining property to the<br />
north. The dwelling will not affect any views <strong>of</strong> significance and is set back in 2.5 metres in<br />
excess <strong>of</strong> the required front setback therefore reducing the impacts <strong>of</strong> bulk to the street and<br />
ensuring the impact <strong>of</strong> the over height sections are minimised to the adjoining properties.<br />
The adjoining owner to the west has objected to the proposed height (between 0.4 metres and<br />
0.15 metres in excess <strong>of</strong> the permissible height on her boundary) with regards to scale and<br />
overshadowing. It is noted that this dwelling will be larger than many other dwellings on the<br />
street. Also, any shadow cast from the dwelling will be directed to the rear <strong>of</strong> the property and<br />
will have limited impact on the dwelling to the west.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed height meets the performance criteria for the<br />
following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
the dwelling is well set back from the street to ensure that the overall bulk is minimised;<br />
and<br />
minimal impact on overshadowing or access to views <strong>of</strong> significance for adjoining<br />
properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 79
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two-storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t submitted by Pure<br />
Base Living at Lot 82 (No. 25) Brighton Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated<br />
December 2011 subject to the following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the west and east to<br />
be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in red as<br />
shown on the approved plan. Specifically, the bedroom 2 and sitting room windows on<br />
the eastern elevation having a minimum sill height <strong>of</strong> 1.6 metres above the floor level; and<br />
(iii) any existing crossovers not included as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed development on the<br />
approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the size <strong>of</strong> the dwelling in relation to<br />
the size <strong>of</strong> the lot and the resulting impact on neighbouring properties and the street.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Cr Carr<br />
Crs Bradley, MacRae and Pelczar<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for a two-storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t submitted by<br />
Pure Base Living at Lot 82 (No. 25) Brighton Street, West Leederville as shown on the<br />
plans dated December 2011 for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the variations to the acceptable development criteria in relation to boundary<br />
setbacks and building height and, as a result <strong>of</strong> the accumulation <strong>of</strong> these<br />
variations, it is not considered that the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential<br />
Design Codes are satisfied;<br />
the dwelling has a significant impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjacent properties and<br />
the streetscape;<br />
the neighbour on the western side has objected to the requested variations.<br />
Carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 80
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.118 LOT 1346 (NO. 33) ULSTER ROAD, CORNER DONEGAL ROAD, FLOREAT -<br />
TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE - AMENDED PLANS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an amended plan for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage requiring<br />
assessment under the Performance Criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Planning Policies in respect <strong>of</strong> wall height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
290DA-2010<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
C & T Daly<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Webb & Brown-Neaves<br />
ZONING:<br />
MRS Zoning: Urban<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Single dwelling ‘P’ – permitted in residential zone<br />
LAND AREA: 911 m²<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> considered the application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage at its<br />
meeting held on 28 September 2010 (Item DV10.85) and approved the application with a<br />
maximum wall height <strong>of</strong> 6.48 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres at the front right hand side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling and with a reduced rear setback <strong>of</strong> a minimum <strong>of</strong> 3.07 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
The applicant requested that the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the undercr<strong>of</strong>t and garage be<br />
raised by 400mm as the invert sewer level is higher than the level <strong>of</strong> the powder room in<br />
the undercr<strong>of</strong>t.<br />
Both neighbours were contacted by the applicant with regard to the amended plan and<br />
both have objected to the proposed increase in floor level and height.<br />
The applicant has submitted a further amended plan with an amended floor level <strong>of</strong><br />
12.250 metres and an amended garage level <strong>of</strong> 9.421 metres (an increase <strong>of</strong> 250mm).<br />
Site has a fall from the rear <strong>of</strong> the property to the front <strong>of</strong> the property <strong>of</strong> approximately 3.0<br />
metres.<br />
The front right/northern corner <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling is over height where the natural<br />
ground level is at its lowest.<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
<br />
The finished flor level needs to be raised as the invert sewer level is higher than the level<br />
<strong>of</strong> the powder room in the undercr<strong>of</strong>t.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 81
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Neighbour Submission<br />
Submission One (No. 35 Ulster Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Errors in the design <strong>of</strong> the property that were not previously identified should be resolved<br />
by the owners within the framework <strong>of</strong> the existing approval. The onus should be on them<br />
to make compromises in the design.<br />
It is completely unreasonable that we should be asked to approve a major change in the<br />
height <strong>of</strong> the building for the sake <strong>of</strong> a toilet.<br />
At the time <strong>of</strong> the approval the owners agreed to a lowering <strong>of</strong> the overall height <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property to take into account the concerns <strong>of</strong> neighbours. Therefore allowing an increase<br />
now would negate any consideration previously given to the objections and concerns <strong>of</strong><br />
neighbours.<br />
The solution to the problem is to forgo the toilet in the undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage. There are<br />
already a number <strong>of</strong> toilets throughout the house.<br />
Submission Two (No. 4 Donegal Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed house already exceeds the height allowed so an increase in its already<br />
oversized bulk will have an adverse impact on our property.<br />
The obvious solution to the builder's problem is to delete the additional toilet from the<br />
design.<br />
Following the advertising period, and as a result <strong>of</strong> concerns raised by the adjoining<br />
landowners, the applicant submitted amended plans which reduced the requested increase in<br />
floor levels from an increase <strong>of</strong> 400mm to an increase <strong>of</strong> 250mm.<br />
Assessment Against the Performance Criteria<br />
Wall Height<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable Development Provision<br />
Wall Height for pitched ro<strong>of</strong> 6.73 metres 6.0 metres measured to top <strong>of</strong><br />
eaves beneath pitched ro<strong>of</strong> above<br />
NGL below wall.<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognize<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:-<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
As the proposed dwelling is a two storey structure on a sloping lot, the development proposes a<br />
maximum height to the top <strong>of</strong> the wall at the front right hand side <strong>of</strong> the two storey <strong>of</strong> 6.73<br />
metres (the applicant is increasing the floor levels by 250mm but not reducing any ceiling<br />
heights within the frame <strong>of</strong> the building).<br />
The applicant has now propsoed a finished floor level <strong>of</strong> 12.250 metres RL, which is<br />
approximately 850 millimetres lower than the floor level <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling and is 850<br />
millimetres above the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the adjoining dwelling to the north. Due to the<br />
slope <strong>of</strong> the land down the lot, the dwelling becomes a two and a half storey structure at the<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 82
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
front and therefore the front northern part <strong>of</strong> the dwelling exceeds the 6.0 metre wall height with<br />
a maximum wall height <strong>of</strong> 6.73 metres.<br />
The minor increase in the wall height variation does not have any impact on surrounding<br />
properties in terms <strong>of</strong> limiting access to sun with the majority <strong>of</strong> overshadowing occurring over<br />
the subject site. As the development is back from both street frontages, any views to the park<br />
on the other side <strong>of</strong> Ulster Road are retained.<br />
It is considered that the proposal meets performance criteria and can therefore be supported.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the amended plans for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage<br />
as submitted by Webb and Brown-Neaves at Lot 1346 (No. 33) Ulster Road, Floreat as<br />
shown on the amended plans dated 24 October 2011.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 83
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.119 LOT 561 (NO. 356) SALVADO ROAD FLOREAT - TWO STOREY DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two-storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to visual privacy.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0338DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Estate <strong>of</strong> N W Gibbney<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
N Gibbney<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 809 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Floor Area:<br />
o Ground Floor (including carport and boat store): 330.68sqm<br />
o Upper Floor: 170.73sqm (inc. balcony)<br />
Open Space: 59% (478.32sqm)<br />
Proposes a 30sqm covered alfresco area to the north-eastern coroner <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
which is open on two sides.<br />
A two-storey dwelling is proposed with a 30 degree ro<strong>of</strong> pitch and a balcony that extends<br />
two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the upper floor as seen from the street.<br />
The front western side is built up by approximately 0.9 metres, while the eastern side is<br />
approximately level with the existing natural ground level.<br />
The applicant proposes a boat store which will be partially covered with posts to the<br />
boundary and the ro<strong>of</strong>ing set back 0.7 metres from the western boundary. This boat store<br />
will appear as a garage from the street.<br />
A double carport will be located forward <strong>of</strong> the dwelling, set back 0.3 metres from the<br />
primary boundary and 1.0 metre from the eastern boundary.<br />
The property slopes upwards approximately 1.0 metre from the western to the eastern<br />
boundary.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback and visual privacy<br />
variations:-<br />
<br />
<br />
The bedroom 1 window does not look into any other windows or overlook any usable<br />
space behind the front setback <strong>of</strong> any adjoining property.<br />
The balcony does not look into any window or overlook any useable space behind the<br />
front setback <strong>of</strong> any adjoining property, and I believe it meets performance criteria.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 84
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The application was advertised to the two adjoining properties (please note that the property to<br />
the east is owned by the applicant). One objection was received and is summarised below:<br />
Submission one (No. 358 Salvado Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There will be significant impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> our home.<br />
The extensive balcony will impact on the use <strong>of</strong> our alfresco area, barbeque area and<br />
main access route from the garage to the house. These are all high use areas for us and<br />
should be given priority in any decision making process.<br />
The detached study is due to be removed which will further expose our eastern boundary.<br />
Our open plan living area through the large French doors in the alfresco will be negatively<br />
impacted, as well as the pool and outdoor entertaining area.<br />
We believe that the balcony should be reduced in size, and the house should be setback<br />
further from the primary street.<br />
We also believe that the balcony should be screened.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Visual Privacy<br />
Setback verandah from western<br />
boundary (ground floor)<br />
Setback bedroom 1 from western<br />
boundary (ground floor)<br />
Setback family (n elevation) from<br />
western boundary (ground floor)<br />
Setback balcony from western<br />
boundary (upper Floor)<br />
Acceptable development provision Proposed<br />
7.5m 3.6m<br />
4.5m 3.6m<br />
6.0m 5.2m<br />
7.5m 3.6m<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is minimised by<br />
building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor habitable spaces, screening devices<br />
and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is<br />
preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on<br />
residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the distance <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
The proposed bedroom 1 window and verandah on the ground floor will have some overlooking<br />
to the west, however, this will predominantly overlook the carport and the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the pergola,<br />
which are built between 1.0 metre and 1.5 metres from the common boundary. The setback <strong>of</strong><br />
these structures and the 1.7 metre high limestone wall will ensure that overlooking between the<br />
adjoining owners is not affected. The verandah is 1.5 metres wide and is unlikely to be used for<br />
extensive periods <strong>of</strong> time, therefore protecting privacy between the adjoining properties.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 85
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The proposed upper floor balcony poses some overlooking to the adjoining property but again<br />
will be overlooking the carport ro<strong>of</strong> and the outdoor areas will be screened by shade cloth. The<br />
adjoining outdoor living area is located to the rear <strong>of</strong> the property and to the front setback which<br />
contains a swimming pool. This area will be predominantly screened by the carport ro<strong>of</strong> and is<br />
approximately 20 metres from the proposed balcony.<br />
The verandah, bedroom one window and balcony will not overlook any habitable room windows<br />
and will have little impact on privacy between the adjoining properties.<br />
The applicant has been asked whether they would consider screening the western side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
balcony, however, with the location and potential views to the parkland this is not preferable.<br />
Although the adjoining neighbours have objected to the proposed dwelling with regards to loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> privacy, it is considered that the proposed dwelling will not overlook any habitable room<br />
windows, and will not affect the outdoor living areas to the rear <strong>of</strong> front <strong>of</strong> the property.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed verandah, bedroom 1 window and balcony meet with<br />
the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The balcony, verandah and bedroom one window will predominantly overlook a carport<br />
and covered pergola;<br />
There will be no overlooking <strong>of</strong> habitable room windows; and<br />
minimal impact on overlooking to outdoor living areas or habitable room windows.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two-storey dwelling submitted by N Gibbney at Lot<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 86
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat shown on the plans dated 18 October 2011 subject to the<br />
following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;<br />
the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;<br />
the driveway to be tapered so that the crossover is a minimum distance <strong>of</strong> 1.0 metre<br />
from the verge tree;<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
any existing crossovers not included as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed development on the<br />
approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and<br />
declared as follows: "with regard to the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by N<br />
Gibbney at Lot 531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat, I declare that I have an association with<br />
Mr Gibbney due to my nature <strong>of</strong> work and as a consequence there may be a perception that my<br />
impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote<br />
accordingly."<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to potential overlooking from the<br />
upper floor balcony.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(vi)<br />
screening being provided to the upper floor balcony to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 20 December 2011<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and<br />
declared as follows: "with regard to the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by N<br />
Gibbney at Lot 531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat, I declare that I have an association with<br />
Mr Gibbney due to my nature <strong>of</strong> work and as a consequence there may be a perception that my<br />
impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote<br />
accordingly."<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 87
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two-storey dwelling submitted by N Gibbney at<br />
Lot 531 (No. 356) Salvado Road, Floreat shown on the plans dated 18 October 2011<br />
subject to the following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;<br />
the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;<br />
(iii) the driveway to be tapered so that the crossover is a minimum distance <strong>of</strong> 1.0<br />
metre from the verge tree;<br />
(iv) the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
any existing crossovers not included as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed development on the<br />
approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated;<br />
screening being provided to the upper floor balcony to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 88
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.120 LOT 1198 (NO. 8) DUMFRIES ROAD FLOREAT - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE<br />
DWELLING (ROOF MATERIAL)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider a request to use "Surfmist" Colorbond ro<strong>of</strong>ing material.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
0332DA-2010<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
A D Ariti and N J Ariti<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
A D Ariti and N J Ariti<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 890 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
Open Space: 533sqm (60%)<br />
Existing Floor Area: 315sqm<br />
Proposed Floor Area: 431sqm (includes 42sqm carport)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
An application has been received for additions to the existing single storey dwelling;<br />
There is little change to the existing building footprint;<br />
A new l<strong>of</strong>t area is proposed with a floor area <strong>of</strong> approximately 74sqm;<br />
The applicant proposes a new 'Surfmist' Colourbond ro<strong>of</strong> to replace the existing tiled ro<strong>of</strong>;<br />
A carport is proposed set back 1.0 metre from the western boundary and 1.5 metres from<br />
the front boundary.<br />
Background<br />
Local Law 43<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Local Law 43 (Building on Endowment lands and Limekilns Estate) is based on the<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Endowment Lands Act 1920 which was gazetted to assist the development <strong>of</strong><br />
the area known as the Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate. The area comprises most<br />
<strong>of</strong> Floreat and City Beach.<br />
Local Laws were enacted under this Act, including Local Law 43. The contents <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Local Law reflect the development control needs and statutory processes available at the<br />
time <strong>of</strong> its gazettal (1950's). At that time, the former City <strong>of</strong> Perth had no <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme, and thus the Local law was necessary to control land use and introduce<br />
development standards for the area.<br />
The land use provisions have been made redundant by the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme,<br />
which reinforces the same requirements as the Local Law.<br />
Clause 8 <strong>of</strong> Local Law 43 states "All buildings shall be ro<strong>of</strong>ed with materials constructed<br />
<strong>of</strong> terracotta, concrete, slate, metal or other incombustible material approved by the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> provided that metal ro<strong>of</strong>s with a pitch <strong>of</strong> more than 5 degrees shall not be<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 89
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
constructed with metal sheeting having a solar reflectivity index exceeding 40% unless<br />
approved by <strong>Council</strong>."<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the amendment to the development<br />
application.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We seek dispensation from Clause 8 <strong>of</strong> Local Law 43 for a Colorbond 'Surfmist' ro<strong>of</strong> as<br />
the position and location <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> will not result in excessive glare for the neighbours or<br />
the streetscape.<br />
The house has well-established trees both at the front and rear <strong>of</strong> the property and the<br />
streetscape itself is one that has many mature and shady trees. These trees provide<br />
significant cover for the house and the ro<strong>of</strong> to direct line <strong>of</strong> sight from all side including<br />
east-west along Dumfries Road and North Banff Road.<br />
Also as the house is setback, and runs at a receding angle <strong>of</strong> over 14 degrees to<br />
Dumfries Road, such that the adjacent houses at No. 6 and 10 Dumfries Road serve to<br />
obscure the ro<strong>of</strong>line from view.<br />
We have designed the renovations for 8 Dumfries Road in an effort to achieve a 5 star<br />
energy efficiency rating. We have done this through a combination <strong>of</strong> best practice design<br />
principles and thermally efficient material, e.g. Double glazed windows and thermally<br />
efficient building panels. A ro<strong>of</strong> colour such as Colorbond 'Surfmist' is a critical component<br />
in achieving high energy efficiency as it significantly reduces solar absorption.<br />
We note that there are other houses within our area that have ro<strong>of</strong>ing with >40%<br />
reflectivity and have included pictures and addresses for reference.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
In the course <strong>of</strong> advertising the application to surrounding neighbours, one (1) submission was<br />
received and is summarised below:<br />
Submission One (No. 7 Cromarty Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
My concern is that the reflection <strong>of</strong> sun could be onto my house and my property.<br />
I think it will impact on the light during the sunny days as well, which could be very<br />
dangerous.<br />
It will be great if the owner is able to change the ro<strong>of</strong> colour to another one rather than <strong>of</strong>fwhite.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> Reflectivity<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> Reflectivity<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
"Surfmist" colorbond to upper<br />
floor addition<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Zincalume (silver) and Surfmist (<strong>of</strong>fwhite)<br />
colorbond are not permitted as<br />
they are considered to exceed 40%<br />
solar reflectivity index.<br />
Where, due to the position, location and pitch, the proposed ro<strong>of</strong>ing is not considered to result in<br />
excessive glare upon neighbours and the streetscape.<br />
Notes:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 90
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
1. Zincalume (silver) and Surfmist (Off White) colorbond are deemed to exceed 40% solar reflectivity<br />
index.<br />
2. Other ro<strong>of</strong> materials such as polycarbonate, plastic, fibreglass or similar ro<strong>of</strong>ing is acceptable<br />
provided that the material does not have a solar reflectivity index exceeding 40% unless approved<br />
by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The request to allow "Surfmist" Colorbond is to improve energy efficiency <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and<br />
reduce the cooling required during summer. The application was advertised to eight<br />
surrounding properties and only one objection was received from the owners <strong>of</strong> the property to<br />
the northwest <strong>of</strong> the subject property.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> has consistently applied the ro<strong>of</strong> reflectivity requirements <strong>of</strong> Local Law 43 to<br />
residential development within the affected areas <strong>of</strong> Floreat and City Beach. The reflectivity <strong>of</strong><br />
a ro<strong>of</strong> is difficult to measure and depends on a number <strong>of</strong> variables. The <strong>Town</strong>, however, has<br />
considered that zincalume (silver) and Surfmist (<strong>of</strong>f-white) colorbond do exceed the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the local law. There is a wide range <strong>of</strong> colours that <strong>Council</strong> will accept and it is<br />
considered that a suitable match could be found within this range. The applicant's request to<br />
use "Surfmist" colorbond on the upper addition ro<strong>of</strong> is not supported.<br />
The applicant has listed a number <strong>of</strong> dwellings in the area which have 'Surfmist' Colorbond.<br />
While some <strong>of</strong> the properties listed have 'Shale Gray' there are some which have 'Surfmist'.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the request to ro<strong>of</strong> the upper floor with "Surfmist" Colorbond does<br />
not meet the performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
it is contrary to the purpose and intent <strong>of</strong> by-law 43 <strong>of</strong> the current town planning scheme.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 91
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for additions to single dwelling submitted by A D Ariti<br />
and N J Ariti at Lot 1198 (No. 8) Dumfries Road, Floreat as shown on plans dated 13<br />
October 2011 for the following reason:-<br />
(i)<br />
the proposed ro<strong>of</strong> colour does not meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> Clause 8 <strong>of</strong> Local<br />
Law 43.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 92
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.121 LOT 41 (NO. 69) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - GARAGE<br />
(RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for retrospective approval for a garage requiring assessment under<br />
the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Policy Manual (Part 3.1 - Streetscape) in<br />
respect to setback <strong>of</strong> garages and carports.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0180DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Mr J I Paolucci and Mr R P Paolucci<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Rechichi Architects<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 1161 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Background<br />
An application was received by the <strong>Town</strong> for additions to the existing dwelling which included<br />
the addition <strong>of</strong> a carport to the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. This carport was an open structure with<br />
individual piers. This application was approved on 3 August 2009, with a condition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
approval that the carport remains open on all sides and no solid door is to be installed.<br />
In December 2009, a Planning Officer and Building Surveyor went out on site and noticed a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> structures built in contravention to the approved plans, including the increase in the<br />
height <strong>of</strong> the carport. Amended plans were received on 24 February 2010. On 19 May 2010, a<br />
Planning Approval was issued and the builder was warned that non-compliance with these<br />
plans will result in prosecution A formal letter was sent to both the owners and the builder. On<br />
26 July 2010, a Building Licence was issued for the amended plans. Specifically relating to the<br />
carport (now garage) the plan indicated that the street facing elevation would be modified to<br />
include steel infill to the floor level, the carport door being sectional grille and the western side<br />
including steel infill near the carport door. The modifications were considered to open up the<br />
existing structure so as to fit in better with the definition <strong>of</strong> a carport and to contribute to the<br />
streetscape.<br />
On 22 September 2010, an audit was undertaken again noting issues that contravened the<br />
approved plans and Building Licence including glazing being installed into the openings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
carport. The openings which were to extend to the floor level <strong>of</strong> the garage were amended and<br />
now only contained small openings <strong>of</strong> approximately 3sqm. A garage door has also been<br />
added, contravening Condition 1 <strong>of</strong> the original Planning Approval.<br />
In March 2011, the Builder was prosecuted by the <strong>Town</strong>. These proceedings are still underway.<br />
The matter is listed for hearing on the 26 April and 27 April 2012.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 93
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Development description<br />
The application proposes amendments to the original Planning Approval (dated 3 August 2009),<br />
these include:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A garage roller door added to the western side;<br />
Windows located 800mm from the garage floor level;<br />
Bricking up <strong>of</strong> previously approved openings; and<br />
Dense landscaping between the garage and front fence<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the front setback variation:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The carport will attract an increase in criminal activity as a result <strong>of</strong> high degree <strong>of</strong> visibility<br />
generated from its intent.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s imposition <strong>of</strong> the provision <strong>of</strong> a greater degree <strong>of</strong> openness as outlined on the<br />
planning approval serves only to achieve a planning outcome that is not relevant to the<br />
specific nature <strong>of</strong> the site, its topography context and history and in that regard cannot be<br />
relied upon to claim cause to create adverse impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the streetscape.<br />
There are concerns with security and safety to their amenity and they seek to have this<br />
concern alleviated by maintaining as closed and as solid a structure as possible;<br />
We believe that valid arguments for a more solid and robust structure that addresses the<br />
street in a solid and robust manner without compromise to the streetscape can be made<br />
given the unique nature <strong>of</strong> this particular precinct.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> Garages and Carports<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> garage from front<br />
boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
3.0 metres 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
The setting back <strong>of</strong> carports and garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance <strong>of</strong><br />
dwellings, or obstruct views <strong>of</strong> dwellings from the street and vice versa.<br />
The applicant has submitted an application for retrospective approval for the 'as built' 'carport'.<br />
Although the applicant has defined this structure as a carport, under the R-Codes as:-<br />
A ro<strong>of</strong>ed structure designed to accommodate one or more motor vehicles<br />
unenclosed except to the extent that it abuts a dwelling or a property boundary<br />
on one side, and being without a door unless that door is visually permeable.<br />
A garage is defined as:-<br />
Any ro<strong>of</strong>ed structure, other than a carport, designed to accommodate one or<br />
more motor vehicles attached to the dwelling.<br />
The structure therefore does not fit the definition <strong>of</strong> a carport, and is enclosed on three sides,<br />
with a garage door on the fourth side (the garage abuts a limestone retaining wall and lift to the<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 94
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
south, entry and stairs to the east and contains a solid roller door to the west). The northern<br />
elevation contains two windows <strong>of</strong> approximately 3sqm each, equating to approximately 21% <strong>of</strong><br />
the overall surface area <strong>of</strong> the northern wall as visible from Lake Monger Drive.<br />
The applicant states that the garage complies with the allowable setback <strong>of</strong> 3.0 metres from the<br />
front boundary as it is at right angles to the street alignment. This is a provision <strong>of</strong> the R-Codes,<br />
and not the <strong>Town</strong>'s Planning Policy, which overrides the provisions <strong>of</strong> the R-Codes. A 6.0 metre<br />
setback is required.<br />
The garage is 9.9 metres in length which is substantial when a minimum internal dimension <strong>of</strong><br />
5.4 metres is required. This provides a significant structure as seen from the street, and<br />
accounts for 50% <strong>of</strong> the front boundary. The garage is dominant and is considered to<br />
contribute negatively to the streetscape.<br />
The aim <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Policy Manual is to ensure that garages, carports and other structures do<br />
not detract from the dominant elements <strong>of</strong> houses and landscape within the streetscape and to<br />
maintain an openness <strong>of</strong> streetscapes. The 'as built' garage is completely contrary to this aim.<br />
Overall, it is considered that setback <strong>of</strong> the garage from the front boundary does not address<br />
the performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> the garage detracts from the streetscape.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 20 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be deferred to enable the applicant to<br />
modify the plans to include open grilles on the garage windows facing Lake Monger Drive.<br />
Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 95
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
That the item relating to Lot 41 (No. 69) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley be deferred to<br />
enable modified plans to be submitted which include open grilles to the garage windows<br />
facing Lake Monger Drive, to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Lost 3/5<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Bradley, Grinceri and King<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for a Garage (retrospective) submitted by Rechichi<br />
Architects at Lot 41 (No. 69) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley as shown on the plans dated<br />
26 May 2011 for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> setbacks <strong>of</strong> garages and<br />
carports under the Residential Design Codes;<br />
the garage is a dominant structure which intrudes into the established development<br />
pattern along the street and therefore detracts from the streetscape;<br />
(iii) approval <strong>of</strong> the garage would establish an undesirable precedent for future<br />
development in the street, resulting in a further loss <strong>of</strong> visual amenity.<br />
Carried 5/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Crs Bradley, Grinceri and King<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 96
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.122 LOT 758 (NO. 313) THE BOULEVARD, CITY BEACH - ANCILLARY<br />
ACCOMMODATION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> setback <strong>of</strong><br />
buildings generally.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 248DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Winnie Woon Hung So & Francis Hing Wah Tang<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Summit Projects<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 943m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal is for ancillary accommodation at the rear <strong>of</strong> a 943m² lot.<br />
The existing residence occupies 218.79m² on the lot and the proposed additions will<br />
occupy 149.04m², with the total floor area to be 368m². There will be 66.35% open space.<br />
The current single dwelling built to the front <strong>of</strong> the lot will remain with the ancillary<br />
accommodation located to the rear <strong>of</strong> this and with an access-way to the eastern side <strong>of</strong><br />
the site.<br />
The development has a tiled ro<strong>of</strong> with a 25º pitch peaking at 4.8 metres above natural<br />
ground level.<br />
The ancillary accommodation is 2.778 metres in height from finished floor level to the<br />
eaves.<br />
It has a finished floor level that ranges between 0.95 metres and 2.35 metres below<br />
natural ground level at the rear boundary and between 0.55 metres and 1.85 metres<br />
below natural ground level at the western boundary. The finished floor level is a maximum<br />
<strong>of</strong> 0.4 metres above natural ground level along the eastern boundary.<br />
It incorporates a double garage, living room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom, study,<br />
bedroom, WC, store and alfresco.<br />
The ancillary accommodation has a plot ratio area <strong>of</strong> 80.12m² in lieu <strong>of</strong> the required<br />
maximum <strong>of</strong> 60m² for ancillary accommodation.<br />
It is setback at a minimum <strong>of</strong> 4.0 metres to the rear boundary in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres. This<br />
however is increased to 4.96 metres for the garage.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback variations:-<br />
<br />
The reduction in setbacks does not restrict sunlight or ventilation to adjoining properties,<br />
particularly to the property on # 311 as the garage wall is setback 1.5 metres form the<br />
side lot boundary. In additions, the dwelling on # 311 does not have any openings within<br />
close proximity to the boundary. Also the rear setback <strong>of</strong> the garage is in line with the rear<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 97
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
setback <strong>of</strong> the dwelling at # 311 so afternoon sun would not be restricted into their<br />
courtyard.<br />
As our proposed dwelling is <strong>of</strong> a single level and is positioned to the rear <strong>of</strong> the property,<br />
there would be no issues relating to building bulk and would have minimal impact to the<br />
streetscape.<br />
Due to the orientation <strong>of</strong> the site, there will be no overshadowing concerns.<br />
It is evident that the privacy <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties will be maintained as there are no<br />
windows within close proximity <strong>of</strong> the side and rear lot boundaries which would permit<br />
overlooking into habitable spaces.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The adjoining neighbours to the south, west and east were given a 14 day advertising period to<br />
comment on the proposed ancillary accommodation application. One response was received<br />
from the eastern neighbours and the following summarises their comments:-<br />
<br />
<br />
When designing and constructing my new home careful consideration was given to the<br />
outdoor living area at the rear <strong>of</strong> our property to ensure afternoon sunlight would not be<br />
restricted from the area which includes a below ground spa pool.<br />
Our enclosed garage which backs on to the area was minimised in height by lowering the<br />
ground level, incorporated a flat ro<strong>of</strong> and has a 5.6 metre setback from the rear boundary.<br />
The proposed rear boundary setbacks including the planned double garage are 4.0<br />
metres to 4.96 metres. As the planned garage is also higher than the natural ground level<br />
at our property, it would not only restrict direct sunlight to our outdoor living area but the<br />
proposed building bulk including a 25º pitched ro<strong>of</strong>, would greatly impact on our outdoor<br />
living area both with regards to over shadowing and the abovementioned direct sunlight<br />
restrictions.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Boundary setbacks<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Rear (south) setback 4.0 metres 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed ancillary accommodation has a finished floor level below natural ground level at<br />
all points on the lot. Similarly this finished floor level is below the natural ground level at the<br />
southern and western boundary ranging between 0.55 metres and 2.35 metres below natural<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 98
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ground level at the respective points. Further to this there are currently 1.8 metre high boundary<br />
fences to both sides and the single-storey ancillary accommodation development will barely<br />
protrude above the fence line at any point. This minimises the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposal in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
building bulk and access to direct sun to the adjoining lots to the south and west.<br />
The location <strong>of</strong> development on the adjoining lot to the east means that the outdoor area to the<br />
rear <strong>of</strong> the property is largely shaded from the northern sun and the proposed ancillary<br />
accommodation on the subject site will have minimal additional impact on this area. In addition<br />
to this the main outdoor living are on the adjoining lot is located on the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property and so the proposed additions will have no impact on this area.<br />
Given the proposed ro<strong>of</strong>ing projects only 1.4 metres above the fencing at the rear boundary at<br />
its highest point and that a minimum 4.0 metres setback is retained to the rear <strong>of</strong> the lot, the<br />
proposed ancillary accommodation will not have any significant impact on any adjoining<br />
property in terms <strong>of</strong> overshadowing.<br />
There are examples <strong>of</strong> similar development within the required 6.0 metre rear setback in the<br />
surrounding precinct, including the adjoining property to the east, and as such the proposal is<br />
consistent with the character <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
The proposed ancillary accommodation development with a lowered finished floor level to the<br />
south and west, and no major openings facing the east.<br />
It is noted that the size <strong>of</strong> the ancillary accommodation does exceed the maximum floor area<br />
under the acceptable development provisions however, the development has due regard to the<br />
topography <strong>of</strong> the site and is designed to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> aged or dependent persons.<br />
In summary the ancillary accommodation improves the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development without<br />
having an adverse impact on the adjoining lots in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk, access to direct sun,<br />
ventilation and privacy and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it is considered that the<br />
performance criteria are satisfied in this case.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the ancillary accommodation from the southern<br />
boundary complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building,<br />
provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces,<br />
assists with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties,<br />
assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties,<br />
assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 99
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for ancillary accommodation submitted by Summit Projects<br />
at Lot 758 (No. 313) The Boulevard, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16 October 2011<br />
subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
any proposed fencing or gates within the front setback area to be visually permeable in<br />
accordance with part 6.2.5 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Planning Policy 3.2: Streetscape. All proposals<br />
are to be subject to a prior approval by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Committee Meeting 13 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the size <strong>of</strong> the proposed store room<br />
and suggested that it could be reduced in size to bring the area <strong>of</strong> the dwelling into line with the<br />
acceptable development criteria for ancillary dwelling maximum size. It was noted that the<br />
proposed dwelling includes a double garage which is not counted as floor space.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(ii)<br />
the store room being reduced in size to 4 square metres.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 100
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for ancillary accommodation submitted by Summit<br />
Projects at Lot 758 (No. 313) The Boulevard, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16<br />
October 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
any proposed fencing or gates within the front setback area to be visually<br />
permeable in accordance with part 6.2.5 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Planning Policy 3.2:<br />
Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the store room being reduced in size to 4 square metres.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 101
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.123 LOT 231 (NO. 93) EMPIRE AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PERGOLA<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a pergola requiring assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong><br />
the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to rear setback.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 419DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Roger and Kimberley Walpot<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Pitched Pergolas<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 946 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
Pergola structure located within the rear setback <strong>of</strong> dwelling, south-western corner <strong>of</strong> lot.<br />
Structure is to be 2.4 metres high in total, and positioned on an existing raised paving<br />
area approximately 400mm high.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback variation:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Our proposed structure will have a western boundary setback <strong>of</strong> 2.0 metres which is more<br />
than the usual 1.5m required. The structure will be located on an existing raised paved<br />
area approx 400mm above lawn level and will be approx 2.4 metres high .<br />
There is already partial lattice fence screening on the boundary fence, and the landscaper<br />
intends to plant screening trees starting at approx 1.8-2.0 metres high along the 2.0<br />
metres wide western and southern boundary garden beds, which should provide<br />
adequate screening to deal with any ‘privacy/noise’ issues.<br />
The other two affected neighbours, to the south and south-east, have both signed <strong>of</strong>f on<br />
the plan and the property owner feels that the objection by the western neighbour is<br />
unjustified because he appears to be ‘upset’ by the noise <strong>of</strong> kids having fun in the<br />
swimming pool.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Comments were received from owners <strong>of</strong> the property to the western side and are summarised<br />
below:<br />
Submission one (91 Empire Avenue)<br />
<br />
The proximity <strong>of</strong> this structure to our back patio corner - approx 4 metres - is likely to<br />
impact negatively on our outdoor living and relaxation, due to increased noise from so<br />
close. We become the victims and the affected and this is unfair.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 102
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
However, if additional screening is added to the final plan e.g. lattice screen with a beige<br />
or green shade cloth and is installed either on the adjoining fence or on the neighbours'<br />
side <strong>of</strong> that fence we will reconsider what we believe are fair and reasonable objections.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Rear setback 2.0 metres to pergola Minimum 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed pergola is a structure with a flat ro<strong>of</strong> and total height <strong>of</strong> 2.4 metres. The structure<br />
is to be situated on an existing raised paved area approximately 400mm high within the southwestern<br />
corner <strong>of</strong> the lot. The neighbour to the rear/south at 6 Malton Place does not object to<br />
the proposed structure. Overall, notwithstanding neighbour concerns in relation to privacy and<br />
noise, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the pergola from the rear boundary meets the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to be available to all properties concerned<br />
due to the flat ro<strong>of</strong> and open style <strong>of</strong> the pergola and the structure's relatively low overall<br />
height <strong>of</strong> 2.4m.<br />
privacy between adjoining properties will not be affected due to the low height <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed structure, existing lattice screening on the boundary fence, 2.0m side/western<br />
setback and the proposed vegetation to be planted along the boundary fence.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 103
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for<br />
consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a pergola submitted by Pitched Pergolas as<br />
shown on the plans dated 1 November 2011 subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> vegetation, to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to be submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building license.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 104
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.124 ACCESS AND PARKING STRATEGY - PART ONE DRAFT REPORT -<br />
REFERRED BACK<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report to <strong>Council</strong> on part one <strong>of</strong> the Access and Parking study and obtain endorsement to<br />
proceed to part two <strong>of</strong> the study.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Access and Parking study forms part <strong>of</strong> an on-going review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
Development applications over recent times have highlighted the need to review current parking<br />
policy. Car parking is increasingly becoming the critical issue in the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
commercial areas and determination <strong>of</strong> development applications. Applicants have sought<br />
<strong>Council</strong> discretion to allow shortfalls in on-site parking provision, and in a number <strong>of</strong> cases,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has required the payment <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls. However, this has not<br />
been consistently applied and there is no clear plan for the use <strong>of</strong> this money for providing<br />
alternative parking/access facilities.<br />
In response, a consultant brief was prepared to undertake a detailed examination <strong>of</strong> future<br />
parking and access needs for the four main commercial centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street,<br />
namely Southport Street Commercial Area, <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street Node (West Leederville train<br />
station), Medical Precinct (around St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital) and Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre. The<br />
proposed consultant brief was presented to <strong>Council</strong> on 22 March 2011 (Item DV11.18) where it<br />
was decided that:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Scope <strong>of</strong> Works, outlined in the attached Request for Quotation, be APPROVED as<br />
the basis for seeking requests for quotation to undertake an access/parking review and<br />
prepare a strategy to serve the future needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s commercial areas;<br />
the cost for undertaking the study be charged to the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review<br />
Budget.<br />
Requests for quotations to undertake the study were sought during April/May 2011. Luxmoore<br />
Parking Consulting (a division <strong>of</strong> ARRB Group Ltd) was the successful applicant to undertake<br />
the Access and Parking Study on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. Luxmoore's submission also included<br />
sub-consultants from Planning Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, Team Architects Australia Pty Ltd<br />
and Sinclair Knights Merz (SKM).<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Access and Parking Study is being undertaken in two parts. Part one involved developing<br />
an understanding <strong>of</strong> the actual and perceived issues associated with current access and<br />
parking policies, examining possible options and solutions, and developing short, medium and<br />
long-term recommendations. Also, to inform the first part <strong>of</strong> the study, future parking demand<br />
(based on potential development yield for the four centres over a 20-30 year timeframe) was<br />
assessed and impacts on future traffic volumes examined.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 105
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Part 1 - Access and Parking Strategy Report<br />
The report, produced from part one <strong>of</strong> the study, provides for long-term strategic direction for<br />
future parking management. The report also incorporates a detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu<br />
contribution schemes and the land, construction and operational costs <strong>of</strong> supplying new car<br />
parking facilities.<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the Part 1 - Assess and Parking Report is attached. Copies <strong>of</strong> the report are<br />
available on request.<br />
Generally, the report recommends moving away from the traditional 'predict and provide'<br />
approach to parking supply towards a 'demand management approach' to parking. Parking<br />
demand management involves a suite <strong>of</strong> management tools, and may include:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
pay parking;<br />
education programs;<br />
cash-in-lieu;<br />
maximum and minimum parking standards;<br />
parking surveys to monitor parking occupancy and assess effectiveness <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
supply/management;<br />
shared parking;<br />
pedestrian improvements;<br />
alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport; and<br />
monitoring <strong>of</strong> compliance.<br />
Part Two <strong>of</strong> the study will focus on the future access and parking requirements and policies for<br />
the four defined centres and deliver practical Precinct Parking Management Plans accompanied<br />
with detailed guidance on how to implement the strategic direction over a 5-20 year timeframe.<br />
A 14 week timeframe is anticipated for the completion <strong>of</strong> the second part <strong>of</strong> the study.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
The first part <strong>of</strong> the study draws attention to the fact that if the level <strong>of</strong> development potential<br />
envisaged for the four commercial centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street is to be achieved, there will<br />
need to be a change in the way parking is supplied and managed. Alternatively, the future<br />
development potential for the four commercial centres would need to be much less than is<br />
currently being sought by developers. The challenge is finding the balance between adequate<br />
supply <strong>of</strong> parking to ensure vitality <strong>of</strong> the commercial centres and managing the demand for<br />
parking. Continuing a demand satisfaction approach (based on a 'predict and provide' model) is<br />
unsustainable.<br />
The study recognises that attitudes to parking are not going to change quickly and that changes<br />
to parking management should be gradual and accompanied with an educational program to<br />
draw awareness to the true commercial and environmental costs associated with parking.<br />
The study recommends the <strong>Town</strong> adopt a demand management approach towards parking.<br />
Pay parking is one <strong>of</strong> the most effective ways <strong>of</strong> influencing parking and travel demand and<br />
increases equity as the 'user pays'. The <strong>Town</strong> has already successfully implemented paid<br />
parking around St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and the Southport Street Commercial Area to address<br />
parking demand issues for these centres. Undertaking annual parking surveys will inform high<br />
demand areas where the introduction <strong>of</strong> paid parking may be required.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 106
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
A comprehensive analysis has been undertaken in regards to the application <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for<br />
parking. The study recommends applying a uniform formula to all developments seeking cashin-lieu<br />
for parking that incorporates both the cost <strong>of</strong> land and the true cost <strong>of</strong> construction for<br />
each parking bay. The relationship <strong>of</strong> this proposed cash-in-lieu formula and the parking ratios<br />
specified in the Off-Street Parking Policy will be important.<br />
The parking principles and strategic directions that have arisen from part one will be used to<br />
inform the second part <strong>of</strong> the study. Part two <strong>of</strong> the study will involve:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Applying recommendations identified in part one that are common to all four centres.<br />
Assessing potential sites for additional public parking facilities (including an assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> suitable streets for the expansion <strong>of</strong> on-street parking).<br />
Creation <strong>of</strong> public parking station templates to define the most effective and desirable site<br />
for public parking.<br />
Provide indicative parking capacity for each centre.<br />
Prepare examples for each centre applying the proposed cash-in-lieu formula to calculate<br />
contributions for potential public parking sites.<br />
Preparation <strong>of</strong> a prioritised Action Plan for each centre.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Access and Parking Study forms part <strong>of</strong> the review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme and will<br />
inform the review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Off-Street Parking Policy and future application <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu<br />
for parking.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost for Luxmoore Consulting to undertake both part one and two <strong>of</strong> the Access and<br />
Parking Study is covered in the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Budget 2011/12.<br />
Future management <strong>of</strong> parking and access demand will require informed investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong><br />
funds. Revenue sources could include cash-in-lieu contributions, income from paid parking and<br />
parking fines.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Access and Parking Study is consistent with priority area: Planning for Our Community <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan. In particular, our goals for 'Transport Options' (facilitated through<br />
aligning parking strategies to land use) and 'Attractive and Diverse Shopping and Business<br />
Areas' (supported by the development <strong>of</strong> place-specific plans for commercial areas).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. Community<br />
consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be given<br />
to this matter when the study is completed.<br />
During the first part <strong>of</strong> the study a stakeholder workshop was held (advertised through the<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> News and on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website) and was attended by interested residents,<br />
business owners, property owners, developers and real estate agents. Their comments and<br />
feedback have informed the study.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 107
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The traffic capacity <strong>of</strong> existing streets, availability <strong>of</strong> land and the costs associated with<br />
providing parking will not allow for future growth <strong>of</strong> the commercial centres if the current 'predict<br />
and provide' approach to parking continues. An alternative approach to access and parking is<br />
required.<br />
Part one <strong>of</strong> the study looks at ways to manage access and parking and incorporates strategies<br />
not only to control the supply <strong>of</strong> parking but also to manage parking demand and encourage<br />
alternative modes <strong>of</strong> travel.<br />
Parking demand management involves a suite <strong>of</strong> management tools, including:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
pay parking;<br />
education programs;<br />
cash-in-lieu;<br />
maximum and minimum parking standards;<br />
parking surveys to monitor parking occupancy and demand;<br />
shared parking;<br />
pedestrian improvements;<br />
alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport; and<br />
monitoring <strong>of</strong> compliance.<br />
The Part 1 Report forms the basis <strong>of</strong> proceeding to the second part <strong>of</strong> the study, which will<br />
examine practical solutions for each <strong>of</strong> the four centres; Southport Street Commercial,<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street Node, Medical Precinct and Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Summary - Access and Parking Strategy<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That the Access and Parking Strategy Part 1 - Issues, Options and Long-term Strategic<br />
Directions Report be endorsed for the purpose <strong>of</strong> proceeding with part two <strong>of</strong> the study, the<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> detailed management plans for the four commercial centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 22 November 2011<br />
During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be referred to a <strong>Council</strong> Forum for further<br />
consideration.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That the item relating to the Access and Parking Strategy Part 1 be referred back to a <strong>Council</strong><br />
Forum for further consideration.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 108
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post <strong>Council</strong> Meeting 22 December 2011)<br />
A presentation on the Access and Parking Study by the consultant Larry Schneider from<br />
Luxmoore Consulting will be held for Elected Members on Tuesday 13 December 2011 at<br />
5.00pm prior to the Development Committee.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(REFERRED BACK RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the Access and Parking Strategy Part 1 - Issues, Options and Long-term Strategic<br />
Directions Report be endorsed for the purpose <strong>of</strong> proceeding with part two <strong>of</strong> the study,<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> detailed management plans for the four commercial centres along<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 109
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.125 APPLICATION - FOUR 'NON-COMPLYING EVENTS' (CONCERTS) IN A 12<br />
MONTH PERIOD AT WA ATHLETICS STADIUM, MT CLAREMONT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the application to conduct up to four non-complying concerts events in any 12<br />
month period at the WA Athletics Stadium, Mt Claremont.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Western Australian Sports Centre Trust trading as VenuesWest have submitted an<br />
application to conduct up to four non-complying events in any 12 month period at the WA<br />
Athletics Stadium, Mt Claremont.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, an approved non-complying<br />
event is a sporting, cultural or entertainment event, that is open to the public, that is likely to<br />
generate noise levels well above the assigned sound levels for the area; and the event would<br />
lose its character or usefulness if it were required to comply with the assigned sound levels.<br />
In such circumstances a conditional Regulation 18 Approval for a Non-complying event is<br />
issued by the local government Chief Executive Officer. The Regulations define that noise from<br />
such an event is not unreasonable if it is emitted in accordance with an approval granted under<br />
regulation 18.<br />
Sub-regulations 18(11) and (12) <strong>of</strong> Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 requires<br />
that the Chief Executive Officer may not approve the holding <strong>of</strong> more than 2 non-conforming<br />
events at a particular venue in any period <strong>of</strong> 12 consecutive months unless the CEO is satisfied<br />
that the majority <strong>of</strong> occupiers on whom the noise emissions will impact have no objection to the<br />
holding <strong>of</strong> the additional events. Further, that an approval cannot be given unless the local<br />
government <strong>of</strong> each district in which the noise is received agree to the proposed conditions<br />
applicable to the approval.<br />
This sports facility is located within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands; the local<br />
government boundary bisects the facility. As a result, both local authorities have legislative<br />
authority over the venue. In this particular aspect, the stage is located within the <strong>Town</strong>, so<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> is the approving authority in terms <strong>of</strong> the Noise Regulations.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
VenuesWest hosted the Stevie Nicks concert at the WA Athletic Stadium on 26 November<br />
2011. At the time <strong>of</strong> application, VenuesWest were encouraged and finally agreed to orientate<br />
the stage so that noise was directed to the west rather than the east, as originally planned. This<br />
gave a large buffer <strong>of</strong> bushland and sports facilities to help attenuate noise before it was<br />
received at residential properties in Mt Claremont.<br />
The Regulation 18 approval issued by the <strong>Town</strong> for that event applied a sound limit <strong>of</strong><br />
LAeq,1min level <strong>of</strong> 100 dB (at 30 metres). That sound level limit was allowed to be exceeded<br />
by no more than 3 dB(A) on no more than thirty occasions during the approved concert time.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 110
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
That concert was monitored, and sound levels recorded, by an independent acoustic consultant<br />
employed by VenuesWest. Sound levels at two residential properties nominated by the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Nedlands and the <strong>Town</strong> were also recorded. The acoustic consultant reported that the three<br />
sets <strong>of</strong> measured noise levels from the Stevie Nicks Concert were within the bounds <strong>of</strong> the<br />
approval issued by the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>, and therefore complied with regulation 18 <strong>of</strong> Noise<br />
Regulations.<br />
A second non-complying event (the 80's Dance Picnic Party Outdoor Music Concert featuring<br />
Ali Cambell, Billy Ocean and Big Mountain) is to take place on Saturday 21 January 2012. The<br />
Administration is proposing to apply a similar Regulation 18 approval to that used for the Stevie<br />
Nicks concert, but with a maximum sound level <strong>of</strong> 102dB(A) at the mixing desk (instead <strong>of</strong><br />
100dB(A) applied previously). Consideration <strong>of</strong> that application was to be considered by the<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands on 6 December 2011.<br />
No complaints were received by the concert held on 26 November.<br />
VenuesWest are actively promoting a third concert (Lenny Kravitz, supported by Wolfmother<br />
and The Cranberries) to be held on Wednesday 28 March 2012 at the WA Athletics Stadium.<br />
This would be the third non-complying event in five months.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Sub-regulations 18(11) and (12) <strong>of</strong> Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 apply.<br />
They require that:-<br />
the Chief Executive Officer is not to approve the holding <strong>of</strong> more than 2 non-conforming<br />
events at a particular venue in any period <strong>of</strong> 12 consecutive months unless the Chief<br />
Executive Officer is satisfied that the majority <strong>of</strong> occupiers on whom the noise emissions<br />
will impact have no objection to the holding <strong>of</strong> the additional events; and<br />
an approval cannot be given unless the local government <strong>of</strong> each district in which the<br />
noise is received agree to the proposed conditions applicable to the approval.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
An application for approval for a non-complying event incurs an application fee <strong>of</strong> $500.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes strategies under:-<br />
Delivering our Services<br />
• consult with the community on their needs;<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
As prescribed by the Noise Regulations, the Chief Executive Officer must be satisfied that the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> occupiers on whom the noise emissions will impact have no objection to the holding<br />
<strong>of</strong> more than 2 non-conforming events at a particular venue in any period <strong>of</strong> 12 consecutive<br />
months.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> policy No. 1.2.11 requires a public consultation process in respect to this application.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 111
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
SUMMARY<br />
As a relatively new sports venue, it is appropriate, and a statutory requirement, that the<br />
potentially affected residents <strong>of</strong> both local government areas be surveyed and given the<br />
opportunity to comment in the proposal to conduct up to 4 concerts within a 12 month period at<br />
the WA Athletic Stadium.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the application be referred to the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands for their comments and<br />
conditions;<br />
(ii) (a) a survey <strong>of</strong> residents with the area bounded by and including the streets:-<br />
Stephenson Avenue<br />
McClemans Road<br />
Fortview Road<br />
Mayfair Street<br />
Alfred Road<br />
Montgomery Avenue<br />
Mooro Drive<br />
Heritage Lane<br />
The Marlows<br />
Blenheim Lane<br />
Houston Place<br />
and Wollaston College<br />
be carried out by an independent agency, at the applicants cost, to ascertain<br />
the views <strong>of</strong> those residents regarding the application to conduct up to 4 noncomplying<br />
concert events at the WA Athletics stadium;<br />
(b)<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands and the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> shall define the survey<br />
questions, with the Manager Compliance being the <strong>Town</strong>'s representative in<br />
this aspect;<br />
(iii) a decision on the application be deferred pending a report on the outcome <strong>of</strong><br />
consultation defined in (i) and (ii) above.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 112
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.126 HOLYROOD STREET HERITAGE DESIGN CONCEPT QUOTATION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider proposed design concepts for interpretation material that recognises the heritage<br />
values <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street, West Leederville.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Holyrood Street is a Conservation Area pursuant to Clause 24 <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No. 1.<br />
The 'Holyrood Street Heritage Development and Design Guidelines' was adopted as<br />
planning policy in July 2003.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> budgeted $50,000 in its 2010/2011 budget for the provision <strong>of</strong> interpretative<br />
material for Holyrood Street which would raise the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street as having<br />
special heritage significance.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> called for expressions <strong>of</strong> interest from community/conceptual artists to<br />
develop suitable design concepts for interpretative material that recognises the heritage<br />
values <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street.<br />
Artists were advised that the interpretative material could range from individual plaques to<br />
street furniture to public art within the adjacent Holyrood Park.<br />
Jager Studios were subsequently appointed and began developing some concepts and<br />
proposals.<br />
Residents <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street, Jager Studios, elected members and <strong>Council</strong> staff attended<br />
a workshop in August 2011 to consider and discuss the ideas presented by Jager<br />
Studios.<br />
Some residents who could not attend the meetings subsequently sent emails supporting<br />
the proposals.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The proposals put forward by Jager Studio can be broken into three main ideas:-<br />
1. Signage for the entrance to the street;<br />
2. Lighting <strong>of</strong> the first two fig trees with heritage photos <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street by means <strong>of</strong><br />
projecting photo images onto the tree trunks; and<br />
3. Provision <strong>of</strong> street lights from the original era <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street.<br />
Jager Studio have prepared a quotation for the proposed works which forms part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
attachments to the agenda.<br />
The concepts were presented to residents <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street who supported the proposed<br />
design concepts and were especially excited by the idea <strong>of</strong> lighting the street trees with<br />
historical images <strong>of</strong> the street. The original concept looked at lighting more than the first two<br />
trees but the budget does not allow for this and it has become apparent that the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
structure required to house projection lamps means that it is logical to house it within a signage<br />
box which can provide the dual purpose <strong>of</strong> an illuminated street sign on one face.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 113
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The quotation involves the expenditure <strong>of</strong> $25,600 for the signage box, $9,800 for lighting the<br />
fig trees and $6,600 for provision <strong>of</strong> two 'vintage' street lights at the entrance to the street (a<br />
total <strong>of</strong> $42,000).<br />
The quotation requires the <strong>Town</strong> to deliver concrete for the plinth, power to the signage box and<br />
exact text for the signage. The <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services have advised that the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
connecting the box would only be a few hundred dollars. Therefore the project can be<br />
completed within budget (noting that the remainder <strong>of</strong> the $50,000 budget has been spent on<br />
developing the concept designs to this stage).<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposal involves the expenditure <strong>of</strong> money allocated in the 2010/2011 budget. To date<br />
$8000 has been spent in developing the concept designs.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Holyrood Street Heritage Concepts/Quotation<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Holyrood Street Heritage Concepts being:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
signage for the entrance to the street;<br />
lighting <strong>of</strong> the first two fig trees with heritage photos <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> projecting photo images onto the tree trunks; and<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> street lights from the original era <strong>of</strong> Holyrood Street.<br />
be adopted and Jager Studios be instructed to commence design and installation.<br />
(ii)<br />
the owners <strong>of</strong> properties in Holyrood Street be advised <strong>of</strong> the adopted design<br />
concepts.<br />
Carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 114
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.127 PROPOSED LONG TERM HALF ROAD CLOSURE - MACEWAN STREET, WEST<br />
LEEDERVILLE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To approve the temporary, long term closure <strong>of</strong> the southern half <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street to facilitate<br />
the safe construction <strong>of</strong> a large commercial building.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
At its meeting on 19 April 2011, the <strong>Council</strong> approved a development application for the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a nine storey building with 3 level basement car park. The building is to be used<br />
for <strong>of</strong>fices, multiple dwellings, a restaurant and a local shop.<br />
The new building is to be constructed on the block <strong>of</strong> land surrounded by L<strong>of</strong>tus Street,<br />
MacEwan Street, Oxford Close and Railway Parade.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The project builder has submitted a Construction and Traffic Management Plan for this project.<br />
The traffic management plan proposes numerous temporary one day road closures as well as a<br />
large number <strong>of</strong> partial road closures <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street to facilitate the construction process.<br />
In reviewing those plans, the Administration is <strong>of</strong> the view that it would be safer to close the<br />
southern half <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street for the duration <strong>of</strong> the construction period. This would allow<br />
the significant number <strong>of</strong> heavy vehicle delivery movements to access the site without<br />
disrupting the traffic in L<strong>of</strong>tus Street; allow the safe assembly <strong>of</strong> heavy trucks adjacent to the<br />
site; and allow the safe and controlled departure <strong>of</strong> heavy trucks via L<strong>of</strong>tus Street.<br />
Due to the narrowness <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street, the access constraints imposed by the location <strong>of</strong><br />
this site, the lengthy construction period, and the considerable quantities <strong>of</strong> material to be<br />
removed from this site in the initial phase, followed by the large amounts <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
materials need for this project, it is recommended that the southern half <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street be<br />
temporarily closed for the construction period - approximately 30 months.<br />
Traffic use <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street is light, particularly in the southern west bound half, as<br />
substantiated by traffic count data.<br />
12 September 2007:<br />
1283 vehicles east bound (northern half); with 213 vehicles west bound (southern half).<br />
18 February 2010:<br />
1343 vehicles east bound (northern half); 243 vehicles west bound (southern half).<br />
The temporary removal <strong>of</strong> the two parking bays on the northern side <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street will<br />
assist to keep the east bound trafficable section <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street as wide as possible.<br />
The temporary, long term half road closure will enable the safe delivery and removal <strong>of</strong> material<br />
by large trucks and semi-trailers, whilst maintaining the majority easterly one-way traffic flow on<br />
the northern half <strong>of</strong> this street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 115
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 3.50 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 applies.<br />
Subsection (1a) states:<br />
"A local government may, by local public notice, order that a thoroughfare that it manages is<br />
wholly or partially closed to the passage <strong>of</strong> vehicles for a period exceeding 4 weeks".<br />
Subsection (4) states:<br />
"Before it makes an order wholly or partially closing a thoroughfare to the passage <strong>of</strong> vehicles<br />
for a period exceeding 4 weeks or continuing the closure <strong>of</strong> a thoroughfare, the local<br />
government is to:-<br />
(a)<br />
give local public notice <strong>of</strong> the proposed order giving details <strong>of</strong> the proposal, including the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the thoroughfare and where, when, and why it would be closed, and inviting<br />
submissions from any person who wishes to make a submission;<br />
(b) give written notice to each person who —<br />
(i) is prescribed for the purposes <strong>of</strong> this section; or<br />
(ii) owns land that is prescribed for the purposes <strong>of</strong> this section;<br />
and<br />
(c) allow a reasonable time for submissions to be made and consider any submissions<br />
made."<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The publication <strong>of</strong> the statutory public notice will cost $250. The builder will be responsible for<br />
installing, signposting and managing the operation <strong>of</strong> the temporary road closure.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes strategies under:-<br />
Delivering our Services<br />
consult with the community on their needs;<br />
review the <strong>Town</strong>'s asset management practices and improve transport infrastructure<br />
(roads, footpaths etc).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
As prescribed by Section 3.50 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995:-<br />
four potentially affected property owners were notified by mail on 30 November 2011;<br />
nineteen potentially affected local businesses were personally visited on Thursday 1<br />
December 2011 and handed notification and verbal advice <strong>of</strong> the proposed half road<br />
closure;<br />
local public notice was published in the Western Suburbs Weekly on Tuesday 6<br />
December 2011.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> policy No. 1.2.11 would require a 'consult' process, which concludes on Friday 16<br />
December 2011.<br />
Any comments received will be reported to the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 116
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Map <strong>of</strong> proposed partial closure <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the southern half <strong>of</strong> MacEwan Street, West Leederville be temporarily closed for a<br />
period <strong>of</strong> approximately 30 months to facilitate the safe construction <strong>of</strong> a large<br />
commercial building at 10 Oxford Close and 3-5 L<strong>of</strong>tus Street;<br />
in accordance with the requirement <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act, the<br />
Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Main Roads be advised <strong>of</strong> (i) above;<br />
the two parking bays in MacEwan Street be removed for the period <strong>of</strong> the long term<br />
temporary road closure;<br />
(iv) the street adjacent to the redundant crossover <strong>of</strong> the development site to be<br />
marked as parking bays and the existing "2 hour ticket" parking restrictions being<br />
applicable.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 117
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.128 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL USE 'CONSULTING<br />
ROOMS' GROUP - 'DENTAL SURGERY' - LOT 353 (NO 24) FLOREAT<br />
AVENUE, FLOREAT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider a scheme amendment application for an additional use 'consulting rooms group -<br />
dental surgery' at Lot 353 (No. 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Mr Stefan Kolm and Medifit Pty Ltd.<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Doepel Marsh Architects and Planners<br />
ZONING: MRS:<br />
Urban<br />
TPS No.1: Residential R12.5<br />
LAND AREA:<br />
1137 sqm<br />
The property is located adjacent to the Floreat Forum district centre and consists <strong>of</strong> a single<br />
residential dwelling. The Floreat Forum Shopping Centre is located to the west and north <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site, with the shopping centre double-storey parking located to the north and shops and parking<br />
to the west. It is noted that access to the parking area is directly across from the site. Single<br />
residential dwellings are located to the south and east <strong>of</strong> the property and in total there are<br />
eleven other single residential dwellings along Floreat Avenue facing Floreat Forum, zoned<br />
'Residential R12.5' under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1. Please refer to Attachment 1 for site<br />
photos.<br />
A planning application was received by the <strong>Town</strong> on June 1 2011 by Doepel Marsh Architects<br />
and Planners for the use <strong>of</strong> the Lot 353 (No 24) Floreat Avenue for consulting rooms. The<br />
application was refused as the use is not permitted within the existing 'Residential R12.5' zone.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The applicant has applied for a scheme amendment for an additional use 'consulting rooms<br />
group - dental surgery' to accommodate the proposed use. An additional use does not change<br />
zoning but specifies a particular use that the site can also be used for which provides a high<br />
level <strong>of</strong> control. Another recent and similar example involved the addition <strong>of</strong> medical centre and<br />
pharmacy uses to the residential zone for No 272 and No 274 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (Amendment<br />
18 to TPS 1).<br />
The proposed dental surgery use is considered small-scale as it would be limited to four<br />
consulting rooms and dental appointments are generally by appointment. The applicant has<br />
also indicated that appointments are generally 30 minutes to an hour in length. The<br />
specification <strong>of</strong> the additional use for dental surgery is considered necessary as the proposal is<br />
for a purpose built building which will operate by appointment only.<br />
The scheme amendment application is accompanied by plans for a proposed development<br />
which is intended to be submitted should the rezoning be approved (see Attachment 2). The<br />
proposed development consists <strong>of</strong> a two storey building consisting <strong>of</strong> four consulting rooms<br />
which has been designed largely in keeping with the residential built form standards <strong>of</strong> the<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 118
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Planning Scheme Policy Manual and Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
The proposal features landscaped front and side setbacks and rear parking (16 bays as per the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme requirements for consulting rooms) which are to be screened from the<br />
street and from neighbouring properties through landscaping. The parking is set lower than the<br />
ground level <strong>of</strong> the adjacent property to the east to restrict views from residences into parking<br />
areas.<br />
It is proposed that specific development controls would be introduced to limit the number <strong>of</strong><br />
consulting rooms to four rooms; ensure that the development would generally appear residential<br />
in nature; reduce impacts from the development and from parking on the streetscape and on<br />
adjacent properties; and to provide landscaped setback areas.<br />
The main points <strong>of</strong> the applicant's justification are summarised as follows:-<br />
Applicant's Justification<br />
• A dental use is an appropriate community use serving the local residents. Dental uses<br />
have historically existed in suburban residential areas and were provided for in the<br />
original City <strong>of</strong> Perth City Planning Scheme No.1 1985. The dental use is a passive use<br />
with 'by-appointment' consultations that are between 30 minutes and an hour.<br />
• The dental surgery will improve the standard <strong>of</strong> care/ allow the provision <strong>of</strong> best practice<br />
dental care which is unable to be provided at the existing Floreat Forum location. Dr<br />
Stefan Kolm has leased space within the Floreat Forum for 20 years but the space has<br />
become too small. Requests to expand the tenancy have been to no avail and the rent<br />
has progressively increased. All Dr Kolm's patients are local residents with more than<br />
50% over 60 years <strong>of</strong> age. Staff and patients alike are impacted from issues at the<br />
existing practice relating to parking availability, toilet access, disabled access and lack <strong>of</strong><br />
space for recovery/modern dental surgery space. Dr Kolm wishes to continue to provide<br />
his community based service in modern, safe, comfortable, convenient and appropriate<br />
premises.<br />
• The expansion <strong>of</strong> Floreat Forum and the multi-storey car park has drastically impacted the<br />
residential properties and there is no longer residential amenity along Floreat Avenue. A<br />
non residential use can be established without any disturbance to adjoining residential<br />
uses.<br />
• There are other examples <strong>of</strong> nearby non-residential uses on residentially zoned land<br />
including a dental specialist opposite the Floreat Forum (?) and physiotherapist on the<br />
south-east side <strong>of</strong> the Floreat Forum in Grantham Street.<br />
• The proposal's built form will be residential in nature. The visual amenity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
streetscape will remain residential, existing mature landscaping will be retained and the<br />
scale, bulk and form will be residential. Parking will be screened from the street and from<br />
adjacent properties through landscaping and because it will be below floor levels <strong>of</strong><br />
adjacent properties. Sound attenuation walls will screen the car parking to the east side<br />
and rear. The proposal will meet or exceed the R-Code requirements. Additional features<br />
proposed include end <strong>of</strong> journey facilities to encourage walking and cycling, public art and<br />
a bench seat in the front landscaped area.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 119
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Comment<br />
It is considered that the site is a suitable location for the introduction <strong>of</strong> a small scale<br />
commercial use such as a dental surgery as it is located directly opposite Floreat Forum District<br />
Centre. The additional use will be subject to careful control and will be <strong>of</strong> a height and scale<br />
similar to the existing development within the area and be compatible with adjacent<br />
development.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has endorsed a working Local Planning Strategy document to provide general<br />
directions and objectives for the <strong>Town</strong>'s future planning. Opportunities for the adjacent Floreat<br />
Forum District Centre include building on the existing commercial focus, the introduction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
greater mix <strong>of</strong> uses and the consideration <strong>of</strong> opportunities for expansion. The dental surgery<br />
proposal, albeit only a minor proposal, is consistent with these objectives. Should further<br />
opportunities be identified for redevelopment around Floreat Forum into the future, the proposal<br />
will not inhibit this as the setbacks along Floreat Avenue will provide space for new<br />
development. In effect, the proposal is compatible with existing development in the area but<br />
provides the flexibility for future development.<br />
The minor scale <strong>of</strong> the proposed additional use and flexibility for future development also<br />
means that the proposal can proceed without the finalisation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
Review or the preparation <strong>of</strong> a centre plan for Floreat Forum. It is also noted that that the<br />
additional use would not increase shop-retail floor space in the area, which would otherwise<br />
require the completion <strong>of</strong> an Activity Centre Structure Plan.<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> an additional use could be viewed to set a new precedent for the<br />
introduction <strong>of</strong> other additional uses for properties along Floreat Avenue which directly face<br />
Floreat Forum. It is noted that Floreat Avenue is the closest street to Floreat Forum and that<br />
individual assessment would still be required for any proposals for additional uses. The<br />
proposal introduces what is only a low-intensity use along Floreat Avenue.<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> development standards will aim to maintain a generally residential<br />
appearance for development and to minimise impacts <strong>of</strong> parking areas on adjoining properties.<br />
The building is to be generally designed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s Residential Planning Policies, with additional standards for landscaping <strong>of</strong> all<br />
setback areas, car park screening and noise attenuation. Given the parking requirements, it is<br />
not reasonable to expect that the requirement for 55% open space for the site will be fully met.<br />
In place, suitable landscaping <strong>of</strong> the street, side and rear setbacks is to be required. The use <strong>of</strong><br />
the site will be restricted to four practitioners at any one time.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> an additional use will involve an amendment to Schedule 2 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme to include the additional use and associated development standards and<br />
conditions.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 120
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
orderly planning to enhance the <strong>Town</strong>'s natural and built environment through effective and<br />
responsible use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Should the <strong>Council</strong> initiate the Scheme Amendment, consultation will be required under the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Regulations.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
An application has been received for a scheme amendment for an additional use 'consulting<br />
rooms group - dental surgery' to allow a dental surgery to operate at Lot 353 (No. 24) Floreat<br />
Avenue, Floreat.<br />
It is considered that the proposal for four dental consulting rooms is suitable for the location<br />
opposite a car parking entry to the Floreat Forum. It is a small scale commercial use which will<br />
operate by appointment only. The proposal will also allow for future redevelopment in the area<br />
should this be identified as appropriate into the future through the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
Review. The additional use would be accompanied by development standards to maintain a<br />
residential appearance and limit impacts on adjacent properties and the streetscape.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Attachment 1: Site photos<br />
Attachment 2: Proposed dental surgery plans (indicative)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
pursuant to Part 5 <strong>of</strong> the Planning and Development Act 2005, <strong>Council</strong> resolves to<br />
initiate an Amendment to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 to<br />
introduce an additional use for "consulting rooms group - dental surgery' for Lot<br />
353 (No. 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat to the existing "Residential R12.5" zone;<br />
Schedule 2 in <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 be amended to include the following<br />
Development Standards and Conditions for the additional use "consulting rooms<br />
group - dental surgery" at Lot 353 (No.24) Floreat Avenue:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
the design <strong>of</strong> the building to be in accordance with the Residential Design<br />
Codes and the <strong>Town</strong>'s Residential Planning Policies, unless specified<br />
otherwise;<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> open space may be less than 55%. All open space areas shall be<br />
substantially well maintained gardens;<br />
no car-parking to be located in the primary street setback area;<br />
car parking areas to be screened from adjacent residential properties and<br />
from the street and noise attenuation measures to be introduced;<br />
a maximum <strong>of</strong> four practitioners can operate from the dental surgery at any<br />
one time;<br />
any signage proposals to satisfy signage policy;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 121
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
parking to be provided in accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Planning Scheme<br />
parking requirements.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 122
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.129 DRAFT POLICY 6.5 - PRECINCT P5: WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED<br />
AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT WEST LEEDERVILLE PLANNING AND URBAN<br />
DESIGN STUDY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To outline the proposed amendments to current Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville to<br />
implement the findings from the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and to<br />
present a draft West Leederville Precinct Policy for adoption for advertising by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In February 2008, <strong>Council</strong> adopted a progressive approach to the review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme commencing with the development <strong>of</strong> the Local Planning Strategy and the West<br />
Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study (Item DV08.20).<br />
The West Leederville Study was undertaken in two parts and the second and concluding part <strong>of</strong><br />
the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study was adopted by <strong>Council</strong> in December<br />
2010 (Item DV10.122). Since its adoption, focus has shifted towards implementation and the<br />
drafting, advertising and adoption <strong>of</strong> the necessary <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme amendments.<br />
Whilst progress is being made with the drafting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme amendments<br />
(being facilitated through the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee), the initiation<br />
<strong>of</strong> an amendment to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 is several months away.<br />
To provide clarity in regard to the assessment <strong>of</strong> development applications for the existing West<br />
Leederville commercial areas, particularly where there are inconsistencies between the West<br />
Leederville Study and current Scheme provisions, it is proposed as an interim measure to<br />
amend current Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville to reflect the proposed new<br />
development standards identified by the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
This report outlines the proposed amendments to Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville for<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s consideration.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Current <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1<br />
The current <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme's structure is policy based with majority <strong>of</strong> development<br />
standards outlined in planning polices (referred to collectively as the Policy Manual which is<br />
adopted under the Scheme to give statutory weight). This is in comparison to having<br />
development standards prescribed specifically in the Scheme text. In this regard, <strong>Council</strong> can<br />
approve amendments to a planning policy adopted under the Scheme without requiring the<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the Western Australian Planning Commission and Minister for Planning. The<br />
procedure to make or amend a planning policy is stipulated under the Scheme.<br />
Further, the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme is also precinct based. The Scheme area is divided into<br />
six separate precincts and each precinct has it own specific Precinct Planning Policy to<br />
prescribe development standards reflective <strong>of</strong> the precincts character.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 123
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville (West Leederville Precinct Policy) provides<br />
development standards for the area <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> bounded by Gregory Street, Salvado Road,<br />
Railway Parade, L<strong>of</strong>tus Street, the freeway and Lake Monger Drive. The format <strong>of</strong> the West<br />
Leederville Precinct Policy is set out in such a way that each zone within the precinct (being<br />
Residential, Commercial, Residential/Commercial and Medical) have specific development<br />
standards prescribed. The vision for the Community Node (Leederville <strong>Town</strong> Hall), which is<br />
reserved for Parks and Recreation, is also included.<br />
The West Leederville Precinct Policy further divides the Commercial Zone into three identifiable<br />
areas being Southport Street Commercial Area, Rosslyn Street Commercial Area and Vincent<br />
Street West Commercial Area. Other commercial areas not associated with these three defined<br />
centres are referred to as Other Commercial Areas.<br />
The Southport Street Commercial Area and the Rosslyn Street Commercial Area fall within the<br />
West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study area boundary and as such, it is the<br />
development standards that relate to these two commercial areas that are proposed to be<br />
amended to reflect the findings <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Study. Similarly, the Community Node<br />
is also within the West Leederville Study area and the vision for this node is also proposed to be<br />
amended.<br />
Proposed Amendments to West Leederville Precinct Policy<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the changes to the West Leederville Precinct Policy are provided below. A copy<br />
<strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Precinct Policy (as amended) is attached. Note, the proposed new<br />
provisions in the precinct policy are shown in red in the attachment.<br />
The changes proposed to the policy have been informed by the West Leederville Planning and<br />
Urban Design Study and the Indicative Development Plans (IDPs) that were prepared for each<br />
node. The IDP's illustrate how the planning and development principles adopted for West<br />
Leederville might be applied and show the possible network <strong>of</strong> streets, laneways and pedestrian<br />
routes, building layouts and public spaces that could develop over time.<br />
General<br />
i. Revised Introduction to reflect West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
ii. Revised West Leederville Precinct Map by renaming 'Rosslyn Street Commercial Area'<br />
to '<strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street Node' and 'Southport Street Commercial Area' to 'Southport<br />
Street Node' and to include the location <strong>of</strong> the 'Community Node'.<br />
iii. Revised Statement <strong>of</strong> Intent for Commercial Zone to reflect desired future character as<br />
identified in the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
iv. General update <strong>of</strong> the Policy and minor reformatting.<br />
Southport Street Node (Previously Southport Street Commercial Area)<br />
v. Propose new development standards for the Southport Street Node (existing<br />
development standards for Southport Street Commercial Area deleted).<br />
Development<br />
Standard<br />
Indicative<br />
Development Plan<br />
Current Policy<br />
Proposed Policy<br />
N/A Clause referencing Indicative<br />
Development Plan to allow <strong>Council</strong><br />
to have regard to IDP objectives in<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 124
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Development<br />
Standard<br />
Current Policy<br />
Proposed Policy<br />
considering applications for<br />
development and subdivision<br />
approval.<br />
Plot Ratio 1:1 1:1<br />
Bonus Plot Ratio<br />
(additional floor<br />
area)<br />
For mixed use development<br />
comprising commercial and<br />
residential uses, maximum plot<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.5:1 provided no more<br />
than 25% <strong>of</strong> additional floorspace<br />
is used for non-residential<br />
purposes.<br />
Building Height Minimum height <strong>of</strong> 6 metres (9<br />
meters for corner buildings).<br />
No maximum height specified.<br />
Street Setbacks<br />
Side and Rear<br />
Setbacks<br />
Design Elements<br />
Buildings built to street alignment<br />
to promote strong urban form.<br />
Nil side setback.<br />
No requirement for rear setbacks.<br />
Ground floor levels to be set at<br />
abutting footpath level.<br />
Buildings to be provided with<br />
awning over footpath.<br />
Parking and Access Vehicular access discouraged<br />
from L<strong>of</strong>tus Street, <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street and Railway Parade where<br />
alternative access is available.<br />
Opportunities for bonus plot ratio if<br />
strategic objectives are achieved:<br />
Residential - 1:1<br />
Extension <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street - 1:1<br />
Public Parking - 1:1<br />
Ceding <strong>of</strong> land for ROW - 0.5:1<br />
Land for ROW widening - 0.2:1<br />
Pedestrian connections - 0.2:1<br />
Lot amalgamations - 0.2-0.5:1<br />
Public spaces - 0.5:1<br />
Underground parking - 0.5:1<br />
Parking behind street fronts - 0.2:1<br />
(Bonus plot ratio is accumulative)<br />
Minimum 2 storeys to maximum 8<br />
storeys.<br />
Maximum 10 storeys if bonus plot<br />
ratio applicable.<br />
Nil for first three storeys, except:<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street - 2 metres<br />
Railway Parade, L<strong>of</strong>tus and<br />
Abbotsford Street - 4 metres<br />
Nicholson Street - 2 metres<br />
Further setbacks for fourth storey<br />
and above.<br />
Maximum height for boundary<br />
walls is 3 storeys.<br />
Standards for side and rear<br />
setbacks (above three storeys),<br />
ranging from 3 to 4 metres.<br />
Performance assessment for<br />
boundary walls where adjoining<br />
property is zoned residential.<br />
Awnings, architectural design<br />
elements and defined building<br />
entries, no exposed blank walls to<br />
street or laneways, articulated<br />
street elevations, no obscured<br />
glazing to windows at ground floor<br />
level, ro<strong>of</strong> pitch requirements.<br />
Standards for location <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
and access to be taken from<br />
laneways, wherever possible.<br />
Residential Residential density R80. 'R-AC 0' (multi-housing) code.<br />
Retention <strong>of</strong> building<br />
stock<br />
Variations permitted to standards<br />
where original building is retained.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street Node (Previously Rosslyn Street Commercial Area)<br />
vi. Propose new development standards for the <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street Node (existing<br />
development standards for Rosslyn Street Commercial Areas deleted).<br />
N/A<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 125
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Development<br />
Standard<br />
Indicative<br />
Development Plan<br />
Existing Policy<br />
Proposed Policy<br />
N/A Clause referencing Indicative<br />
Development Plan to allow<br />
<strong>Council</strong> to have regard to IDP<br />
objectives in considering<br />
applications for development and<br />
subdivision approval.<br />
Plot Ratio 1:1 1:1<br />
Bonus Plot Ratio<br />
(additional floor<br />
area)<br />
Building Height<br />
For mixed use development<br />
comprising commercial and<br />
residential uses, maximum plot<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.5:1 provided no more<br />
than 25% <strong>of</strong> additional<br />
floorspace is used for nonresidential<br />
purposes.<br />
Minimum height <strong>of</strong> 6 metres.<br />
No maximum height specified.<br />
Street Setbacks Buildings built to street<br />
alignment to promote strong<br />
urban form.<br />
Side and Rear<br />
Setbacks<br />
Nil side setback.<br />
No requirement for rear<br />
setbacks.<br />
Opportunities for bonus plot ratio<br />
if strategic objectives are<br />
achieved:<br />
Residential - 1:1<br />
Pedestrian laneway and plaza<br />
(former Bethel site only) - 1:1<br />
Public Parking - 1:1<br />
Ceding <strong>of</strong> land for ROW - 0.5:1<br />
Land for ROW widening - 0.2:1<br />
Pedestrian connections - 0.2:1<br />
Lot amalgamations - 0.2-0.5:1<br />
Public spaces - 0.5:1<br />
Underground parking - 0.5:1<br />
Parking behind street fronts -<br />
0.2:1<br />
(Bonus plot ratio is accumulative)<br />
South side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
Minimum 2 storeys to maximum<br />
4 storeys.<br />
Maximum 6 storeys if bonus plot<br />
ratio applicable.<br />
Former Bethel Site<br />
Icon site up to 10 storeys if<br />
strategic benefits achieved.<br />
North side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
Minimum and maximum 2<br />
storeys.<br />
Additional height to<br />
accommodate bonus plot ratio<br />
subject to performance based<br />
assessment.<br />
Nil for first three storeys, except:<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street - 2 metres<br />
Further setbacks for fourth storey<br />
and above.<br />
Maximum height for boundary<br />
walls is 3 storeys.<br />
Standards for side and rear<br />
setbacks (above three storeys),<br />
ranging from 3 to 4 metres.<br />
Performance assessment for<br />
boundary walls where adjoining<br />
property is zoned residential.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 126
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Design Elements<br />
Parking and Access<br />
Buildings to be provided with<br />
awning over footpath.<br />
Discourages vehicle access from<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Railway<br />
Parade where alternative access<br />
is available.<br />
Awnings, architectural design<br />
elements and defined building<br />
entries, no exposed blank walls<br />
to street or laneways, articulated<br />
street elevations, no obscured<br />
glazing to windows at ground<br />
floor level, ro<strong>of</strong> pitch<br />
requirements.<br />
Standards for location <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
and access to be taken from<br />
laneways, wherever possible.<br />
Residential Residential density R80. 'R-AC 0' (multi-housing) code.<br />
Retention <strong>of</strong><br />
building stock<br />
Community Node<br />
Variations permitted to<br />
standards where original building<br />
is retained.<br />
vii. Amended the statement <strong>of</strong> intent for the Community Node (Leederville <strong>Town</strong> Hall) to<br />
reflect the desired future character as identified from the West Leederville Planning and<br />
Urban Design Study. Maintains a community and recreational focus.<br />
Explanation <strong>of</strong> Amendments<br />
The abovementioned amendments to the West Leederville Precinct Policy are proposed as an<br />
interim measure, whilst drafting <strong>of</strong> the more comprehensive Scheme amendments to reflect the<br />
findings <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville study are being progressed. This interim amendment to the<br />
precinct policy only addresses built form and development standards for properties within the<br />
West Leederville study area that are already zoned Commercial. It is not proposed at this time<br />
to amend the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme by rezoning properties.<br />
Indicative Development Plan<br />
During Part 2 <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study, IDPs were prepared<br />
for each <strong>of</strong> the five nodes within the study area. The IDPs show in diagrammatical form the<br />
general location and pattern <strong>of</strong> development envisaged for each node, including opportunities to<br />
widen or create new laneways, combine rear parking areas and create more intensive, larger<br />
urban developments through the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> properties.<br />
The IDPs are not intended to be a mandatory development layout that must be rigidly adhered<br />
to and as such are more aspirational in their intent. Nevertheless, it is important the objectives<br />
and principles behind each IDP are achieved, particularly if the desire for more intensive<br />
development in West Leederville is to be achieved in a cohesive manner. Specifically important<br />
will be the creation <strong>of</strong> well connected grid <strong>of</strong> rear and side laneways, which are needed to<br />
provide alternative vehicle access to developments, assist with the distribution <strong>of</strong> traffic<br />
throughout the area and reduce the number <strong>of</strong> crossovers to properties, improving pedestrian<br />
amenity along street frontages and maximising the opportunity for on-street parking bays.<br />
In light <strong>of</strong> this, the proposed amendments to the West Leederville Precinct Policy include a<br />
clause allowing <strong>Council</strong> to have regard to the objectives for each <strong>of</strong> the respective IDPs when<br />
considering applications for subdivision and development approval. Bonus plot ratio is<br />
proposed to be used as an incentive to achieve the objectives (and is discussed below).<br />
Plot Ratio<br />
N/A<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 127
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The West Leederville Study proposes development controls based on building height and<br />
setback provisions (i.e. built form controls) instead <strong>of</strong> traditional plot ratio (floor area) controls.<br />
However, it is proposed to retain plot ratio provisions as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed amendments as<br />
an incentive to developers to achieve the desired urban design outcomes outlined in the IDPs.<br />
The base plot ratio has been kept at 1:1 for both nodes to ensure the attractiveness to<br />
developers to seek bonus plot ratio and hence achieve the desired urban design outcomes.<br />
The proposed plot ratio figures were modelled to ensure bonus floorspace could generally be<br />
accommodated within the height and setback requirements. The two to three storeys height<br />
limit to the north side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, as proposed under the West Leederville Study, was<br />
identified as being prohibitive to achieving any benefit from the plot ratio bonuses (and is<br />
discussed further below).<br />
Building Height<br />
The West Leederville Study identified minimum and maximum building height provisions for<br />
each <strong>of</strong> the nodes and these have been included as part <strong>of</strong> the amendments.<br />
However, as mentioned above, the two to three storey height limit imposed on properties to the<br />
north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street does not allow developers opportunity to take up any bonus plot ratio<br />
(minimising the chance <strong>of</strong> achieving key strategic initiatives, such as widening rear laneways).<br />
The rationale behind the three storey height limit to the north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street was to<br />
minimise the potential impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjacent residential area to the north. To<br />
address this issue, it is proposed to adopt a performance based assessment towards additional<br />
building height above two storeys. The developer would need to demonstrate how the design<br />
<strong>of</strong> their building ameliorates the negative effects <strong>of</strong> excessive building bulk on the adjacent<br />
residential area, if additional storeys above two are proposed.<br />
Side and Rear Setbacks<br />
A maximum wall height <strong>of</strong> three storeys is proposed for walls built to a common boundary,<br />
reflecting the desired urban form for the two nodes.<br />
Side and rear setbacks, above three storeys have been introduced as part <strong>of</strong> the amendments<br />
to ensure an acceptable level <strong>of</strong> amenity between buildings and allow for access to light and<br />
ventilation. The side and rear setbacks increase as the width <strong>of</strong> the lot increases, reflecting the<br />
potential increase <strong>of</strong> building bulk that could be accommodated on larger lots.<br />
Residential Development<br />
In November 2010, the Residential Design Codes were amended to include multi-unit housing<br />
provisions. As part <strong>of</strong> the amendments to the Codes, the R-AC code was introduced to guide<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> multiple dwellings within mixed use development and activity centres. The<br />
R-AC code specifies provisions for maximum plot ratio, setbacks and building height for the<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> residential development.<br />
The proposed amendments introduce the R-AC 0 code for residential development within the<br />
two nodes, replacing the R80 residential density. It is noted a bonus plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1 is proposed<br />
to encourage the development <strong>of</strong> residential apartments.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 128
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The above summarised amendments are proposed only an interim measure whilst work<br />
continues on preparing the Minor <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme for West Leederville. The Access<br />
and Parking study, currently being prepared on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, includes a detailed<br />
investigation on the application <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for parking and preparation <strong>of</strong> practical parking<br />
management plans for each <strong>of</strong> the commercial areas. The outcomes <strong>of</strong> this study, once<br />
completed, will also need to be incorporated into the Minor <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No. 1 by replacing Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville with an amended Policy 6.5 -<br />
Precinct P5: West Leederville that incorporates development provisions that arose from the<br />
West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> advertising the proposed draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville is covered<br />
in the <strong>Town</strong>'s budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Amending the West Leederville Precinct Policy works towards goals identified for Key Focus<br />
Area ‘Planning for the Community’ <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan 2009-2020, by introducing<br />
provisions to facilitate a choice <strong>of</strong> housing and the creation <strong>of</strong> attractive and diverse shopping<br />
and business areas into the Scheme.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with clause 48 (7) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, a planning policy adopted by<br />
the <strong>Council</strong> may be altered or rescinded only by following the procedure for making and<br />
adopting a planning policy as set out in this clause.<br />
Furthermore, under clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, the <strong>Council</strong>, having prepared<br />
a draft planning policy, is required:-<br />
(a) to advertise a summary <strong>of</strong> the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive<br />
weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details <strong>of</strong> where the draft<br />
Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not less<br />
than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be advertised under<br />
clause 24 or 25 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, in which case no further advertisement is required;<br />
(b)<br />
where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>, might be<br />
directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and<br />
(c) to forward a copy <strong>of</strong> the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning<br />
Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the <strong>Council</strong> considers that the<br />
Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions <strong>of</strong> the Scheme or with state and regional<br />
planning policies.<br />
Extensive community consultation was undertaken during the preparation <strong>of</strong> the West<br />
Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. Over this time, a mailing list <strong>of</strong> interested<br />
persons in the West Leederville Study was compiled.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 129
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
In advertising the proposed draft West Leederville Precinct Policy, the following advertising<br />
method is recommended:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
advertisements be placed in the local newspapers under the <strong>Cambridge</strong> noticeboard;<br />
a notice and copy <strong>of</strong> the draft policy be placed on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website;<br />
a letter sent to ratepayer groups;<br />
a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and<br />
persons on the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Mailing List be informed <strong>of</strong><br />
the proposed draft policy.<br />
Given, the approaching Christmas and New Year holidays, advertising <strong>of</strong> the draft West<br />
Leederville Precinct Policy will commence mid January 2012.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study was concluded in December 2010 and<br />
since this time, focus has shifted towards drafting the necessary <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
amendments to implement the study. Whilst progress is being made with these <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme amendments, the initiation <strong>of</strong> a comprehensive amendment is several months away.<br />
In the meantime, to provide clarity in regard to the assessment <strong>of</strong> development applications,<br />
particularly where there are inconsistencies between the West Leederville Study and current<br />
Scheme provisions, it is proposed, as an interim measure, to amend current Policy 6.5 -<br />
Precinct P5: West Leederville to reflect the findings <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Study. It is noted<br />
this interim amendment to the precinct policy only addresses built form and development<br />
standards for properties within the study area already zoned Commercial. (Changes to zoning<br />
<strong>of</strong> properties and the introduction <strong>of</strong> specific land use classifications, can only occur through the<br />
statutory <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme amendment process, requiring the approval <strong>of</strong> the WAPC and<br />
Minister for Planning.)<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> plot ratio as a development control measure is maintained in the draft West<br />
Leederville Precinct Policy, with the application <strong>of</strong> bonus plot ratio being proposed as a tool to<br />
encourage desired urban design outcomes (such as laneway and pedestrian connections and<br />
amalgamation <strong>of</strong> lots) and to assist in implementing the objectives from the indicative<br />
development plans, which were prepared as part <strong>of</strong> the study. In this regard, it is also<br />
recommended that legal advice be sought on the proposed draft West Leederville Precinct<br />
Policy, to ensure the statutory effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the policy provisions.<br />
The proposed draft West Leederville Precinct Policy, as detailed above and as attached, is<br />
submitted for adoption for advertising.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Draft Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 130
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville:-<br />
(i) be adopted for the purpose <strong>of</strong> advertising as specified in accordance with clause 48<br />
(7) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme;<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
be advertised as follows:<br />
an advertisement be placed in the local newspapers under the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
noticeboard;<br />
a notice be included on the <strong>Town</strong>’s website; and<br />
a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission, local<br />
ratepayer groups and to those persons on the West Leederville Planning and<br />
Urban Design Study mailing list;<br />
be referred to the <strong>Town</strong>'s solicitors for vetting for legal soundness whilst it is being<br />
publically advertised.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 131
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.130 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The following items (for the month <strong>of</strong> November 2011) have been dealt with under delegated<br />
authority, in accordance with <strong>Council</strong>’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects<br />
with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme and <strong>Council</strong> Policy:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
22 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Amended plan - Single storey dwelling<br />
34 Challenger Parade, City Beach - Alfresco and timber deck<br />
41 Kalinda Drive, City Beach - Patio extension<br />
81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Landscaping in front setback area<br />
3b/131 Drabble Road, City Beach - Patio<br />
29 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
11a/133 Drabble Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
15 Weldon Way, City Beach - Carport<br />
30 Tarongo Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
4 Frinton Avenue, City Beach - Upgrade and lighting to tennis courts - City Beach Tennis<br />
Club<br />
6 Warren Place, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
9 Fortview Road, Mount Claremont - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
25 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
92 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
11 Callan Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling<br />
49 Orrel Avenue, Floreat - Two storey dwelling<br />
24 Linden Gardens, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
9 Caithness Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling<br />
130 Grantham Street, Floreat - Timber fence<br />
27 Dunblane Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
7 Cromarty Road, Floreat - Front fence<br />
10 Seymour Avenue, Floreat - Patio and deck<br />
40 Orrel Avenue, Florat - Sunro<strong>of</strong><br />
26 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Carport door and fence<br />
20 Peebles Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling<br />
4 North Banff Road, Floreat - Carport<br />
47 Reserve Street, Wembley - Amended plan - Additions and alterations to existing<br />
dwelling<br />
32 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
212 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
3 Collier Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
3 Nanson Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
18a Keane Street, Wembley - Carport<br />
5 Veryard Terrace, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 132
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
27a Simper Street, Wembley - Carport and patio<br />
14 Collier Street, Wembley - Front fence<br />
13 Caddy Avenue, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling<br />
107 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling<br />
177 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, West Leederville - Change <strong>of</strong> use from indoor pool facility to<br />
midwifery training facility (St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital)<br />
34a Joseph Street, West Leederville - Single storey dwelling<br />
4 Connaught Street, West Leederville - Carport<br />
61 McCourt Street, West Leederville - Front fence (FAST TRACK)<br />
The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a<br />
recommendation for approval:-<br />
<br />
2 Keane Street, Wembley - Two lot green title subdivision<br />
The following items are notifications <strong>of</strong> applications for review and decisions for <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
information:-<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - received<br />
No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> during November 2011.<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined<br />
Property: Lot 800 (No. 31) Gayton Road, City Beach<br />
Proposal: Proposed built strata subdivision <strong>of</strong> shopping centre<br />
On 30 November 2011, the State Administrative Tribunal advised that the application for review<br />
was withdrawn.<br />
Compliance<br />
On 30 September 2011, a Dog Act Prosecution was heard before the Perth Magistrates Court.<br />
On that day the accused was convicted on both charges <strong>of</strong> "Dog Attack". The court agreed with<br />
submissions made on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> that the attacks were extremely serious. However, in<br />
imposing fines in relation to the matters the Magistrate took into account that the accused had<br />
paid the complainant's veterinary bills in the sum <strong>of</strong> $8,900.00. On the first charge, the accused<br />
was fined $4,000.00. On the second charge, the accused was fined $2000.00 and ordered to<br />
pay costs <strong>of</strong> $1,476.45.<br />
On 4 November 2011, a Dog Act Prosecution was heard before the Perth Magistrates Court.<br />
On that day the accused appeared in person and was convicted on three charges <strong>of</strong> "Dog<br />
Attack". The accused pleaded guilty to the charges, the court imposed a fine <strong>of</strong> $1000.00 on<br />
each charge and ordered to pay costs <strong>of</strong> $1,124.70.<br />
On 7 November 2011, a Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrates Court for<br />
hearing. On that day the accused did not attend Court and was convicted in her absence<br />
pursuant to section 55 <strong>of</strong> the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. Upon conviction, the accused was<br />
fined $200.00 and ordered to pay costs in the amount <strong>of</strong> $500.00.<br />
A Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrates Court on the 16 November 2011, the<br />
accused did not attend and was convicted in his absence pursuant to section 55 <strong>of</strong> the Criminal<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 133
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Procedure Act 2004. The Court imposed a penalty <strong>of</strong> $200.00 and ordered the accused to pay<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s costs in the amount <strong>of</strong> $796.50.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated<br />
authority for the period ending 30 November 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 134
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
DV11.131 BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To provide monthly statistics and comparative data <strong>of</strong> building licences approved under<br />
delegated authority in November 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Listed below are the total numbers <strong>of</strong> licences issued in the month <strong>of</strong> November 2011 and the<br />
comparative figures <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> licences issued for the same month <strong>of</strong> the previous year.<br />
Financial Year to Date figures has also been listed to provide an indication <strong>of</strong> building activity.<br />
November<br />
2011<br />
November<br />
2010<br />
Financial Year<br />
to Date<br />
2011/2012<br />
Financial Year<br />
to Date<br />
2010/2011<br />
Building Licences 66 54 262 316<br />
Demolition Licences 3 5 31 43<br />
Building Approval 1 0 2 9<br />
Certificates<br />
(Acknowledgement<br />
<strong>of</strong> Unauthorised<br />
Structure)<br />
Special Licences 0 0 0 0<br />
Total 70 59 295 167<br />
Value <strong>of</strong><br />
Construction<br />
$19,888,246 $14,538,818 $70,737,939 $69,823,166<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated<br />
authority for the month <strong>of</strong> November 2011, as attached to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the notice<br />
paper, be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 135
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee held on 14 November 2011 was<br />
submitted as under:<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources<br />
Committee open at 6.02 pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Cr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Cr Colin Walker 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Rod Bradley<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering<br />
Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works<br />
Ross Bowman, Acting Manager Infrastructure Parks<br />
Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Neil Costello, Manager Governance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
8.00 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 136
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Gillian Catlow and Charles Hoernmann, Halesworth Road, Jolimont<br />
Item CR11.153 - Five Year Program - Footpaths<br />
Question<br />
Is the request <strong>of</strong> one individual enough to schedule the construction <strong>of</strong> a new footpath?<br />
In Halesworth Road, we would be very surprised if anyone apart from this person felt the<br />
slightest need for a new concrete footpath.<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. The requirement for a path will be part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Wembley Sports Park master plan.<br />
Item CR11.166 - Wembley Sports Park<br />
Question 1<br />
How and when will the <strong>Council</strong> inform the public about the next "forum" regarding the<br />
Traffic and Parking Study?<br />
If it is to be held before February, when the outcomes are scheduled to be presented to<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, it needs to be made public IMMEDIATELY, and not simply advertised in the<br />
POST a week beforehand when everyone is away on school holidays (which is how it<br />
was done last time). On your website, it also needs to be placed where everyone can<br />
see it, not on an obtrusive page.<br />
Response<br />
The public will be invited to submit comments on the Integrated Access and Parking<br />
Study for Wembley Sports Park once it is made available to the <strong>Town</strong>. The study report<br />
will be available from the <strong>Town</strong>'s website. Advice <strong>of</strong> this will be made in the media. It is<br />
anticipated that the study report will not be received by the <strong>Town</strong> from its consultants until<br />
mid January 2012.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> will consider a report at its December 2011 meeting recommending a public<br />
comment period.<br />
Question 2<br />
Is the public going to be informed about the landscaping plans before they are finalised?<br />
And are the results <strong>of</strong> the "tree audit" going to be made public?<br />
Response<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has determined that a landscaping design be undertaken for Wembley Sports<br />
Park. <strong>Council</strong> will determine the manner in which this design is developed and adopted.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 137
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Question 3<br />
Under the heading Community Consultation, you talk about the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing<br />
Community Consultation Matrix. Why is this Matrix not published on your website?<br />
Other <strong>Council</strong>s who have such a matrix go to lengths to explain the details to the<br />
community. As ratepayers we look to you, our Mayor and <strong>Council</strong>lors, as our<br />
representatives, working for the common good <strong>of</strong> this community. Why are we constantly<br />
given the feeling you withhold information from us and treat us almost as enemies, to be<br />
kept in the dark as long as possible.<br />
Response<br />
The Community Consultation Matrix is detailed in Policy No. 1.2.11, which is included in<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s Policy Manual and is published on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website.<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Deputations<br />
Item CR11.153 - Dr Ian Robertson<br />
Item CR11.162 - Damien Green, I Katcher Events<br />
Petition<br />
A petition signed by 371 residents <strong>of</strong> City Beach was submitted by Wendy Appleyard, 14<br />
Lentara Crescent, City Beach calling on the <strong>Town</strong> to "fund and establish community<br />
security patrols as soon as possible. To be presented at the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community and<br />
Resources Committee meeting 12 December 2011."<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That the petition be received.<br />
Carried 5/0<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee<br />
held on 14 November 2011 as contained in November 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be<br />
confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 138
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.153 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM (2012/13 TO 2016/17) - FOOTPATHS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review a Draft Five Year Program for footpaths as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft<br />
2012/13 Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in November 2010 (Item<br />
CR10.25). The first year <strong>of</strong> that program was then considered for funding in the Draft 2011/12<br />
Budget.<br />
This program considers the upgrading <strong>of</strong> slab footpaths and construction <strong>of</strong> new footpaths. To<br />
avoid confusion with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009, the construction <strong>of</strong> shared<br />
paths and bicycle minor works are reported separately as a Five Year Program for Shared<br />
Paths. <strong>Council</strong> last reviewed that program in September 2010, Item CR10.3.<br />
When the footpath projects that are funded in the 20011/12 Budget are complete, the state <strong>of</strong><br />
construction <strong>of</strong> footpaths will be:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Length <strong>of</strong> slab footpaths: 22.8 km (17% <strong>of</strong> total);<br />
Length <strong>of</strong> brick paved footpaths (in commercial areas): 3.8 km (3% <strong>of</strong> total);<br />
Length <strong>of</strong> concrete footpaths 110.6 km (80% <strong>of</strong> total); and<br />
Total length <strong>of</strong> all footpaths: 137.2 km.<br />
The location <strong>of</strong> the remaining slab footpaths are shown graphically on the map provided in the<br />
attachment to this report.<br />
All slab and concrete paths are inspected annually to assess condition, identify tripping hazards<br />
and control risk. The inspection for 2011 is in progress and tripping hazards will be<br />
progressively removed by relaying the defective slabs and grinding the displacement in<br />
concrete paths. The condition assessment is one <strong>of</strong> the factors used to develop a priority order<br />
for upgrading slab paths to concrete. The condition is visually assessed by the proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
cracked slabs, unevenness <strong>of</strong> surface and gaps between the slabs, and they are ranked as<br />
either 1, 2, 3 or 4. Their replacement is prioritised as follows:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Paths ranked as 1 and 2 only require maintenance.<br />
Paths ranked as 3 should be replaced in years 3, 4 or 5 <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />
Paths ranked as 4 should be replaced in year 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Objective<br />
The objective <strong>of</strong> the footpath upgrading program is to provide a safe network <strong>of</strong> paths for<br />
people to travel by walking, running, riding bicycles or wheelchairs. The existing slab paths are<br />
now relatively expensive to maintain in a good condition and the best long term option is to<br />
upgrade them to an insitu poured concrete footpath. These are expected to last at least 40<br />
years with minimal maintenance.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 139
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The minimum standard for upgrading footpaths is set out in Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths –<br />
Upgrading Of”, that states:-<br />
<br />
<br />
Slab footpath adjacent to residential properties are upgraded to cast-insitu concrete;<br />
Slab footpaths adjacent to commercial properties are upgraded to brick paving.<br />
In addition to this minimum standard, the following standards are generally adopted:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The 1.2 metre wide slab footpaths are increased to 1.5 metre minimum width concrete<br />
footpaths. If possible, 2.0 metres will be provided.<br />
The 1.8 metre wide slab footpaths are increased to 2.0 metre width concrete paths so<br />
they can be classified as shared paths if required.<br />
Concrete paths that are 2.0 metres wide have “lock-joints” installed on the contraction<br />
joints to provide a smooth ride for cyclists.<br />
Concrete paths in reserves are coloured marigold or limestone.<br />
Levels <strong>of</strong> footpaths are adjusted to match the existing levels <strong>of</strong> service covers, verges<br />
and crossovers.<br />
The verge area adjacent to intersections with high traffic volumes are filled with coloured<br />
stencilled concrete. The colour is usually red brick or terracotta.<br />
Program<br />
The proposed Five Year Program is provided as an attachment to this report and lists the<br />
locations <strong>of</strong> New Footpaths and Replacement Footpaths.<br />
1. New Concrete Footpaths - The proposed new paths are all sourced from requests from<br />
the community. These sections <strong>of</strong> path are estimated to require a total funding <strong>of</strong><br />
$400,000 and have been spread over Year 1 and 2 so that funding <strong>of</strong> the footpath<br />
program is similar to the current budget. Years 3, 4 and 5 do not have any new paths<br />
listed because it is intended that main slab footpath replacement program is completed<br />
as the first priority. A program <strong>of</strong> new path construction will then follow, based on<br />
extensive community consultation, to complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes<br />
for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops.<br />
The following community requests were received:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Barnsley Road - scheduled in Year 2 since it is a short road with low traffic.<br />
Bent Street - scheduled in Year 1 since it has high community support, medium<br />
traffic road, school and beach destinations, and the rising and setting sun creates a<br />
road safety issue. A copy <strong>of</strong> correspondence in support <strong>of</strong> this path are provided as<br />
an attachment to this report. Based on previous experience, it is likely that some<br />
residents will oppose any footpath in Bent Street.<br />
Berkeley Crescent - A survey <strong>of</strong> residents in Berkeley Crescent was not supportive<br />
<strong>of</strong> a footpath and this is not programmed.<br />
Crieff Street - scheduled Year 1 since it is a medium traffic road and a bus route.<br />
Dodd Street - North and South sides. Dodd Street is part <strong>of</strong> a route on the Perth<br />
Bicycle Network and services 3 schools and Lake Monger Reserve. There are no<br />
footpaths east <strong>of</strong> Gregory Street and pedestrians walk on a rough verge or a rough<br />
road. The shared path on the east side <strong>of</strong> Gregory Street has no connection to the<br />
shared paths around Lake Monger. This path section is included in the "Blue Sky"<br />
program <strong>of</strong> works in 2011/12. The development <strong>of</strong> the Speech and Hearing Centre<br />
is required to provide car parking and this should include a plan for a footpath on<br />
the north side <strong>of</strong> Dodd Street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 140
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Halesworth Road - this is scheduled in Year 2 pending the outcome <strong>of</strong> the Wembley<br />
Sports Park plans.<br />
Herdsman Parade - this is scheduled in Year 1 to coincide with resurfacing <strong>of</strong> this<br />
section <strong>of</strong> Herdsman Parade with grant funding. The recent developments on the<br />
north side <strong>of</strong> Herdsman Parade, between Selby Street and Marlow Street has<br />
significantly increased pedestrian traffic.<br />
Teslin Road - this is scheduled in Year 2 since it is a short road with low traffic.<br />
Tilton Terrace - this is scheduled in Year 2 pending community consultation. The<br />
scheduled replacement <strong>of</strong> a short section <strong>of</strong> slab path on Tilton Terrace will depend<br />
on which side the new path is constructed.<br />
2. Replacement <strong>of</strong> Slab Paths - The proposed program for upgrading slab footpaths to<br />
concrete footpaths was developed in consideration <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
There are approximately 23 kilometres <strong>of</strong> slab footpath remaining after June 2012.<br />
At the current funding, all remaining slab footpaths can be upgraded over a 5 year<br />
program at a rate <strong>of</strong> 4.6 kilometres each year.<br />
Condition <strong>of</strong> the existing slab path – the poorest condition rated paths are listed in<br />
the first years <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />
High pedestrian use or high traffic volume on adjacent road.<br />
Paths adjacent to hospitals, schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and<br />
bus stops.<br />
Community requests - Daglish Street, Dodd Street, Station Street, Linden Gardens,<br />
Salvado Road.<br />
Complete the footpaths on whole roads rather than isolated sections.<br />
The remaining sections <strong>of</strong> slab path on Salvado Road are currently deferred to Year 5<br />
until the plans for a shared path on Salvado Road, between Jersey and Haydn Bunton<br />
Drive are known.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The recommendation is in accordance with <strong>Council</strong> Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading<br />
Of”.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration <strong>of</strong> setting<br />
appropriate levels <strong>of</strong> funding for the Draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
The current 2011/12 Budget provides a total <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
$554,400 for upgrading 5.0 kilometres <strong>of</strong> slab footpaths;<br />
$93,000 for construction <strong>of</strong> 0.75 kilometres <strong>of</strong> new paths; and<br />
$500,000 for the new shared path program.<br />
Total funding is $1,147,000 for the current budget year.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 141
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
It is proposed that a similar total level <strong>of</strong> funding is adopted, so that the program <strong>of</strong> replacement<br />
<strong>of</strong> all slab footpaths can be completed over the next 5 years. The first and second years <strong>of</strong> the<br />
program propose funding levels <strong>of</strong> approximately:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
$460,000 to $480,000 for upgrading <strong>of</strong> 4.6 km paths each year;<br />
$150,000 to $194,000 for construction <strong>of</strong> 1.6km new paths each year; and<br />
$500,000 for shared path program.<br />
Total proposed funding is $1,110,000 to $1,174,000 per year for the first and second year <strong>of</strong><br />
the program.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
Ensure the <strong>Town</strong> has good asset management strategies;<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations;<br />
Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc; and<br />
Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not<br />
Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in<br />
nature, with no external impacts envisaged until development <strong>of</strong> the Draft Budget for 2012/13.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Location <strong>of</strong> Footpaths Remaining After June 2012.<br />
2. Five Year Program for Footpaths 2012/13 - 2016/17.<br />
3. Supporting documentation - requests from community for Bent Street.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for footpaths, as attached, be<br />
endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft<br />
2012/13 Budget.<br />
Committee Meeting 12 December 2011<br />
During discussion, Mayor Withers expressed concern with regard to new path construction and<br />
suggested that a program for new path construction to complete any missing links in the<br />
pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops be<br />
commenced as soon as possible rather than at the end <strong>of</strong> Year 5..<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 142
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iii) a program <strong>of</strong> new path construction, based on extensive community consultation, to<br />
complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres,<br />
recreational centres and bus stops be commenced as soon as possible.<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for footpaths, as attached, be<br />
endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in<br />
the Draft 2012/13 Budget;<br />
(iii) a program <strong>of</strong> new path construction, based on extensive community consultation,<br />
to complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial<br />
centres, recreational centres and bus stops be commenced as soon as possible.<br />
Cr MacRae left the meeting at 8.02 pm and returned at 8.04 pm.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That clause (iii) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended by deleting the words "based on extensive<br />
community consultation".<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for footpaths, as attached, be<br />
endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in<br />
the Draft 2012/13 Budget;<br />
(iii) a program <strong>of</strong> new path construction to complete any missing links in the<br />
pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus<br />
stops be commenced as soon as possible.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 143
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.154 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT AND 20 YEAR PROGRAM FOR ROAD<br />
RESURFACING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review required expenditure levels and the revised 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road<br />
Resurfacing as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> last reviewed this Road Resurfacing Program in November 2010 (Item CR10.39) 'Road<br />
Asset Management and Twenty Year Program for Road Resurfacing' and decided that:-<br />
“(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the updated 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as an<br />
asset management program;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the program be considered for funding in the 2011/12 Draft Budget”.<br />
The 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing was first developed in 2009 and lists a<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 144 kilometres <strong>of</strong> roads for resurfacing over a 20 year period. There is an additional 22<br />
kilometres <strong>of</strong> roads which are not on the program at this state. It was updated in November<br />
2011 to show:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Roads that were resurfaced in the 2010/2011 Budget.<br />
Roads that are funded for resurfacing in the current 2011/2012 Budget.<br />
Roads that will be funded by Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
Roads that should be considered for applying for Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in<br />
2013/2014.<br />
Roads that should be considered for resurfacing as a priority in the 2012/2013 Budget.<br />
This program for the same 2010-2029 period is now presented as a planning tool for preparing<br />
the Draft 2012/13 Budget. The roads resurfaced in the 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 Budgets<br />
are retained on this program to show past trends.<br />
An independent review <strong>of</strong> road asset condition is generally carried out every 5 years with the<br />
next one due in 2014. This will generate a new twenty year program for the period<br />
2015–2034.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> manages a total <strong>of</strong> 166 kilometres <strong>of</strong> sealed roads <strong>of</strong> which 8 kilometres is dual<br />
carriageway. In addition, the <strong>Town</strong> manages 21 kilometres <strong>of</strong> laneways (ROW's) <strong>of</strong> which 14<br />
kilometres is sealed and the balance is programmed to be upgraded to a seal standard over the<br />
next 10 years.<br />
The current strategy for maintaining these roads and lanes was originally derived from the<br />
ARRB road study carried out during 2004 and reported to <strong>Council</strong> on 24 November 2004. In<br />
2009, Pavement Analysis Pty Ltd confirmed that the <strong>Town</strong>’s road asset management was<br />
operating effectively and provided the first version <strong>of</strong> the 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for<br />
Road Resurfacing. This was reported to <strong>Council</strong> in October 2009 (Item IC09.87).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 144
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The main components <strong>of</strong> this strategy are:-<br />
<br />
Distributor Roads - Total length 45.5 kilometres which includes 7.6 kilometres <strong>of</strong> dual<br />
carriageway and traffic volume greater than 2,000 vehicles per day. Most will qualify for<br />
MRRG grants depending on condition. Resurfacing is scheduled at a surface age <strong>of</strong> 20<br />
years. This means that an average <strong>of</strong> 2.3 kilometres per year will require resurfacing. In<br />
practice, distributor roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 15 and 25<br />
years in the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Local Access Roads - Total length 121 kilometres. Traffic volume less than 2,000<br />
vehicles per day. Resurfacing is scheduled every 30 years depending on condition. This<br />
means that an average <strong>of</strong> 4 kilometres per year will require resurfacing. In practice, local<br />
access roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 25 and 35 years in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>.<br />
<br />
Condition <strong>of</strong> Precast Kerb - If short sections <strong>of</strong> precast kerb are misaligned then work is<br />
programmed to re-lay these sections. If long sections <strong>of</strong> kerb are deteriorated or are too<br />
low, then they are replaced with extruded kerb. This has been done on a large scale, for<br />
example on Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade and The Boulevard Service Road. The<br />
need for kerb replacement will increase over the next 20 years as the precast-kerbs<br />
reach the end <strong>of</strong> their useful lives. The replacement <strong>of</strong> kerb is a substantial item in this<br />
asset management strategy. At present, the replacement <strong>of</strong> kerb is deferred until it has<br />
become necessary due to a serious lack <strong>of</strong> kerb height or a significant number <strong>of</strong> kerb<br />
sections are broken or misaligned. The average value <strong>of</strong> kerb replacement currently<br />
ranges from $0 to approximately $160,000 each year. The report recommends that the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> considers replacing more kerbing to improve the cosmetic appearance <strong>of</strong> streets<br />
and construction standards. If kerb is not replaced at this opportunity, then it has to be<br />
good enough to last until the road is next resurfaced in 20-30 years time.<br />
Lanes - Traffic volume less than 200 vehicles per day. Total length 21 kilometres (14<br />
kilometres sealed). Schedule resurfacing every 30 years depending on condition. Two <strong>of</strong><br />
the older lanes have been resurfaced in the last 10 years and more will be required in<br />
future years.<br />
Laneways will need to be added to the road resurfacing program as their seal age<br />
reaches 30 years. It is anticipated that funding <strong>of</strong> $65,000 per year will be required for<br />
resurfacing all 21 kilometres <strong>of</strong> lanes. This should coincide with the completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
current lane upgrading program in approximately 10 years time that currently has funding<br />
<strong>of</strong> $300,000 per year.<br />
<br />
Condition <strong>of</strong> the Asphalt Seal - The condition <strong>of</strong> the asphalt is determined visually and<br />
a rating is given for asphalt type, surface defects, extent <strong>of</strong> patching, cracking, rutting and<br />
bitumen binder condition. The condition <strong>of</strong> the asphalt at the time <strong>of</strong> inspection will<br />
depend on its age, the original standard <strong>of</strong> road construction, type <strong>of</strong> sprayed seal or<br />
asphalt used for the wearing surface and traffic loading. As asphalt seals age, the<br />
cracking, rutting, defects, and binder condition all get progressively worse until one <strong>of</strong><br />
them reaches an intervention level that dictates that the road must be resurfaced. These<br />
values are then assessed by a computer program to rank each section <strong>of</strong> road into a 20<br />
year program. The computer program uses a deterioration algorithm that predicts when<br />
each section <strong>of</strong> road requires resurfacing. The current standard road asset management<br />
computer s<strong>of</strong>tware is ROMAN II and is currently supported by WALGA.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 145
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
Maintain a Uniform Expenditure Level - Uniform funding each year is adequate to<br />
maintain the current condition <strong>of</strong> roads for the next 20 years. The asphalt deterioration<br />
algorithm predicts that the roads are deteriorating uniformly and there are no “crisis<br />
years” where an abnormal length <strong>of</strong> road requires resurfacing in one year.<br />
Using the components <strong>of</strong> this strategy, the original 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road<br />
Resurfacing has been updated for preparing the Draft 2012/2013 Budget by listing:-<br />
<br />
<br />
Roads that were resurfaced in the previous and current Budgets for identifying trends.<br />
Distributor Roads that will be funded by Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in the<br />
2012/13 Budget. These were applied for in April 2011 and were approved by MRWA in<br />
November 2011:<br />
ROAD SECTION FUNDING<br />
Selby St<br />
Grantham St<br />
90m north <strong>of</strong> Ruislip Street to 90m north <strong>of</strong> Herdsman<br />
Parade<br />
Gregory Street to Marlow Street (excluding the<br />
Harborne Street intersection)<br />
$94,041<br />
$252,979<br />
Herdsman Pde Selby Street to Marlow Street $51,840<br />
Grantham St Keane Street to Seymour Avenue $95,256<br />
Harborne St 40m north <strong>of</strong> Dodd Street to Powis Street $18,144<br />
Total Funding $512,261<br />
Note: These grants only cover 2/3 <strong>of</strong> the total required for asphalt works.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Distributor Roads that should be considered for applying for Metropolitan Regional Road<br />
Grants in 2013/14. Applications for these will be due in April 2012.<br />
Roads that should be considered for resurfacing in the 2012/13 Budget due to age and<br />
condition. These have been selected from the 2012, 2013 2014 and 2015 years <strong>of</strong> the<br />
program based on a more recent inspection than the inspection by Pavement Analysis in<br />
2009. As a result, the resurfacing <strong>of</strong> some roads is deferred and others are brought<br />
forward in the program. In addition, adjacent sections <strong>of</strong> road <strong>of</strong> similar condition are<br />
scheduled in the same year so that they may be resurfaced as one project and take<br />
advantage <strong>of</strong> a lower price associated with the large asphalt order.<br />
A section <strong>of</strong> road surface in <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, between McCourt Street and Harborne<br />
Street, has started to fail and requires replacing. This is listed in the 2012/13 Year.<br />
The benchmark for resurfacing is 7.3 kilometres per year and is based on the average length <strong>of</strong><br />
resurfacing scheduled over the 20 year program. This is slightly more than the 2.3 kilometres<br />
<strong>of</strong> Distributor Roads and 4 kilometres <strong>of</strong> Local Roads required on average because some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
roads are more than 30 years old and some catching up is required.<br />
The revised program is included in the report attachment and Budget 2012/13 works proposed<br />
are Year 2012 listings.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 146
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report other than <strong>Council</strong> budget approvals.<br />
The 2011/12 Budget listed a total <strong>of</strong> $2,145,100 for road resurfacing that included $867,000<br />
grant funding and carry-forward funding. This left a residual <strong>of</strong> $1,278,100 to be funded by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> in the current budget. The actual length <strong>of</strong> roads scheduled for resurfacing in the<br />
2011/12 Budget, not including carry-forwarded projects, is 6.89km. This is less than the<br />
benchmark <strong>of</strong> 7.28km/year.<br />
This review for the 2012/13 Budget proposes a funding level <strong>of</strong> $2,281,000 for 2012/13, to<br />
resurface and repair approximately 7.22 kilometres <strong>of</strong> road per year. This increase is required<br />
to allow for increase in asphalt costs anticipated in 2012/13.<br />
These works will be subsidised by three grants totalling $748,761:-<br />
Direct Grant <strong>of</strong> approximately $54,000 each year.<br />
Roads to Recovery Grant <strong>of</strong> $182,500 each year.<br />
Metropolitan Regional Road Grants (MRRG): $512,261 in 2012/13.<br />
This will leave a residual <strong>of</strong> approximately $1,500,000 to be funded by the <strong>Town</strong> in the 2012/13<br />
Budget.<br />
The Roads to Recovery Grant places an obligation on the <strong>Town</strong> to use the funds for works that<br />
would not normally be budgeted. The additional 0.9 kilometres <strong>of</strong> resurfacing above the<br />
average <strong>of</strong> 6.3 kilometres fulfils this obligation.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
Ensure the <strong>Town</strong> has good asset management strategies.<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations.<br />
Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc.<br />
Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not<br />
Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in<br />
nature with no external impacts envisaged until development <strong>of</strong> the Draft Budget for 2012/13.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 147
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The original 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing has been updated for the<br />
same period <strong>of</strong> 2010–2029, without adding any roads or additional years.<br />
An independent review <strong>of</strong> road asset condition is generally carried out every 5 years and the<br />
next one is due in 2014. This will generate a new 20 year program for 2015–2034.<br />
The pavements within the <strong>Town</strong> continue to perform very much to expectations and<br />
deterioration modelling is predictable because <strong>of</strong> the excellent history <strong>of</strong> road construction. The<br />
level <strong>of</strong> predicted resurfacing has not increased from the 2004 predictions and the only<br />
adjustment required is financially, based on price variances for materials, labour and plant.<br />
This is expected to be 6% due to increases in bitumen prices, materials and labour.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Updated 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the updated 20 Year Program (2010-2029) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as an<br />
asset management program;<br />
the projects listed in year 2012 <strong>of</strong> the program be considered for funding in the<br />
2012/13 Draft Budget.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 148
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.155 ROAD IMPROVEMENT - CAPITAL WORKS FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FROM<br />
2012/13<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review a five year program for road improvement capital works projects. This program will<br />
assist with grant applications and the preparation <strong>of</strong> road designs and be used to formulate the<br />
Draft 2012/2013 <strong>Council</strong> Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In December 2010 (Item CR10.56), <strong>Council</strong> considered a Road Improvement Capital Works<br />
Program for 2011/2012 to 2015/2016. It is now proposed that <strong>Council</strong> reviews and upgrades<br />
the program for the next five year period recognising the works that have been budgeted to be<br />
carried out in the 2011/2012 financial year. The recommended program was developed from<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s previously approved works and community requests with an objective to:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reduce traffic accidents;<br />
manage traffic speeds;<br />
reinforce the road hierarchy;<br />
provide cyclists and pedestrian facilities;<br />
upgrade the streetscape;<br />
recognise adjacent land developments.<br />
The criteria for prioritising work to be considered with this program includes:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
roadway capacity and efficiency;<br />
traffic accident statistics;<br />
traffic speed and volume statistics;<br />
community and <strong>Council</strong>lor requests;<br />
public transport requirements;<br />
pedestrian, cyclists and adjacent property requirements.<br />
Adoption <strong>of</strong> a plan <strong>of</strong> improvement is desirable due to the complexity <strong>of</strong> preparing designs in<br />
conjunction with existing public utilities, the time to obtain the necessary statutory approvals<br />
and to carry out community consultation. Further, the program allows for grant submissions to<br />
be prepared in line with <strong>Council</strong> approved direction and additional funding may be obtained if<br />
successful.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Road Network<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> maintains approximately 166 kilometres <strong>of</strong> road. The road design standards<br />
conform with established Australian Standards and guidelines from Main Roads WA. All road<br />
traffic management signs and lines on all projects are required to be approved by Main Roads<br />
WA in accordance with the Main Roads WA Act.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 149
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has established a road hierarchy that is coordinated with Main Roads WA and the West<br />
Australian Planning Commission. The road classifications within the <strong>Town</strong>'s municipality are:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Primary distributor roads. These provide for major regional and inter-regional traffic<br />
movement and carry large volumes <strong>of</strong> generally fast moving traffic. These include<br />
Mitchell Freeway and West Coast Highway in the <strong>Town</strong>. These roads are managed by<br />
Main Roads WA;<br />
District distributor roads. These carry traffic between areas and generally connect to a<br />
primary distributor road. They generally form a grid which would ideally be spaced<br />
around 1.5 kilometres apart. They include <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Oceanic Drive, Grantham<br />
Street, Lake Monger Drive, The Boulevard, Herdsman Parade, Railway Parade, Harborne<br />
Street, Selby Street, Empire Avenue, Durston Road, Bold Park Drive, Howtree Place and<br />
Brookdale Street. They are managed by Local Government;<br />
Local distributor roads. These roads carry traffic within a residential cell and are linked to<br />
district distributor roads at the boundary <strong>of</strong> the cell. Local distributor roads distribute the<br />
traffic to local residential precinct cells. They include Kimberley Street, Ruislip Street,<br />
Kirkdale Avenue, Alderbury Street, Ulster Roads, Kalinda Drive, Brompton Road,<br />
Chipping Road and Kingsland Avenue. They are managed by Local Government;<br />
Access Roads. These provide access to abutting properties with amenity, safety and<br />
aesthetic aspects having priority over vehicle movement function. These roads are<br />
bicycle and pedestrian friendly. They are managed by Local Government.<br />
Recognising the varying demands on the various road classifications, the <strong>Council</strong> is challenged<br />
to develop different levels <strong>of</strong> serviceability for each criteria.<br />
Issues<br />
1. <strong>Council</strong> has been progressing a road strategy for the precinct <strong>of</strong> West Leederville since<br />
February 2005. The initial objectives were to:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ensure district traffic remains on district roads;<br />
reduce traffic accidents;<br />
provide a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment.<br />
The coordination <strong>of</strong> some capital works initiatives has required some projects to be<br />
deferred as a result <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
(a) The work scope associated with redevelopment <strong>of</strong> Subiaco Oval. Refer October<br />
2008 reports IC08.86, 87 and 88;<br />
(b) The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. This was adopted by<br />
<strong>Council</strong> in December 2010. (Report DV10.122).<br />
The other projects listed have all progressed through successive years <strong>of</strong> review and it is<br />
the <strong>Council</strong> priorities which require consideration. <strong>Council</strong> may also wish to completely<br />
delete projects if they consider they are not warranted.<br />
When the work on the district roads has been completed in West Leederville there will be<br />
an assessment <strong>of</strong> West Leederville local area traffic management requirements and<br />
funds are proposed in the recommended program to accommodate this work.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 150
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
It is accepted all planning can now proceed as it is unlikely the Subiaco Oval will be<br />
redeveloped as a larger stadium and the West Leederville Planning Study now has been<br />
finalised.<br />
2. There have been a number <strong>of</strong> areas that have demanded improved kerbside parking.<br />
These include <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Essex Street, Birkdale Street and Northwood Street<br />
south <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, all adjacent to commercial developments. A <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Access and Parking Strategy currently underway and will consider these issues. Upon<br />
completion <strong>of</strong> that review, funds can be allocated to consider the required work. Refer<br />
DV11.105 Nov 2011.<br />
3. <strong>Council</strong> receives a number <strong>of</strong> enquiries concerning local area traffic management. These<br />
are considered on their merit and referred to Budget when a specific project has been<br />
agreed with the community. The criteria priority ranking for these projects include:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
proximity to schools;<br />
projects near hospitals;<br />
roads where the 85 th percentile traffic speed is in excess <strong>of</strong> 60kph.<br />
Projects Proposed for Year 1, 2012 - 2013<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> projects have been identified for inclusion in the first year <strong>of</strong> the 5 Year Program <strong>of</strong><br />
road works.<br />
These consist <strong>of</strong> items which have previously been reported to <strong>Council</strong> together with works<br />
which have been the subject <strong>of</strong> requests from residents/ratepayers and following investigation<br />
have been assessed as having a high priority for safety and amenity reasons.<br />
PROJECT<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> St - Northwood St to<br />
Kimberley St - Street<br />
enhancement Stage 1.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> St - Kimberley St to<br />
Southport Street- Street<br />
enhancement Stage 2.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street/Southport<br />
intersection - relocate Telecom pit.<br />
Lake Monger Drive - improve<br />
median width for pedestrian<br />
crossings west <strong>of</strong> Northwood St<br />
and east <strong>of</strong> St Vincents Ave to<br />
Lake Monger.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street/Selby St -<br />
Drainage Improvements.<br />
Empire Ave/Durston Road<br />
intersection - Construct<br />
roundabout or chanelise.<br />
Denton Street - widen from 7.35 m<br />
to 8.0 m over 130 m to provide<br />
room for parked vehicles on both<br />
sides.<br />
COMMENT<br />
"High Street" - Street enhancement Stage 1.<br />
"High Street" - Street enhancement Stage 2.<br />
Bus Route. Move Telecom pit westwards from<br />
traffic signals to allow better bus access from<br />
Southport left into <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
WLRA meeting request Nov 2010. CR 11.137<br />
November 2011.<br />
WLRA meeting request Nov 2010. CR 11.124<br />
October 2011.<br />
Refer CR 11.88 July 2011. Roundabout option<br />
costing $ 460,000 shelved. Request a review <strong>of</strong><br />
design options be carried out with city <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
Duplicate like Corboy Street. Width 7.35 m Length<br />
130m. Traffic 3600 veh/day. Parking unrestricted<br />
on west side. No parking on east side. Will need<br />
stakeholder input to see whether to widen to 8.0 m<br />
or have a parking clearway in the afternoon 4.15 -<br />
6.00 pm to solve the apparent problem. Requested<br />
by local resident in February 2009.<br />
BUDGET<br />
COST<br />
TBA<br />
TBA<br />
$150,000<br />
$150,000<br />
$300,000<br />
TBA<br />
$60,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 151
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Selby Street - Grantham Street to<br />
The Boulevard – establish central<br />
brown asphalt median and/or<br />
parking nibs.<br />
Peebles Rd / Moray Ave -Traffic<br />
Islands in Peebles Road.<br />
Assist pedestrians crossing and create traffic<br />
calming. Do with asphalt program 2012/13. Also<br />
programmed is Shared Path widening.<br />
Resident request to improve safety and reinforce<br />
crossroad. Do with asphalt program in 2012/13.<br />
$50,000<br />
$50,000<br />
Daglish Street - remove chicane<br />
between No 12 & 13. New<br />
plateaux.<br />
Essex Street - remove chicane<br />
north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> St. New<br />
plateaux.<br />
Oban Road - Gayton to Simon<br />
Place median and footpath.<br />
Cromarty Road - just east <strong>of</strong> Crief.<br />
Remove central raised median.<br />
Perry Lakes Drive/Underwood<br />
Ave Intersection - widen for left<br />
turn.<br />
Salvado Road - Disabled<br />
pedestrian crossings at traffic<br />
signals near SJOG hospital.<br />
Traffic Signals - disability access.<br />
CR 11.90 July 2011. Refer to 2012/13 Budget<br />
Considerations.<br />
$20,000<br />
Community request from adjacent property. $20,000<br />
Traffic and pedestrian safety improvements. Median<br />
and new Shared path adjacent to Beecr<strong>of</strong>t park.<br />
Due for removal when University relocated.<br />
Improves access to 21, 23, 25 and 27 Cromarty<br />
Road.<br />
Traffic held up when vehicles wish to turn right.<br />
Need left slip lane.<br />
Retr<strong>of</strong>it audible/tactile crossings at traffic signals<br />
along Salvado Road near hospital. Disabled<br />
request December 2008. $20,000 x 2 No.<br />
Install audible clickers to all traffic signals to allow<br />
blind people to cross on green signal. EDI Downer<br />
estimate $25,000 per site. Requested by<br />
Association for Blind in January 2009 for signals at<br />
Harborne/<strong>Cambridge</strong> and Harborne/ Salvado.<br />
TBA<br />
$10,000<br />
$10,000<br />
$40,000<br />
$50,000<br />
Other Projects<br />
Each year, a review <strong>of</strong> the traffic accident statistics is compiled and forwarded by Main Roads<br />
WA. From the review <strong>of</strong> this data, new projects are highlighted. State and Federal Black Spot<br />
Grant applications are assessed annually for <strong>Council</strong> consideration. When these projects are<br />
successful, a <strong>Council</strong> contribution <strong>of</strong> approximately one third <strong>of</strong> the project cost is required for<br />
State grants. Federal Blackspot projects are fully funded and do not require a contribution from<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>. A list <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>'s Blackspot submissions was considered in September 2011 and<br />
November 2011. Details are:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Boulvard/Howtree - signals review and modifications<br />
Grantham/Crosby - intersection traffic islands<br />
Gregory/Ruislip - Intersection traffic islands<br />
Howtree/Oceanic Drive/Brookdale St - traffic signal modifications<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong>/Kimberley - traffic island on North side<br />
L<strong>of</strong>tus/MacEwan - traffic island<br />
The Boulevard/Grantham Street - skid resistant treatment.<br />
The State Government provides grants for Local Government road improvement and<br />
rehabilitation funding based on a cost benefit ratio assessment. These projects may be chosen<br />
from those incorporated in the five year works program, however, they must meet a specific<br />
criteria for improvement <strong>of</strong> the street environment as well as show that they have a priority<br />
greater than those submitted by other <strong>Council</strong>s throughout the State. The road rehabilitation<br />
grants are specifically for road asphalt resurfacing and may be supported by <strong>Council</strong> funds for<br />
upgrading <strong>of</strong> kerbing and/or drainage. This will be identified in the specific submission to Main<br />
Roads WA and reports for <strong>Council</strong> consideration.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 152
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Other Capital Works Programs<br />
This program <strong>of</strong> projects is supplemented by other programs presented to <strong>Council</strong>:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Five Year Program for Footpaths<br />
Program for Road Resurfacing<br />
Laneway Upgrading Program<br />
Bicycle Path Plan Program<br />
Development <strong>of</strong> a drainage program resultant from CCTV assessment <strong>of</strong> infrastructure.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
All roads are designed to the Austroads, relevant Australian Standards and Main Roads WA<br />
guidelines. Main Roads WA signs and lines approval is required prior to proceeding to<br />
construction.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> the budgeted works in the past has been up to $700,000 per year. This<br />
level is then supplemented by grants. It is proposed that this level <strong>of</strong> funding be continued<br />
when developing this Draft program. Further, it can be reviewed depending on the level <strong>of</strong><br />
grants that <strong>Council</strong> road issues can attract and the matching contributions required. The<br />
program this year has exceeded $700,000 as strategic projects like the <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street<br />
and drainage improvements for <strong>Cambridge</strong>/Selby Street have been listed for assessment.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the <strong>Town</strong>'s strategic<br />
direction and goals, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Transport choice.<br />
Alignment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> plans with community needs.<br />
Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This project has been assessed under the community consultation policy.<br />
As this report is for information, consultation has not been undertaken. Any projects which are<br />
included in the Draft Budget will be the subject <strong>of</strong> consultation.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> reviews a five year capital works program annually. This review is submitted for<br />
<strong>Council</strong> discussion, generally in November/December each year, and then forwarded to be<br />
considered in the Budget for the following financial year. Further, the projects in the review are<br />
progressed to design to refine the Budget estimates which assist with grant applications and to<br />
enable the works to be carried out in the following financial year.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Capital Works Roadworks Priorities Program 2012/2013 to 2016/2017.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 153
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 20 December 2011<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Cr MacRae, in accordance with Section 5.65 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at<br />
8.04 pm.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed five year capital road works program for 2012/2013 to 2016/2017, as<br />
attached, be endorsed for future planning and budget preparation;<br />
the Blackspot Programs for the Draft 2012/13 budget be:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Boulvard/Howtree - signals review and modifications<br />
Grantham/Crosby - intersection traffic islands<br />
Gregory/Ruislip - Intersection traffic islands<br />
Howtree/Oceanic Drive/Brookdale St - traffic signal modifications<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong>/Kimberley - traffic island on North side<br />
L<strong>of</strong>tus/MacEwan - traffic island<br />
The Boulevard/Grantham Street - skid resistant treatment.<br />
(iii) the projects as listed on the 5 Year Program for Year 1, 2012 - 2013:-<br />
1. <strong>Cambridge</strong> St - Northwood St to Kimberley St - Street enhancement Stage 1<br />
2. <strong>Cambridge</strong> St - Kimberley St to Southport Street- Street enhancement Stage 2<br />
3. <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street / Southport intersection - relocate Telecom pit<br />
4. Lake Monger Drive - improve median width for pedestrian crossings west <strong>of</strong><br />
Northwood St and east <strong>of</strong> St Vincents Ave to Lake Monger<br />
5. <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street / Selby St - Drainage Improvements<br />
6. Empire Ave/Durston Road intersection - Construct traffic management works<br />
7. Denton Street - widen from 7.35 m to 8.0 m over 130 m to provide room for<br />
parked vehicles on both sides<br />
8. Selby Street - Grantham Street to The Boulevard – establish central brown<br />
asphalt median and/or parking nibs<br />
9. Peebles Rd / Moray Ave -Traffic Islands in Peebles Road<br />
10. Daglish Street - remove chicane between No 12 & 13. New plateaux<br />
11. Essex Street - remove chicane north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> St. New plateaux<br />
12. Oban Road - Gayton to Simon Place median and footpath<br />
13. Cromarty Road - just east <strong>of</strong> Crief. Remove central raised median<br />
14. Perry Lakes Drive / Underwood Ave Intersection - widen for left turn<br />
15. Salvado Road - Disabled pedestrian crossings at traffic signals near SJOG<br />
hospital<br />
16. Traffic Signals - disability access<br />
be included in the 2012 - 2013 draft budget submission for consideration by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>;<br />
(iv) investigation, design and grant funding application be prepared in line with the<br />
accepted five year program;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 154
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(v)<br />
the five year capital road works program be referred to the 2012/2013 Draft Budget<br />
discussions.<br />
Carried 7/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 155
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.156 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE BICYCLE PLAN 2009 - WORKS PROGRAM FOR<br />
2011/12<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the priorities and approve an implementation plan for "Blue Sky" shared path<br />
projects that will be constructed from the $500,000 "Shared Path Program" item in the 2011/12<br />
Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Blue Sky shared path projects are the larger projects in the <strong>Town</strong>'s Bicycle Plan 2009. Some <strong>of</strong><br />
these projects are straightforward and may be implemented with little planning or consultation.<br />
Other projects require more extensive planning and consultation.<br />
In September 2010, <strong>Council</strong> considered the "<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009 - 5 Year<br />
Program" (Item CR10.3) and decided:-<br />
"That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Five Year Program for the Bicycle Plan, reviewed annually with budget, be endorsed<br />
and incorporated into the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009;<br />
the funding <strong>of</strong> $500,000 listed in the 2010/11 Budget be used to carry out high priority<br />
shared paths on Brompton Road, Gregory Street, Lake Monger Drive, and Salvado Road;<br />
(iii) the plan be reviewed following preliminary design on specific Blue Sky projects as<br />
detailed in this report including a path along Brookdale Street, from Alderbury Street to<br />
Oceanic Drive, and prepared on the basis $500,000 is available in future budgets for<br />
construction and design".<br />
In February 2011, <strong>Council</strong> considered "Empire Avenue - Proposal for Shared Path Next to<br />
Wembley Golf Course" (Item CR11.2) and decided:<br />
"That the Administration prepare a report on implementing the Blue Sky Projects, including<br />
revised priorities, preliminary plans and an implementation schedule".<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The total shared path projects constructed in the previous Budget (2010/11) were:-<br />
Road Section Length<br />
m<br />
Funding<br />
$<br />
West Coast Hway Hale to Carpark C316 670 $150,000 (includes $50,000 grant)<br />
Jon Sanders Drive Harborne to Herdsman 220 $30,000 (includes $20,000 grant)<br />
Pearson Street Turriff to Cromarty 460 $50,000 (includes $25,000 grant)<br />
Hay Street Selby to Halesworth 50 $5,000<br />
Grantham Street Seymour to The Boulevard 940 $91,900<br />
Brompton Road Empire to Hale 930 $130,000<br />
Lake Monger Drive Gregory to Southport 260 $60,000<br />
Gregory Street Lake Monger to Dodd 1050 $175,000<br />
Salvado Road Haydn Bunton to Station 400 $0 project deferred - City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 156
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Lake Monger<br />
Reserve<br />
Lake Monger<br />
Reserve<br />
Legal Signing <strong>of</strong><br />
Shared Paths<br />
South sides 550 $90,000 in progress<br />
West side 550 $150,000 in progress<br />
All shared paths painted<br />
with symbols to make them<br />
legal.<br />
$20,000 (includes $10,000 grant)<br />
The shared path on Brompton Road was created by widening the existing 1.5 metre path to a 3<br />
metre width. The section between Empire Avenue and Bent Street has several narrow sections<br />
where the original 1.5 metre wide path could not be widened due to the proximity <strong>of</strong> street<br />
trees. If the trees are relocated, then the path can be made 3.0 metres wide for the entire<br />
length.<br />
The shared path on Salvado Road between Haydn Bunton Drive and Station Street was<br />
deferred due to the development <strong>of</strong> a larger shared path project on Salvado Road between<br />
Selby Street and Haydn Bunton Drive with the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco. This was reported to <strong>Council</strong> in<br />
April 2011 (Item CR11.32).<br />
Drawing "Appendix I <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Long Term Bike Plan", from the Bike Plan 2009, has<br />
been updated to show the current network <strong>of</strong> shared paths. A copy <strong>of</strong> this plan is provided as<br />
an attachment to this report. The functioning shared paths are shown in red and the paths that<br />
are proposed for construction are shown in purple. The paths that are proposed for<br />
construction may be scheduled on a 5 year program with approximately $500,000 funding per<br />
year as listed in the table below.<br />
Road Section Length Funding<br />
Comment<br />
$<br />
Year 1<br />
West Coast Helston -<br />
500 100,000 The existing alternative bike route is<br />
Highway<br />
Underpass (West)<br />
on-road on Launceston Avenue.<br />
West Coast Underpass -<br />
500 100,000 Uses underpass as a safe crossing<br />
Highway<br />
Rochdale (East)<br />
<strong>of</strong> West Coast Highway. Need<br />
approval from BGPA for access<br />
from east end <strong>of</strong> underpass up to<br />
West Coast Highway.<br />
Railway Parade Haydn Bunton -<br />
West Leederville<br />
Train Station<br />
320 60,000 Required for pedestrians as well.<br />
Requires removal <strong>of</strong> some shrubs<br />
and trees.<br />
(South)<br />
Dodd Street Harborne - End 350 70,000 Missing link and will complement<br />
Southport Street<br />
Tower - Lake<br />
Monger Drive<br />
(West)<br />
Dodd Street roadworks in 2012.<br />
100 50,000 Widen narrow sections (1.7m) and<br />
install guard-rail at traffic signals to<br />
protect path users. Requires<br />
MRWA approval.<br />
Pearson Place Turriff - Peebles 280 50,000 Missing link behind Herdsman<br />
(East)<br />
Shopping Centre.<br />
Grantham Street Selby - Seymour 220 50,000 Widen existing 1.5 m path to 3.0m.<br />
(South)<br />
Crosby Street Peebles -<br />
Grantham (East)<br />
100 20,000 Missing link between Pearson Place<br />
and Grantham Street.<br />
Underwood<br />
Avenue<br />
Meagher -<br />
Brookdale (North)<br />
350 $0 Will be constructed as part <strong>of</strong> Perry<br />
Lakes Development Stage 3.<br />
Total 500,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 157
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Year 2<br />
Brompton Road + Hale - Peasholm<br />
Drabble Road West<br />
Empire Avenue The Boulevard -<br />
Cromarty<br />
Selby Street The Boulevard -<br />
Gregory Street Grantham -<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> (East)<br />
Year 3<br />
Salvado Road<br />
Year 4<br />
Kalinda Drive<br />
640 120,000 Widen existing 1.5 m path to 3.0m.<br />
600 110,000 The existing alternative bike route is<br />
on on-road on Alyth Road<br />
580 110,000 Residents campaigned against a<br />
Grantham (West)<br />
footpath on west side in 2003.<br />
700 160,000 Requires all street trees removed<br />
and replaced to make space for a<br />
2.5 m wide path.<br />
Total 500,000<br />
Bishop - Haydn 1500 800,000 Item CR11.32 Major roadworks<br />
Bunton Drive<br />
involved. $1.6 million estimate.<br />
Shared with City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco.<br />
Total 1500 800,000<br />
Kalari - The<br />
Boulevard East<br />
970 300,000 Widen existing 1.5 m path to 3.0m.<br />
Requires retaining wall<br />
Ruislip Street Marlow - Selby 340 65,000 Petition received against this section<br />
<strong>of</strong> path in November 2010. Item<br />
CR10.41<br />
Total 365,000<br />
Year 5<br />
Empire Avenue Cromarty - Durston 1900 400,000 Item CR11.2. Deferred until this<br />
report. Retaining walls and netting<br />
required next to Wembley Golf<br />
Course.<br />
Brookdale Street Alderbury -<br />
Oceanic<br />
Total 480,000<br />
400 80,000 Widen existing shared path from<br />
2.0m to 3.0m. Cycle lanes installed.<br />
The projects in this Five Year Program have been prioritised to address the following objectives<br />
in the Bike Plan 2009:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Year 1 group indicates the projects that may funded in the 2011/12 Budget. These<br />
are straightforward projects that complete missing links in the network.<br />
The Year 2 group indicates projects that require more planning.<br />
The major Salvado Road project has been scheduled in Year 3 to allow time for planning<br />
with the view that this can be moved forward to Year 2 if possible or back to Year 4 if<br />
necessary.<br />
The Year 4 and 5 projects are expensive projects with lower priority.<br />
The principal goal <strong>of</strong> the Bike Plan is to promote confidence in the <strong>Town</strong>’s bike network<br />
and thereby encourage cycling.<br />
Bike paths link destinations (and not come from nowhere and/or go to nowhere).<br />
Where possible, the bike path network connect to the Perth Bicycle Network and<br />
adjoining <strong>Council</strong>’s cycle networks (Subiaco, Nedlands, Stirling, Perth and Vincent).<br />
Funding and construction will focus on the end to end completion <strong>of</strong> the most important<br />
routes.<br />
Initial priority will be given to the following routes:-<br />
1. Salvado Road (Selby Street to Haydn Bunton Drive)<br />
2. Railway Parade (Haydn Bunton Drive to Southport Street)<br />
3. Underwood Avenue (Brookdale Street to Nedlands boundary)<br />
4. Hay Street (Selby Street to Subiaco boundary)<br />
5. Selby Street (Herdsman Lake to Stubbs Terrace)<br />
6. Southport Street (Railway Parade to Lake Monger Drive).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 158
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
<br />
These Blue Sky projects concentrate on major north-south and east-west links through the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>. These projects are used in developing a program <strong>of</strong> works totalling<br />
$500,000 per year which would, if completed as programmed, provide immediate<br />
improvement to the existing bike network by completing existing links or providing new<br />
links.<br />
Other Blue Sky options for development, but not shown on drawing Appendix I, include:-<br />
1. Path through Bold Park between Bold Park Drive, linking to Bold Park Pool and The<br />
Boulevard.<br />
2. Path through the Wembley Golf Course connecting the main access, driving range and<br />
exiting on Empire Avenue adjacent to the Herdsman drain.<br />
3. Path along the Herdsman drain linking Empire Avenue to Pearson Street (City <strong>of</strong> Stirling).<br />
Future Planning<br />
It is proposed the "Blue Sky" Shared Path Program be reviewed again during 2012 in order to<br />
integrate with work currently being completed by the Department <strong>of</strong> Transport. The work being<br />
carried out involves development <strong>of</strong> a state Moving People Plan. This plan covers the entire<br />
metropolitan area and considers issues like:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Location and function <strong>of</strong> activity centres and provision <strong>of</strong> priority for pedestrians and<br />
transport modes.<br />
Location and function <strong>of</strong> key employment areas and how to best provide transport to them.<br />
Preferred networks for different modes <strong>of</strong> transport including pedestrians, cyclists, public<br />
transport, general traffic and freight movements.<br />
It is also noted a Draft <strong>of</strong> a new WA Bike Plan is expected to be released for public comment in<br />
January 2012.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Year 1 <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program is included in the 2011/12 Budget and has a total funding <strong>of</strong><br />
$500,000.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendations <strong>of</strong> this report supports the goals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020<br />
<strong>of</strong> providing:-<br />
- services that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with<br />
personal and community safety; and<br />
- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the<br />
improvement <strong>of</strong> Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 159
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation was carried out in the<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> the Bicycle Plan 2009 on which this 5 year program is based.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bike Plan 2009 indicates how the existing network <strong>of</strong> bicycle paths<br />
should be improved over the next five years. Appendix I - "<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Long Term Bike<br />
Plan (map)" from the Bike Plan has been updated to show the completed shared path projects<br />
that were funded in the 2010/11 Budget.<br />
The remaining shared path projects proposed in the Bike Plan 2009 are listed in this report with<br />
a revised estimate <strong>of</strong> cost and ranked in a revised five year program <strong>of</strong> works. The total value<br />
<strong>of</strong> each year's <strong>of</strong> projects is approximately $500,000 so that they may be funded by the<br />
$500,000 Shared Path Program item in future budgets.<br />
Year 1 <strong>of</strong> this program is recommended for the Shared Path Program item in the Draft 2011/12<br />
Budget.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Appendix I - <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Long Term Bike Plan (map).<br />
Committee Meeting 12 December 2011<br />
During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information on the<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> creating a shared path by widening the existing path on Dodd Street from<br />
Harborne Street to Herdsman Parade. It was noted that construction <strong>of</strong> new path sections and<br />
replacement <strong>of</strong> existing slabs is part <strong>of</strong> the proposed 2012/13 works listed in report CR11.153<br />
in the December 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Agenda.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That funding <strong>of</strong> $500,000 listed in the adopted 2011/12 Budget be used to carry out high<br />
priority shared paths on:-<br />
(i) West Coast Highway (Helston - Underpass West) - $100,000;<br />
(ii) West Coast Highway (Underpass - Rochdale East) - $100,000;<br />
(iii) Railway Parade (Haydn Bunton - West Leederville Train Station South) - $60,000;<br />
(iv) Dodd Street (Harborne - End) - $70,000;<br />
(v) Southport Street (Tower - Lake Monger Drive West) - $50,000;<br />
(vi) Pearson Place (Turriff - Peebles East) - $50,000;<br />
(vii) Grantham Street (Selby - Seymour South) - $50,000;<br />
(viii) Crosby Street (Peebles - Grantham East) - $20,000;<br />
(ix) Underwood Avenue (Meagher - Brockway North) - $Nil (Perry Lakes Stage 3).<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 160
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.157 INFRASTRUCTURE PARKS 2012/2013 PROPOSED BUDGET WORKS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To list Capital and Non-Capital projects which relate to the Infrastructure Parks service area<br />
and are proposed for inclusion in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Parks service area currently manages 474 hectares <strong>of</strong> Parks,<br />
Sportsgrounds and landscaped Road Reserves (excluding the Wembley Golf Course). To<br />
manage the various assets, facilities and landscaping components within these areas to<br />
appropriate safety and quality standards, individual asset management programmes/plans<br />
have been developed. These programmes list every asset within the Infrastructure Parks<br />
service area which are prioritised (according to their condition) and are allocated a cost<br />
estimate for budgeting purposes when they need to be upgraded or replaced.<br />
In addition, there is the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018, the Perry Lakes<br />
Reserve Environmental Management Plan 2001, the Coastal Natural Areas Management Plan<br />
2006-2010 and associated implementation programmes which guide the management and<br />
improvement <strong>of</strong> these reserves.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has previously endorsed all <strong>of</strong> these management and implementation programmes in<br />
previous <strong>Council</strong> reports. The Administration updates the programs annually to identify<br />
completed projects and proposed projects to be funded. The annual review <strong>of</strong> the programmes<br />
has been completed and a summarised version <strong>of</strong> these programmes is included in the report<br />
attachment.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Capital projects are listed in the Capital section <strong>of</strong> the Budget within the “Infrastructure - Parks<br />
and Reserves” category. Non-Capital projects are listed in the Operating section <strong>of</strong> the Budget<br />
within their designated “Grounds Maintenance” categories.<br />
Items including Capital and Non-Capital, proposed to be included in the 2012/2013 Draft<br />
Budget, have been individually identified and listed below under the various four categories in<br />
accordance with the current Budget format:-<br />
1. Parks Construction:<br />
Project<br />
Budget<br />
$<br />
Beecr<strong>of</strong>t Park – Install New Barbecue 12,000<br />
Bent Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
Birkdale Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
City Beach Civic Centre - Upgrade Garden Beds (Stage 3 <strong>of</strong> 4) 30,000<br />
Contingency Emergency Irrigation Repairs 50,000<br />
Helston Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump (Reserve Funds) 15,000<br />
Holyrood Park - Service Pump 8,000<br />
Lake Monger Reserve - Develop Bore & Service Pump 186 15,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 161
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Lake Monger Reserve - Management <strong>of</strong> Rehabilitated Zones 40,000<br />
(Includes $26,600 combined annual contribution, City <strong>of</strong> Vincent & MRWA)<br />
Lake Monger Reserve - Decorate Christmas Tree 16,000<br />
Lake Monger Reserve – Tree Planting Program in Lawn Areas 5,000<br />
Lake Monger Reserve – Aboricultural Works 20,000<br />
Lake Monger Reserve – Security Light Upgrade Program (Stage 1 <strong>of</strong> 4) 140,000<br />
Leederville Memorial Gardens - Install Up Lighting to Memorial 20,000<br />
Leederville Memorial Gardens - Resurface Carpark 45,000<br />
Maloney Park - Upgrade Garden Beds (Stage 3 <strong>of</strong> 6) 15,000<br />
Perry Lakes Reserve - Arboricultural / Tree Planting Works 25,000<br />
Perry Lakes Reserve - Remove Lake Tree Weeds 20,000<br />
Perry Lakes Reserve - Develop Bore & Service Pump 43 14,000<br />
Ruislip Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
Various Parks – Ground Water Monitoring 15,000<br />
Various Parks - Biodiversity Action Plan Rehab Works 46,500<br />
Various Parks - Install Seats/Bins/Drink Fountains 15,000<br />
Various Parks - Iron Bacteria Bore Treatment 15,000<br />
Various Parks – Replace Swings/Minor Play Items/Sand 30,000<br />
Various Parks - Upgrade Garden Beds 8,000<br />
Various Parks - Upgrade Park Signs 5,000<br />
Winmarley Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
Total: 684,500<br />
The 2011/2012 adopted Budget included a total <strong>of</strong> $1,521,600 associated with works relating to<br />
the Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program<br />
was from the following accounts:-<br />
• Municipal $ 711,000<br />
• Carry Forward $ 724,600<br />
• Reserves $ 50,000<br />
• ELA $ 10,000<br />
• Grants/Contributions $ 26,000 (City <strong>of</strong> Vincent, MRWA)<br />
$1,521,600<br />
2. Sportsgrounds Construction:<br />
Project<br />
Budget<br />
$<br />
Alderbury Sportsground - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
City Beach Oval - Develop Bore & Service Pump 35 15,000<br />
City Beach Oval North- Replace Synthetic surface to cricket wicket 5,000<br />
Floreat Oval - Develop Bore & Service Pump 11 5,000<br />
Grantham Park - Resurface Carpark 20,000<br />
Henderson Park - Replace Synthetic Surface to cricket wicket nets 5,000<br />
Pat Goodridge Park - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
Various Sportsgrounds – Best Practice Turf Management 2,500<br />
Various Sportsgrounds - Renovate Active Turf Areas 33,000<br />
Total: 115,500<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 162
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The 2011/2012 adopted Budget included a total <strong>of</strong> $235,300 associated with works relating to<br />
the Sportsgrounds Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this<br />
program was from the following accounts:-<br />
• Municipal $215,500<br />
• Carry Forward $ 19,800<br />
• Reserve Nil<br />
• Endowment Nil<br />
• Grants Nil<br />
Total: $235,300<br />
Note: This does not include works budgeted for Wembley Sports Park.<br />
3. Ocean Beaches Construction:<br />
Project<br />
Budget<br />
$<br />
Beaches and Dunes – Upgrade City Beach Groyne 420,000<br />
(Dept <strong>of</strong> Transport $210,000, Grant Application<br />
Beaches and Dunes - Upgrade Beach Access Paths 15,000<br />
Beaches and Dunes - Replace/Remove Fence (stage 2 <strong>of</strong> 4) 20,000<br />
Beaches and Dunes - Rehabilitation with <strong>Cambridge</strong> Coastcare 20,000<br />
Floreat Beach Park - Upgrade Landscaping (stage 2 <strong>of</strong> 3) 20,000<br />
Total: 495,000<br />
The City Beach Groyne Upgrade is a new project as a result <strong>of</strong> a complete assessment<br />
undertaken <strong>of</strong> its structural integrity in 2009. The upgrade <strong>of</strong> this groyne will include<br />
repositioning and repacking <strong>of</strong> existing armour rock and the placement <strong>of</strong> new armour rock to<br />
strengthen it. This includes increasing the length <strong>of</strong> the rock armour (not the groyne or the<br />
path) protecting the core eastwards by approximately 25 metres, stopping approximately 15<br />
metres short <strong>of</strong> the eastern end <strong>of</strong> the existing groyne path.<br />
The total cost <strong>of</strong> the project has been estimated at $420,000 based on 2012 prices. This<br />
amount is proposed to be made up <strong>of</strong> funds/contributions as follows:<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Transport $210,000<br />
Existing <strong>Council</strong> Funds from 2011/12 FY Nil<br />
Additional Funds requested 2012/13 FY $210,000<br />
Total: $420,000<br />
This project can be staged over two years, however, to do this the estimated cost <strong>of</strong> the total<br />
project is increased to $540,000. Preliminary discussions with the Department <strong>of</strong> Transport<br />
indicate that the project may attract 50/50 grant funding and expressions <strong>of</strong> interest applications<br />
will be invited in early 2012. For further details refer to attachment 2 <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 163
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The 2011/2012 adopted Budget included a total <strong>of</strong> $306,300 associated with works relating to<br />
the Ocean Beaches Construction and Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this<br />
program was from the following accounts:-<br />
• Municipal $152,000<br />
• Carry Forward $ 66,300<br />
• Reserve Nil<br />
• Endowment Nil<br />
• Grants $ 88,000<br />
Total: $306,300<br />
4. Road Reserves Construction:<br />
Project<br />
Budget<br />
$<br />
Brompton/Bent Roundabout - Install concrete surround 5,000<br />
Treescape Plan - Holyrood St Ficus Trees Risk Management 30,000<br />
Lake Monger Drive Median - Upgrade Entry Statement Garden 10,000<br />
Treescape Plan – Priority Streets Improvement Program 117,000<br />
Treescape Plan – Precinct Streets Planting Program 80,000<br />
Treescape Plan - Pine/Ficus/Palm Trees Management 70,000<br />
The Boulevard Median – Develop Bore & Service Pump 26 15,000<br />
Vincent St West Median - Develop Bore & Service Pump 15,000<br />
Various Road Reserves – Upgrade Garden Beds 8,000<br />
West Coast Highway Median - Upgrade Landscaping (Stage 3 <strong>of</strong> 4) 5,000<br />
Total: 355,000<br />
The 2011/2012 adopted Budget included a total <strong>of</strong> $188,000 associated with works relating to<br />
the Road Reserves Construction Program. The funding source for this program was from the<br />
following accounts:-<br />
• Municipal $110,700<br />
• Carry Forward $ 77,300<br />
• Reserve Nil<br />
• Endowment Nil<br />
• Grants Nil<br />
Total: $188,000<br />
The proper management and annual funding <strong>of</strong> the four programmes ensures the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
quality parks facilities, improvement <strong>of</strong> those facilities, compliance with appropriate safety and<br />
health requirements and is intended to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />
The projects listed within each program are proposed to be included in the 2012/2013 Draft<br />
Budget for <strong>Council</strong> consideration. This list is not a final Draft Budget list as other projects may<br />
be identified for inclusion between now and the Draft Budget submission date in 2012.<br />
It will be recommended that <strong>Council</strong> considers funding the various projects which have been<br />
listed in the above programs.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 164
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Past funding <strong>of</strong> the programs listed in this report has been supplemented from <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
Reserve Accounts, in particular, the Area Improvement Reserve and Endowment Lands<br />
Account. The continued use <strong>of</strong> funds from these accounts will be subject to the availability <strong>of</strong><br />
funds from within those reserves and the level <strong>of</strong> development works being carried out by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> in other areas <strong>of</strong> operations.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has previously been successful in securing grant funding for eligible projects. Grant<br />
applications will again be submitted as they become available for those projects considered<br />
eligible.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible;<br />
Develop and improve the <strong>Town</strong>'s main beaches and reserves;<br />
Continuously adapt and improve our services;<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations;<br />
Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The implementation <strong>of</strong> individual projects within the programs listed in this report are<br />
undertaken so as to minimise any problems with the various stakeholders <strong>of</strong> the parks and<br />
sportsgrounds where works will be undertaken. Depending on the program, sporting clubs,<br />
user groups, community groups and individual residents are included in discussions when<br />
developing works programs and construction schedules.<br />
In addition, each project is assessed using the <strong>Town</strong>’s Community Consultation Policy. This<br />
report is for information purposes and therefore an assessment in relation to this policy was not<br />
undertaken. It is <strong>Council</strong> policy to publicly advertise the content <strong>of</strong> the Draft Budget prior to<br />
adopting an annual Budget.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
Various asset management and works programs/plans are managed within the Infrastructure<br />
Parks service area. These programmes list every existing asset and proposed new assets<br />
within this service area which are prioritised and costed for budgeting purposes when they<br />
require upgrading or replacement.<br />
The proper management and funding <strong>of</strong> the above programs ensure that <strong>Council</strong>’s major<br />
assets are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis with the aim <strong>of</strong> raising the quality<br />
standard <strong>of</strong> assets throughout the <strong>Town</strong>'s parks, comply to appropriate safety and health<br />
standards, as well as meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />
Details <strong>of</strong> individual projects as categorised in the four Budget programmes <strong>of</strong> the current<br />
Budget format and listed in this report, are recommended for inclusion in the 2012/2013 Draft<br />
Budget for <strong>Council</strong> consideration.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 165
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Infrastructure Parks Asset Management Programmes Summary (Reviewed Nov. 2011)<br />
and Asset Management Programmes Overview (Reviewed Nov 2011).<br />
2. City Beach Groyne Works Scope - email from Department <strong>of</strong> Transport 29 August 2011<br />
and correspondence from Consultants MP Rogers & Associates 23 September 2009.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report on Infrastructure Parks 2012/2013 proposed Budget works programmes<br />
be received;<br />
projects identified for implementation in (i) above be considered for inclusion in<br />
the 2012/2013 Draft Budget with an estimated total <strong>of</strong> each program as follows:-<br />
Program<br />
Proposed Budget<br />
1. Parks $ 684,500<br />
2. Sportsgrounds $ 115,500<br />
3. Ocean Beaches $ 495,000<br />
4. Road Reserves $ 355,000<br />
$1,650,000<br />
(iii) grant applications be submitted as they become available for those projects<br />
considered eligible.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 166
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.158 LAKE MONGER RESERVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To provide information to <strong>Council</strong> on current lake water quality monitoring at Lake Monger<br />
Reserve, and the proposed presentation to the Lake Monger Working Group <strong>of</strong> a student's<br />
thesis, from the University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia, on nutrient cycling at Lake Monger Reserve.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018 Implementation Program lists the<br />
following proposed actions in relation to water quality:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Continue water quality monitoring and lake level management;<br />
Develop and implement a program that monitors the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the planted fringing<br />
native vegetation in minimising the nutrient input into the lake; and<br />
Investigate measures to reduce nutrients entering the lake from groundwater.<br />
To address the above actions, a Water Quality Monitoring Program was produced in March<br />
2011 with the following objectives:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Collate all water quality data and entry into an integrated environmental data assessment<br />
program;<br />
Determine whether the beneficial uses <strong>of</strong> Lake Monger and the wider reserve are being<br />
impacted; and<br />
Provide sufficient information to reliably detect seasonal trends in water quality and the<br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> management programs/strategies.<br />
A sampling workscope has been developed for the above program and will include the analysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> water samples from the lake, drains and groundwater, to be undertaken every six months,<br />
commencing in autumn <strong>of</strong> 2012 and include the presentation <strong>of</strong> an annual report to interpret the<br />
data. Over time this will provide trends in water quality.<br />
To assist with assessing the water quality in Lake Monger, assistance has been provided<br />
through the University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Jorg Imberger, Director for the Centre for Water Research at the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Western Australia, has been providing services and advice to the <strong>Town</strong> in relation to lake water<br />
quality management at Lake Monger Reserve since November 2010.<br />
The University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia has installed a measuring instrument in the middle <strong>of</strong> the<br />
lake aimed at providing the <strong>Town</strong> and other interested parties with a real-time management<br />
system online for Lake Monger, to predict its ecological health and the dispersion <strong>of</strong> effluent<br />
from stormwater drains. The <strong>Town</strong> has contributed $5,000 towards the cost <strong>of</strong> this instrument<br />
which is managed by the University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
Since July 2011, Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Imberger has assigned a student from Italy to do his thesis on<br />
nutrient cycling at Lake Monger Reserve and there is also the possibility <strong>of</strong> another PhD<br />
student doing work on pathogens at the lake. The <strong>Town</strong> has funded water quality analysis<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 167
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
costs <strong>of</strong> $9,000 which has assisted with the thesis to date. This water analysis is a<br />
programmed budget expenditure.<br />
At the request <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia, the Administrations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Vincent have given the University <strong>of</strong> Western Australia approval to<br />
install a groundwater monitoring bore at Lake Monger Reserve (<strong>Cambridge</strong>) and Britannia<br />
Road Reserve (Vincent) to assist with ongoing monitoring <strong>of</strong> lake water quality and, in<br />
particular, to understand the relationship between groundwater and lake water quality. The<br />
<strong>Town</strong> will fund the cost <strong>of</strong> the bore estimated at $5,000 and will also fund the analysis <strong>of</strong> a<br />
further two water samples in the next few weeks at a cost <strong>of</strong> $5,000. These costs are part <strong>of</strong><br />
budgeted expenditure.<br />
The student from Italy has progressed to a point where his work is near completion. Pr<strong>of</strong>essor<br />
Imberger and the student have <strong>of</strong>fered to provide a briefing on the results <strong>of</strong> the thesis to the<br />
Lake Monger Reserve Working Group. The date suggested is Thursday, 19 January 2012.<br />
This date has been chosen because the student's thesis will be complete by then.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications. Funding <strong>of</strong> $30,000 for water quality management has<br />
been included within the operating Budget <strong>of</strong> Lake Monger Reserve. Costs in relation to<br />
completed and proposed water quality management works undertaken by the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Western Australia thus far this financial year are estimated at $19,000.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible;<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations; and<br />
Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy,<br />
consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no<br />
external impacts envisaged.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 168
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report on the Lake Monger Reserve Water Quality Monitoring Program be<br />
received;<br />
a Lake Monger Reserve Working Group meeting be held on Thursday, 19 January<br />
2012 to receive the findings <strong>of</strong> a thesis undertaken by a University <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia student on nutrient cycling at Lake Monger Reserve.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 169
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.159 STATION STREET (BARRETT STREET TO CREECH LANE) - PARKING<br />
RESTRICTION AMENDMENTS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To obtain approval to modify kerbside parking restrictions on the west side <strong>of</strong> Station Street<br />
between Barrett Street and Creech Lane.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Kerbside parking restrictions have been progressively implemented in many streets within the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, in accordance with Policy No. 5.2.22. In general, this has been done to improve the<br />
safety and amenity <strong>of</strong> residents.<br />
Requests are regularly received from directly affected residents to modify the posted<br />
restrictions over short distances to address changed circumstances and requirements which<br />
would not negate the original intent <strong>of</strong> the restrictions. Minor changes at times also become<br />
necessary due to the introduction <strong>of</strong> traffic management devices.<br />
Policy No. 5.2.22 (i)(b) states that:-<br />
"Parking restrictions shall be reviewed when:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Requested by the adjacent property owner or occupier in writing;<br />
Considered necessary by the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
Requested by other persons in writing".<br />
A report on amendments to parking restrictions, at various sites, which include the proposal to<br />
vary the parking restrictions in Station Street, on the west side between Barrett Street and<br />
Creech Lane was considered by <strong>Council</strong> at its meeting held on 22 November 2011 (Report<br />
CR11.140).<br />
During discussion, Cr Langer suggested that the proposed parking restrictions in Station Street<br />
- Barrett Street to Creech Lane be referred back to the Committee to enable consultation to be<br />
undertaken with adjacent residents.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> then decided:<br />
"That the proposed parking restrictions in Station Street - Barrett Street to Creech Lane, west<br />
side, to "2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday" be referred back to the<br />
Community and Resources Committee for further consideration."<br />
DETAILS:<br />
This small section <strong>of</strong> Station Street, approximately 50 metres, has posted parking restrictions<br />
indicating "No Parking Road or Verge, Residential Permit Parking Excepted". The adjacent<br />
residence faces Barrett Street and the residents have sufficient unrestricted on-road parking for<br />
themselves and their visitors on that street. They have never requested a residential or visitors<br />
parking permit for this section <strong>of</strong> road on Station Street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 170
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The section <strong>of</strong> street from Creech Lane to <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street has parking restrictions indicating<br />
"2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday".<br />
On-street parking in this area is in high demand and requests have been received from nearby<br />
business owners for additional parking to accommodate their clients and visitors.<br />
Amending the parking restrictions in Station Street from Barrett Street to Creech Lane to "2<br />
Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday" will provide an additional four parking<br />
bays without affecting the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property and will discourage long term or all<br />
day parking by commuters or persons attending events at Subiaco Oval.<br />
The Administration advised the resident/owner <strong>of</strong> 23 Barrett Street <strong>of</strong> the proposal to amend<br />
the parking restrictions in Station Street, adjacent to the side boundary <strong>of</strong> the property by letter<br />
drop on 10 November 2011, prior to its consideration by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
A telephone response was received from the owner on 25 November 2011 indicating that they<br />
had no objection to the proposal. In further discussion, it was suggested that a minor<br />
amendment could be made to the proposal so that the parking restrictions would read "2 Hour<br />
Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday - Residential Permit Parking Excepted."<br />
It is considered that this proposed verge parking amendment would satisfy the requirements <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjacent property owner and provide medium term parking for clients <strong>of</strong> the nearby medical<br />
suites.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Amendments for parking restrictions as detailed in this report are in conformity with Policy No.<br />
5.2.22(i) - 'Implementation <strong>of</strong> Restrictions'.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> may make regulations for parking under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act<br />
1995, Schedule 9.1.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The total cost <strong>of</strong> the proposed parking amendments is estimated to be $200. This amount can<br />
be accommodated under Budget Item - 'Road Name Signs and Parking Signs'.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:-<br />
Community<br />
- Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations;<br />
- A safe community.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy as "Inform"<br />
with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist<br />
them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".<br />
The directly affected property owner/resident was advised in writing <strong>of</strong> the proposal and further<br />
consulted by telephone, prior to the submission <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 171
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Sketch Plan - Station Street, Barrett Street to Creech Lane.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That parking restrictions on the west side <strong>of</strong> Station Street between Barrett Street and<br />
Creech Lane be amended to: "2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday,<br />
Residential Permit Parking Excepted".<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 172
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.160 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 8 DECEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> meeting held on Thursday, 8<br />
December 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at<br />
least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions<br />
each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress<br />
specific initiatives. Details relating to the meetings held on 13 October and 26 October 2011<br />
were reported to <strong>Council</strong> in November 2011 (Item CR11.144).<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Item 1 - Resource Recovery Facility Update<br />
<br />
BioVision has confirmed its decision to replace both composters rather than make<br />
structural repairs. This work will be programmed for completion in early 2013.<br />
The benefit <strong>of</strong> replacement for the MRC is that it will remove all historical issues with the<br />
original failed composters and simplify future insurance processes.<br />
The facility continued to operate to desired capacity and is at the end <strong>of</strong> October 2011,<br />
ahead <strong>of</strong> contract delivery requirements.<br />
Waste diversion average over the previous 6 months is 50.9%. The target is 51.3%.<br />
<br />
The Project Advisory Group (PAG) had a vacancy for an alternate representative elected<br />
member, Cr Dot Newton (City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo) was elected as the alternate member for Cr<br />
Laura Gray (City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo). The PAG is a requirement <strong>of</strong> the RRFA (Resource<br />
Recovery Facility Agreement) whose primary function is to ensure that the MRC Project<br />
Agreements run as smoothly and as efficiently as possible, for the benefit <strong>of</strong> the parties.<br />
The Project Advisory Group's role and responsibilities are more fully detailed in Annexure<br />
C <strong>of</strong> the RRFA document.<br />
The PAG consists <strong>of</strong> three representatives appointed by the MRC, three representatives<br />
<strong>of</strong> the contractor and an independent chairperson.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s Director Infrastructure is one <strong>of</strong> the three MRC appointed representatives.<br />
Item 2 - Process Review Committee<br />
This committee has met with appointed consultants Morrison Low on 2 November 2011 and on<br />
Thursday, 24 November 2011. It is anticipated a Draft Report will be available in early 2012.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 173
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Item 3 - City <strong>of</strong> Stirling Withdrawal<br />
A progress report updated all MRC members on the progress made in relation to the facilitation<br />
and timely conclusion to the withdrawal process.<br />
In progressing this matter, appointed consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) have<br />
presented their Stage 2 report, summarising the assets and liabilities <strong>of</strong> the MRC. Two<br />
valuation scenarios have been presented valuing assets between $30.1 to $47.8 million and<br />
$29.3 to $41.3 million. The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's equity portion is 1/3 or 33.33%.<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has confirmed a "withdrawal proposal" consisting <strong>of</strong> the following elements:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Financial settlement <strong>of</strong> $11.14 million<br />
Release from the BioVision Guarantee<br />
Retention <strong>of</strong> their ownership in Tamala Park<br />
Included in the report was a position from the City <strong>of</strong> Perth. No other MRC member <strong>Council</strong><br />
has presented a comprehensive comment in relation to the valuation and financial commitment<br />
to financial settlement or release from BioVision Guarantee.<br />
Having reviewed the PWC report, the following comments are made:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> does not support the Discount Cash Flow methodology used by PWC to<br />
assess the valuation as the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> is a cost recovery business.<br />
The PWC financial model allows for a low and high scenario assuming members will pay<br />
$135 per tonne and $140 per tonne and it is considered highly unlikely that the member<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s would agree to pay the higher rate per tonne. Therefore the assumption is<br />
questionable and results in an over inflated value <strong>of</strong> the business.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the settlement request by City <strong>of</strong> Stirling <strong>of</strong> more than $11 million, the other<br />
member <strong>Council</strong>s are considering what a reasonable exit price should be and<br />
negotiations are continuing with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
It is noted the heads <strong>of</strong> agreement expired in April 2011 and the <strong>Town</strong> decided not to<br />
agree to extending the expiry period although it did agree to continue negotiations to<br />
allow City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to withdraw from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
To honour the commitment given in the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement signed by all seven MRC<br />
members on 3 August 2010, all seven member <strong>Council</strong>s are required to give the MRC direction<br />
on the terms <strong>of</strong> withdrawal. It was proposed to empower an occasional committee <strong>of</strong> MRC<br />
elected members to negotiate with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling on the terms <strong>of</strong> withdrawal. The City <strong>of</strong><br />
Stirling has authorised its Chief Executive Officer and Mayor to negotiate the final valuation with<br />
the MRC. It was emphasised that all member <strong>Council</strong>s should strive to reach agreement with<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in a timely manner, rather than risk the potential <strong>of</strong> further Supreme Court<br />
action or having the matter decided by the Minister.<br />
It has been noted, City <strong>of</strong> Stirling cannot withdraw from the BioVision Guarantee without<br />
BioVision and ANZ Bank support and both are not obliged to do so. Conversely, the other<br />
MRC members are obliged to take over all or a portion <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's guarantee.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> subsequently decided on an amended recommendation as follows:-<br />
That:-<br />
1. A Working Group comprising the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> Chairman and Chief<br />
Executive Officer, and the participant local government mayors and/or their elected<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 174
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
representatives be established to consider options for the membership, structure and the<br />
operations <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
2. The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling be requested to seek from the Hon. Minister for Local Government a<br />
further 3 months’ extension to their current withdrawal request from the Mindarie Regional<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
3. The Working Group deliberations include all options, including progressing the withdrawal<br />
<strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Item 4 - City <strong>of</strong> Stirling - Tipping Exemption Extension<br />
As City <strong>of</strong> Stirling are progressing withdrawal from the MRC, they were granted a tipping<br />
exemption from 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011. As the withdrawal process is not finalised,<br />
an exemption for a further six months until 30 June 2012 has been granted. It is noted City <strong>of</strong><br />
Stirling are still using the MRC Tamala Park landfill for minor disposal and fees are charged at<br />
the Casual or Public rate.<br />
Item 5 - New MRC Establishment Agreement<br />
This item was withdrawn from the <strong>Council</strong> meeting agenda.<br />
Item 6 - Tamala Park Lease - Market Rent Review<br />
As Tamala Park landfill facility resides on a portion (151.7Ha) <strong>of</strong> land owned by the 7 MRC<br />
members, the MRC has a lease from the owners to conduct a landfill operation. This land was<br />
initially leased for a term, 1 July 1990 to 30 June 2011, and an option for extension to 30 June<br />
2032 was given. The option to extend the lease was exercised and the lease was extended by<br />
a Deed <strong>of</strong> Variation dated 25 September 2006, from 1 June 2006 to 30 June 2032. Under this<br />
Deed <strong>of</strong> Variation, a Market Rent Review needed to be conducted every five years, with the<br />
first review due 1 June 2011. This review has now been finalised by Landgate.<br />
The current rental paid is $596,087 per annum plus outgoings plus GST. This is now amended<br />
to $623,000 and results in an increase <strong>of</strong> $26,913 per annum.<br />
This is an operational cost covered by MRC disposal fees. Member MRC owners are<br />
reimbursed this lease fee based on their relevant equity ownership.<br />
Item 7 - Meeting Dates For 2012<br />
All meetings commence at 5.30pm.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thursday, 23 February 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
Thursday, 19 April 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup<br />
Thursday, 5 July 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo<br />
Thursday, 23 August 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Vincent<br />
Thursday, 25 October 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Perth<br />
Thursday, 6 December 2012 - <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Victoria Park<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 175
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no immediate Financial Implications related to this report. The issue relating to the<br />
withdrawal <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has potential for a financial implication based upon how the MRC<br />
members agree to reimburse City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:-<br />
Delivery Services<br />
- Services meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers and residents and visitors.<br />
Environmental Leadership<br />
- Environmentally sustainable practices for <strong>Town</strong> operations<br />
- Community awareness, knowledge and action.<br />
Capacity to Deliver<br />
- Financial sustainability.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In<br />
accordance with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is purely<br />
administrative in providing information to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That the report relating to items considered by the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> at the<br />
meeting held on 8 December 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 7/0<br />
Cr MacRae returned to the meeting at 8.06 pm.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 176
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.161 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - FLOREAT SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - PURCHASE<br />
OF SIDE-BY-SIDE SURF RESCUE VEHICLE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek financial support towards the purchase <strong>of</strong> surf rescue vehicle for the Floreat Surf<br />
Lifesaving Club<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club has written to <strong>Council</strong> seeking a grant under the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
Community Grants Program towards the cost to purchase a new surf rescue vehicle. The<br />
Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club has been advised by Surf Lifesaving WA that its current surf<br />
rescue vehicle - a quad bike does not meet current safety standards and if members <strong>of</strong> the club<br />
use the vehicle they will not be covered by insurance.<br />
A new surf rescue vehicle that meets Surf lifesaving WA specifications will cost approximately<br />
$20,000.<br />
The club has over 500 members and provides a weekend beach lifeguard service at Floreat<br />
Beach from October to the end <strong>of</strong> March.<br />
The Floreat Surf Club leases the surf club building at Floreat Beach and is currently<br />
contributing approximately $21,000 to the building maintenance fund. The <strong>Town</strong> also<br />
contributes approximately $42,000 amount to the maintenance fund. This year, the two surf<br />
clubs in the <strong>Town</strong> assumed responsibility for utilities, which previously the <strong>Town</strong> had paid for.<br />
This added $12,000 to the Club's budget this year. Due to these costs not previously been<br />
made the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the Club and the lack <strong>of</strong> financial support from Surf Lifesaving WA,<br />
the Club approached the <strong>Town</strong> seeking some form <strong>of</strong> financial assistance towards the vehicle.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The new surf vehicle will be used to minimise injury and loss <strong>of</strong> life from the Floreat Groyne to<br />
the north side <strong>of</strong> the dog beach (boundary <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Stirling), approximately 4 kilometres <strong>of</strong><br />
beach. The vehicle will carry two rescue boards, defibrillator, first aid equipment and spinal<br />
board (approximately $30,000 worth <strong>of</strong> equipment).<br />
It is noted that following a report to <strong>Council</strong> in April 2011, the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club<br />
annual grant increased from $9,000 to $25,000. This increase was taken into consideration and<br />
that the Club would now be responsible for power and water and also the level <strong>of</strong> voluntary<br />
service provided to the community.<br />
Although the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club receives an annual donation from the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
$25,000, the Club advises that even a small contribution would help with the acquisition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
vehicle and take the pressure <strong>of</strong>f a tight budget. Other sources <strong>of</strong> funds, including sponsorship<br />
are being investigated.<br />
It is suggested that as there is an amount <strong>of</strong> $2,000 remaining in the Community Grant<br />
Program 2011/2012 financial year and the Club meets the criteria for funding, these funds<br />
could be allocated to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club. Furthermore, the maximum amount <strong>of</strong><br />
funds available under this program is $2000.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 177
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 2.1.15 - Community Grant Programs- the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club meet the<br />
criteria with the maximum allowed being $2,000.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There is amount <strong>of</strong> $2,000 remaining in the Community Grant Program for the 2011/2012<br />
financial year and it is suggested that these funds be provided to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving<br />
Club.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Financial assistance towards purchase <strong>of</strong> surf rescue vehicle for the Floreat Surf Lifesaving<br />
Club supports a number <strong>of</strong> key priority areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009- 2020 Strategic Plan including:<br />
<br />
<br />
Delivery Our Services; and<br />
Capacity to Deliver.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 as "Not Required".<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That an amount <strong>of</strong> $2,000 (ex GST) be provided to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club as a<br />
one-<strong>of</strong>f contribution to assist in the cost to purchase a new surf rescue vehicle.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 178
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.162 PROPOSED 'SIDS AND KIDS SUNSHINE BEACH RUN' AT CITY BEACH<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek <strong>Council</strong>'s support for the conduct <strong>of</strong> the 'Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach Run' at City<br />
Beach on Sunday 12 February 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
I Katcher Events (IKE) have written to <strong>Council</strong> seeking support for the conduct <strong>of</strong> the inaugural<br />
'Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach run' to be held at City Beach on Sunday 12 February 2012. The<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> the event is to raise funds for the WA SIDS and KIDS Association.<br />
IKE is a Perth based event Management Company specialising in the design and production <strong>of</strong><br />
corporate events.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
IKE originally approached the <strong>Town</strong> in September 2011, seeking permission to conduct the<br />
‘Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach Run’ on Sunday 5 February 2012 where the event would<br />
commence at Scarborough Beach and then conclude on City Beach and utilise City Beach<br />
Oval for a family fun day. It was envisaged that between 3,000 and 5,000 participants would be<br />
involved in the event. However, due to the possible redevelopment works <strong>of</strong> the City Beach<br />
oval pavilion, IKE was informed that City Beach Oval would not be available.<br />
After further discussions, the event organisers submitted an application for the event to run<br />
entirely at City Beach and the adjacent grass foreshore area, with the new proposed date <strong>of</strong> 12<br />
February 2012, from 8am to 12 noon. The number <strong>of</strong> participants has been scaled down to<br />
approximately 1500-2000. The event would incorporate the charity walk, again followed by a<br />
family fun day. The event is supported by the West Coast Eagles and coincides with one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
pre-season training sessions.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has met with IKE on 15 November 2011 to discuss the event application. An<br />
overview <strong>of</strong> the event is provided as an Attachment.<br />
IKE will provide a deputation at the Community and Resources Committee meeting on 12<br />
December 2011.<br />
IKE has requested a 3 year agreement with the <strong>Town</strong> to ensure the event will continue at City<br />
Beach. However, if the event is approved it is recommended that only one year is approved<br />
and a review is undertaken after the event. If the event proved to be successful, a further 2 year<br />
term could then be examined.<br />
Following the meeting with IKE and in accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Policy Number 2.1.19-<br />
Conduct <strong>of</strong> Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events, IKE has provided a<br />
Traffic Management Plan, Risk Management Plan and other statutory requirements, although<br />
more work is required in relation to the Traffic Management Plan. In addition, IKE has support<br />
from a number <strong>of</strong> stakeholders including:<br />
1. City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Lifesaving Club<br />
2. Greenrange Cricket Club<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 179
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
3. Wembley Districts Cricket Club<br />
4. Metropolitan Districts Rifle Association<br />
5. Clancy's Fish Bar<br />
6. South City Beach Kiosk; and<br />
7. Floreat beach Kiosk.<br />
The Floreat Surf Life Saving Club have not been contacted as the beach run course now heads<br />
2.5km south from the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club towards Swanbourne. Previously the course went<br />
north from the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club to the Floreat Surf Club.<br />
A letterbox drop will also be undertaken by IKE to nearby residents informing them <strong>of</strong> the event.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the event, it is proposed to have the Surf Lifesaving WA helicopter parked on the<br />
grassed area, near the Floreat Beach groyne. Surf Lifesaving WA will provide Civil Aviation<br />
Safety Authority approval to land the helicopter and necessary risk management practices will<br />
be in place.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> advantages and disadvantages are associated with the IKE event, specifically:<br />
Advantages<br />
An estimated attendance <strong>of</strong> between 1500 and 2000 people from all over the<br />
Metropolitan Area provides an opportunity to showcase City Beach;<br />
Create considerable interest with the media. This will be achieved through the West<br />
Coast Eagles supporting the event and public relations firm CPR to handle the PR for the<br />
event. It is proposed that radio, print and TV all be utilised to promote the event; and<br />
<br />
Secondary benefits to local business groups.<br />
Disadvantages<br />
The actual set-up for the event is very large, they will require access to the beach for 1<br />
day prior to the event to install infrastructure also impacting on the access by other<br />
potential clients or users <strong>of</strong> the beach;<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The timing <strong>of</strong> the event falls within the middle <strong>of</strong> summer when the beach is heavily<br />
used and parking operates close to capacity.<br />
Due to the size and nature <strong>of</strong> the event, general access to the beach will be limited (if at<br />
all available)<br />
Potential for inconvenience to local residents; and<br />
Negative publicity if there are any issues with the event<br />
The proposed ‘Sids and Kids Sunshine Beach Run’ will have advantages and disadvantages.<br />
However, if the event is well managed it could provide the <strong>Town</strong> and local residents the<br />
opportunity to experience an exciting iconic event within Perth.<br />
To ensure all the necessary responsibilities (including financial arrangements, insurance<br />
arrangements, risk management, traffic management, cleaning, security and consultation) is<br />
undertaken a formal Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Understanding (MOU) between the <strong>Town</strong> and IKE will be<br />
entered into.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 180
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
2.1.24 – Conduct <strong>of</strong> Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Hire Charges are approximately $3,000 and an appropriate bond <strong>of</strong> $5,000 will be applicable.<br />
A stall holder fee would also be applicable to each <strong>of</strong> the various display stands and vendors.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The SIDS and Kids Sunshine Beach Run supports a number <strong>of</strong> the key priority areas in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, including:<br />
<br />
<br />
Planning for our Community; and<br />
Delivery Our Services<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The IKE proposal has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy. In<br />
accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at the Inform level.<br />
It is recommended that the following community consultation methods are undertaken to<br />
include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Letter Box drop to nearby residents 14 days prior to event<br />
Written notification to those clubs and businesses in close proximity to the event<br />
Public notification at the site 14 days prior to the event<br />
Statutory compliance; and<br />
Advertisements in local newspaper.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
IKE has written to the <strong>Town</strong> requesting the approval to conduct the Sids and Kids Sunshine<br />
Beach Run at City Beach on Sunday 12 February 2012 and in 2013 and 2014. The <strong>Town</strong> has<br />
met representatives from IKE and outlined the necessary requirements for an event this size to<br />
gain the approval from <strong>Council</strong>. IKE has provided the majority <strong>of</strong> the information.<br />
It is recommended that approval is granted for the event on Sunday 12 February 2012 subject<br />
the signing <strong>of</strong> a MOU. It is recommended that before approving a similar event in 2013 and<br />
2014, an evaluation is undertaken and a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Event Overview, including site map.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 181
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Committee Meeting 12 December 2011<br />
During discussion, concern was expressed regarding the availability <strong>of</strong> parking for beach users<br />
not participating in the event. The Administration was requested to discuss parking options<br />
with the event organiser.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the SIDS and Kids Sunshine Beach Run to be held on City Beach on Sunday, 12<br />
February 2012 be approved, at a cost <strong>of</strong> $3,108 (inc GST) plus a bond <strong>of</strong> $5,000,<br />
subject to the signing <strong>of</strong> a Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Understanding between the event<br />
organiser, I Katcher Events (IKE) and the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(ii)<br />
(ii)<br />
following the conduct <strong>of</strong> the 2012 event, an evaluation be undertaken by I<br />
Katcher Events (IKE) and a further report presented to <strong>Council</strong>;<br />
subject to a satisfactory evaluation and report to <strong>Council</strong>, approval to conduct the<br />
event in 2013 and 2014 be considered.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 182
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.163 FEE REVIEW 2011 - WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review the fees applied at the Wembley Golf Course (WGC), and implement a new fee<br />
structure effective from 1 January 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The fees charged at WGC are reviewed on an annual basis as decided by <strong>Council</strong> in February<br />
1996. To allow for any price increases other golf facilities may have implemented during the<br />
previous year, the review period commences on 1 January annually.<br />
Fees at WGC are benchmarked against nine other public golf courses in the metropolitan area.<br />
Wembley has in the past increased fees where applicable to bring it in line with other courses to<br />
cover increasing maintenance and dividend costs.<br />
A schedule <strong>of</strong> fees charged at WGC and a competitive analysis is provided as Confidential<br />
Attachment 2.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The pricing policy adopted by <strong>Council</strong> in past reviews has been to increase the fees charged at<br />
WGC to be comparable with other public courses.<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> the golf courses that WGC benchmarks against have increased prices this year,<br />
reflecting the continuing increase in costs to maintain a golf facility. Increasing fuel, labour and<br />
material costs impact on the maintenance budgets <strong>of</strong> all golf courses.<br />
In 2010/2011 there was a decrease <strong>of</strong> approximately 12% in golf course patronage. This was<br />
caused by a number <strong>of</strong> factors, including, but not limited to:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Disruption from stage 1 development works. Most notably the Golf Shop not opening until<br />
September 2010 and car park works work not completed until late November 2010;<br />
Record hot weather in early 2011; and<br />
Global downturn in golf participation.<br />
However, an upside has been in relation to the Swing Driving Range. The Swing Driving Range<br />
opened in August 2011 and in its first year <strong>of</strong> operation has seen over 80,000 visits and eight<br />
million golf balls hit.<br />
An overview <strong>of</strong> the golf participation, driving range participation and income is provided as<br />
Confidential Attachment 3.<br />
A series <strong>of</strong> Tables highlighting current and proposed fees for the WGC are provided as<br />
Attachment 1.<br />
1.0 Current Fees<br />
Although competitively priced, the fees at Wembley are now at the higher <strong>of</strong> industry averages<br />
for 9 and 18 hole rounds, including concessional fees.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 183
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Taking into consideration the other current golf course fees and charges and where the<br />
Wembley Golf Course sits in the market, it is proposed to only marginally increase them in<br />
2012, effective from 1 January.<br />
The risk being that if the Wembley Golf Course significantly increases their fees and charges,<br />
patronage could decrease with golfers choosing a cheaper venue (ie. Hamersley or Collier Park.<br />
etc).<br />
Refer to Attachment 1, Table 1 for further details.<br />
A further report will be presented to <strong>Council</strong> outlining a number <strong>of</strong> other alterative pricing models<br />
based around yield management and potential memberships. It is noted that the WGC already<br />
provide memberships (driving range) and internet booking deposits (golf course).<br />
Concession fees apply as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Pensioners/Seniors concession applicable weekdays only excluding public holidays. Valid<br />
for those holding State Government <strong>of</strong> WA, or Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Australia senior or<br />
pension cards.<br />
School Student concession available weekdays on either course after 10am, and<br />
weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am.<br />
1.2 Driving Range<br />
The ball rate is charged within a specific time period, broken down into three times as approved<br />
by <strong>Council</strong> in May 2009<br />
Off Peak<br />
Monday to Friday from 6am to 5pm, 8pm to close<br />
Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 6pm to close<br />
Peak<br />
<br />
<br />
Monday to Friday from 5pm to 6pm<br />
Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – opening to 10am, 2pm to 6pm<br />
Premium<br />
Monday to Friday from 6pm to 8pm<br />
Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 10am to 2pm<br />
After a year <strong>of</strong> operation the timing for each <strong>of</strong> the pricing periods has been well received. There<br />
is, however, an opportunity to <strong>of</strong>fer a new weekday price for early morning range customers,<br />
which at present is a quieter time.<br />
The new rate will be from opening to 10am, Monday to Friday with a recommended price per<br />
ball <strong>of</strong> 15 cents. This rate will give customers an opportunity to access very competitive ball<br />
rates.<br />
For the existing ball rates, it is recommended that a small increase <strong>of</strong> one cent per ball be<br />
implemented from 1 January 2012.<br />
This will <strong>of</strong>fset some <strong>of</strong> the costs incurred in regards to maintenance <strong>of</strong> a large driving range.<br />
Further details are provided in Table 2, Attachment 1.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 184
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
1.3. Range Membership<br />
The membership model was approved by <strong>Council</strong> in May 2010 (GC10.34)<br />
The model recommended provides entry points for all levels, with additional ball value and other<br />
features included.<br />
The range memberships have been well received apart from the Corporate Packages.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Corporate ($5,500 inc GST) – 25% added value<br />
Platinum ($2,200 inc GST) – 20% added value<br />
Gold ($1,100 inc GST) – 17.5% added value<br />
Silver ($550 inc GST) – 15% added value<br />
Bronze ($110 inc GST) – 10% added value<br />
It is recommended that the membership fee structure for the Swing Driving Range remains as<br />
is.<br />
1.4 Teaching<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> new fees were added in November 2010 in response to the opening <strong>of</strong> the Swing<br />
Learning Centre. Some <strong>of</strong> the old teaching pricing and structures have been deleted from the<br />
fee structure where it was found to be not applicable. New fees have been added to cover the<br />
new technology options and provide for greater customer choice.<br />
An overview <strong>of</strong> the current and proposed teaching fees is provided as Table 3, Attachment 1.<br />
1.5 Electric Golf Cart Hire<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> golf cart prices at other public facilities is provided as Table 4, Attachment 1. It is<br />
important to note that WGC is one <strong>of</strong> only two public facilities that <strong>of</strong>fers reduced fees for<br />
concession card holders.<br />
It is recommended that all electric cart hire be increased by $1 on nine and eighteen holes in<br />
response to increasing electricity tariffs. Concession rates remain as is.<br />
1.6 Hire Clubs<br />
Hire Club fees were reviewed in November 2010, with new fees set for Junior and Premium<br />
brands.<br />
Though the <strong>Town</strong> invested in new equipment and continues to upgrade hire equipment, it is<br />
recommended that these fees remain as is. All hire sets include a manual pull buggy as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the price.<br />
To remove some <strong>of</strong> the confusion in regards to choices, it is proposed that full sets be <strong>of</strong>fered to<br />
all customers, with the fee payable varying for 9 or 18 holes.<br />
Further details are provided in Table 5, Attachment 1.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 185
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
1.7 Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee)<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has a policy concerning the administration <strong>of</strong> private motorised golf carts. Licensees<br />
are required to obtain an extension under their home contents public liability cover to the value<br />
<strong>of</strong> $5 million, and this does not present a problem.<br />
The administration fee <strong>of</strong> $44.00 covers the cost to administer the licensing procedures, and<br />
ensure the appropriate licence and relevant conditions are met. This is now a requirement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> to manage and it is recommended that the fee remain.<br />
Further details are provided in Table 5, Attachment 1.<br />
1.8 Swing View Function Room<br />
<strong>Council</strong> approved in May 2010 (GC10.34) fees for the new Swing View Function Room. The<br />
fees were set at very competitive rates to attract customers to the new facility.<br />
In consultation with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Hospitality Contractor, Spices Catering, it is recommended that<br />
fees be increased to reflect the level <strong>of</strong> investment and uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the facility. The charges<br />
remain competitive with other facilities within area, particularly as the room comes fully<br />
equipped with all AV equipment.<br />
An overview <strong>of</strong> the current and proposed function room fire charges is provided in Table 6,<br />
Attachment 1.<br />
2.0 New Fees<br />
2.1 Value Add Packages<br />
Four packages have been developed providing a bundle <strong>of</strong> discounted products across multiple<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> operation at WGC.<br />
This provides an incentive to customers to commit to a significant one <strong>of</strong>f purchase, and gives<br />
them an opportunity to use areas <strong>of</strong> WGC that they may not have traditionally been a patron <strong>of</strong>f<br />
(Teaching, range etc)<br />
Each package has two different price points to allow customers access at a pricing point that<br />
matches the budget.<br />
TABLE 1:<br />
PROPOSED VALUE ADD PACKAGES<br />
Cost Value Difference Discount<br />
Golf Plus $1,399 $1,865 $466 25%<br />
Golf Plus Lite $699 $928 $229 24.7%<br />
Practice Plus $1,399 $1,860 $461 24.8%<br />
Practice Plus Lite $699 $880 $181 20.5%<br />
Range Plus $1,399 $1,822 $423 23.2%<br />
Range Plus Lite $699 $936 $237 25.3%<br />
Lesson Plus $899 $1,120 $221 19.7%<br />
Lesson Plus Lite $599 $710 $111 15.6%<br />
Each package has a main product <strong>of</strong>fering with secondary benefits.<br />
Golf Plus – 26 rounds <strong>of</strong> golf with cart<br />
Practice Plus – 12 golf lessons and range balls<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 186
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Range Plus – range balls<br />
Lesson Plus – golf lessons only<br />
TABLE 2:<br />
DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS<br />
Golf Rounds Carts Lessons Range Balls Golf Shop<br />
Golf Plus 26 13 5 $110 $50<br />
Golf Plus Lite 12 6 2 $110 $50<br />
Practice Plus 10 5 12 $550 $50<br />
Practice Plus Lite 6 2 12 $220 $50<br />
Range Plus 8 4 4 $1100 $50<br />
Range Plus Lite 4 2 2 $550 $50<br />
Lesson Plus 0 0 15 $220 0<br />
Lesson Plus Lite 0 0 10 $110 0<br />
Flexibility in Fee Structure<br />
Any concession requires the approval <strong>of</strong> the Chief Executive Officer or delegated <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 6.16 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for <strong>Council</strong> to levy fees<br />
and charges for the provision <strong>of</strong> goods and services. <strong>Council</strong>’s decision to levy a fee or charge<br />
must be made by an absolute majority.<br />
According to section 6.19 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, if the <strong>Council</strong> proposes to impose<br />
any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the <strong>Council</strong> is to give local<br />
public notice <strong>of</strong> its intention to do so and advise the effective date <strong>of</strong> change.<br />
Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, <strong>Council</strong> and golf course<br />
website and noticeboards.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The setting <strong>of</strong> fees will have a direct impact on the amount <strong>of</strong> revenue generated at the WGC.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The proposed review <strong>of</strong> fees and charges supports a number <strong>of</strong> the Priority Areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:<br />
<br />
<br />
Delivery <strong>of</strong> our services, and;<br />
Capacity to Delivery.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy Number 1.2.11, community consultation is not required.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 187
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The Wembley Golf Course fees and charges are at the top end <strong>of</strong> the metropolitan public golf<br />
course pricing and it is therefore proposed to introduce marginal increases from 1 January<br />
2012.<br />
A further report will be presented <strong>Council</strong> in April 2012 outlining a number <strong>of</strong> different<br />
alternative pricing models.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Table 1: Current and Proposed Green Fees<br />
Table 2: Current and Proposed Swing Driving Range Fees<br />
Table 3: Current and Proposed Teaching Fees<br />
Table 4: Current and Proposed Golf Cart Fees<br />
Table 5: Current and Proposed Hire Club Fees<br />
Table 6: Current and Proposed Swing View Function Fees<br />
2. Competitive Analysis, including Golf Fees, Hire Equipment and Driving Range<br />
(CONFIDENTIAL)<br />
3. Overview <strong>of</strong> Golf, Driving Range Participation and Income (CONFIDENTIAL)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the following fees and charges (inclusive <strong>of</strong> GST) at Wembley Golf Course effective<br />
from 1 January 2012 be adopted by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-<br />
GREEN FEES<br />
9 Holes $19.50<br />
9 Holes Weekend $22.50<br />
9 Holes Concession $15.00<br />
18 Holes $28.00<br />
18 Holes Weekend $34.50<br />
18 Holes Concession $22.00<br />
Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekday $24.00<br />
Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekday $16.50<br />
Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekend $30.00<br />
Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekend $20.00<br />
Twilight Golf $10.50<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes $38.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes $52.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes (with electric golf cart) $52.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes (with electric golf cart) $72.00<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 188
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Concession Fees apply as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Pensioners/Seniors Concession applicable weekdays only, excluding public<br />
holidays;<br />
School Student Concession available weekdays on either course after 10am<br />
and weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am;<br />
DRIVING RANGE<br />
Early Bird – per ball $0.15<br />
Off Peak - per ball $0.17<br />
Peak- per ball $0.19<br />
Premium - per ball $0.21<br />
DRIVING RANGE MEMBERSHIPS<br />
Corporate (includes 25% added value) $5,500<br />
Platinum (includes 20% added value) $2,200<br />
Gold (includes 17.5% added value) $1,100<br />
Silver (includes 15% added value) $550<br />
Bronze (includes 10% added value) $110<br />
ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS<br />
Electric Golf Cart – 18 Holes $42<br />
Electric Golf Cart – 9 Holes $30<br />
Electric Golf Cart - Concession 18 holes $31<br />
Electric Golf Carts - Concession 9 holes $21<br />
Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee) $44<br />
HIRE CLUBS<br />
Clubs – 18 Holes $30<br />
Clubs – 9 Holes $16<br />
Clubs – Junior $15<br />
Premium Brand $45<br />
Range Club $4<br />
Manual Golf Cart $5<br />
TEACHING<br />
Individual Lessons<br />
30 minute Lesson $60<br />
60 minute Lesson $110<br />
Individual Video Analysis/Launch Monitor<br />
60 minutes – Video Only $110<br />
60 minutes – Video and DVD Copy $140<br />
Packages<br />
30 minutes $300<br />
30 minutes – 2 people $350<br />
60 minutes $550<br />
60 minutes – 2 people $550<br />
Video Analysis/Launch Monitor Package $550<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 189
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Virtual Golf (per hour) $130<br />
Putting<br />
30 minutes $60<br />
60 minutes $110<br />
On Course Lessons<br />
60 minutes $120<br />
120 minutes $240<br />
Junior Lessons (under 18)<br />
30 minutes $50<br />
60 minutes $90<br />
Package $250<br />
Adult Clinics<br />
Level 1 – 60 minutes $130<br />
Level 2 – 60 minutes $120<br />
Level 3 – 60 minutes $120<br />
Level 4 - 60 minutes<br />
Ladies Clinic<br />
$120<br />
$140<br />
Short Game Clinic<br />
Level 1 – 60 minutes $88<br />
Specialty Clinics<br />
Driver – 60 minutes $20<br />
Bunker – 60 minutes $20<br />
Putting – 60 minutes $20<br />
Junior Clinics<br />
Junior Holiday – Level 1 $95<br />
Junior Holiday – Level 2 $95<br />
Junior Term – Level 1 $110<br />
Junior Term – Level2 $110<br />
Come and Try<br />
Junior Academy<br />
Junior Clinic – single session<br />
Junior Holiday – single day<br />
$10<br />
$170<br />
$15<br />
$32<br />
Schools<br />
Per Hour $132<br />
Corporate (60 minutes) $132<br />
Fitting Prices<br />
Driver – 45 minutes $50<br />
Driver and Ball – 60 minutes $75<br />
Ball Fit – 25 minutes $25<br />
Fairway/Hybrid – 30 minutes $50<br />
Irons – 60 minutes $70<br />
Wedges – 30 minutes $50<br />
Putter – 30 minutes $50<br />
Distance/Gap – 30 minutes $50<br />
Full Set – 120 minutes $150<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 190
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
FUNCTION ROOM (SWING VIEW)<br />
Room Hire – Per Day<br />
Room Hire – Per Half Day (maximum 4 hours)<br />
$400<br />
$250<br />
Room Hire – Per Hour (minimum 2 hours) $100<br />
Discount Room Hire – registered charitable<br />
30%<br />
organisations & community/sporting groups<br />
within the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Exclusive Driving Range Bay Use (5 bays per<br />
$200<br />
hour)<br />
VALUE ADD PACKAGES<br />
Golf Plus $1,399<br />
Golf Plus Lite $699<br />
Practice Plus $1,399<br />
Practice Plus Lite $699<br />
Range Plus $1,399<br />
Range Plus Lite $699<br />
Lesson Plus $899<br />
Lesson Plus Lite $599<br />
(ii)<br />
the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to<br />
amend the fee schedule for the Wembley Golf Course to undertake promotional<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers, charity events and other concessional rates in accordance with Section 6.12<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995;<br />
(iii) the intention to impose the above charges at the Wembley Golf Course and the<br />
effective date be advertised in accordance with Section 6.19 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995.<br />
(iv) a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong> in April 2012 in relation to other possible<br />
pricing models for the Wembley Golf Course<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 191
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.164 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WEMBLEY<br />
GOLF COURSE HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT - TENDER T37-11<br />
HOSPITALITY LEASING SPECIALIST<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To select a preferred Hospitality Leasing Specialist for both the Surf Club Building and<br />
Commercial Facilities Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development<br />
projects.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Expressions <strong>of</strong> Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from firms to provide advice for the<br />
hospitality development proposed for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities<br />
Development at City Beach and Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course.<br />
Due to the relatively small number <strong>of</strong> suppliers, it was decided to appoint one consultant for<br />
both projects, however, costs will be tracked against each project individually.<br />
Only one <strong>of</strong> the select tenders submitted a formal tender. The tender <strong>of</strong>fer could not be<br />
reconciled with the scope <strong>of</strong> works required in the specification. Further interviews with the<br />
single tenderer resulted in a small reduction in the tender price, but it was still far short <strong>of</strong> the<br />
value for money expectations. It was deemed not suitable.<br />
The Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations provides that Tenders need not<br />
be publicly invited within a 6 month period <strong>of</strong> last calling for tenders and no suitable tenderer<br />
was contracted (Regulation 11 (2) (c) (i) refers).<br />
Subsequent to the tender being rejected, two other potential suppliers have been drawn to the<br />
attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> who appear to have the capability to undertake the work to the desired<br />
standard. A select tender was sought from these suppliers as well as the original single<br />
tenderer based on a more refined scope <strong>of</strong> work. One potential supplier decided not to submit a<br />
tender, leaving two tenders to assess.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Basis <strong>of</strong> Works<br />
Each project is anticipated to have two distinct phases - the first being development <strong>of</strong> a<br />
business case which determines the scale <strong>of</strong> the project and then the second phase being the<br />
detail design and construction <strong>of</strong> the works. The second phase <strong>of</strong> the project is dependent on<br />
the business case developed and <strong>Council</strong> decision to proceed.<br />
The tender is structured such that pricing is certain for both phases <strong>of</strong> work, however, the <strong>Town</strong><br />
is not bound to commit to the second phase <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />
Tender Submissions<br />
The selection <strong>of</strong> the Hospitality Leasing Specialist for this project is largely based on an<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> their hospitality experience, ability to develop robust business case models,<br />
industry contacts and/or experience in securing operators and ability to work within the team to<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 192
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
be set up for this project. Price was considered in terms <strong>of</strong> value for money outcomes rather<br />
than as the sole determinant for selection.<br />
It is important to emphasise that approval to construct either project will largely be shaped by<br />
the business case developed which in turn is shaped by the ability <strong>of</strong> the consultant to<br />
accurately forecast a mix and size <strong>of</strong> commercial facilities that will meet financial return<br />
expectations. The Hospitality Leasing Specialist will work with the appointed architects to<br />
ensure that the concept planning <strong>of</strong> the facilities meet operator needs but are also cost effective<br />
to meet the business case. Assessment <strong>of</strong> each tender against these objectives was important.<br />
Tender Evaluation<br />
The tenders were assessed firstly on a compliance basis (for conformance to tender conditions<br />
and tender requirements), then a qualitative and finally a quantitative assessment basis.<br />
Confidential Attachment 1 details the assessment panel report.<br />
Herron Todd White was ranked the highest on the qualitative assessment process and their fee<br />
submission was suitable in terms <strong>of</strong> the quantitative process.<br />
It is to be noted that it is proposed to engage Herron Todd White to undertake the necessary<br />
research to support development <strong>of</strong> the Business Case for the Surf project (at a cost <strong>of</strong><br />
$60,000) and the Golf project (at a cost <strong>of</strong> $50,000). A decision to commit Herron Todd White<br />
to the full project will depend on a future <strong>Council</strong> decision to approve the Business Case and<br />
commit to either or both projects. The anticipated cost <strong>of</strong> this consultancy, if both projects<br />
proceeded, would in the order <strong>of</strong> $ 330,000.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy Implications related to this report. Select tenders were undertaken in line<br />
with Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course site supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-<br />
2020 Strategic Plan. It is within the actions supporting our strategy 4.3.3 to "Increase the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s self-generating funding and decrease the reliance on external funding sources" which is<br />
part <strong>of</strong> Action 4.3 Financial Sustainability in Outcome 4 Capacity to Deliver.<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Surf Club site supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic<br />
Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Delivering Our Services. It is an action in response to our strategy <strong>of</strong> maintaining<br />
quality community and civic buildings.<br />
The projects, once completed, also contribute to other Strategic Outcomes notably:<br />
Planning for Our Community<br />
Delivering Our Services<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix as suitable for the<br />
Community to be informed, on the basis that it will provide the public with balanced and<br />
objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solution.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 193
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Assessment Report (Confidential)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That Tender T37-11 - Hospitality Leasing Specialist services be awarded to Herron Todd<br />
White at an indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $330,000.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 194
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.165 HERDSMAN MAIN DRAIN STORMWATER - POTENTIAL REUSE PROJECT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> findings from an initial study regarding the potential reuse <strong>of</strong> stormwater<br />
that flows in the Herdsman Main Drain to ocean outfall.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Herdsman Main Drain (HMD) takes stormwater (as well as some expressed ground water) from<br />
Herdsman Lake catchment to an ocean outfall near Floreat beach.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, at the February 2011, determined that an investigation be undertaken regarding the<br />
potential to reuse this water rather than allow it to flow into the ocean. GHD consultants were<br />
appointed to undertake an investigation on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Existing Drain<br />
HMD takes stormwater that flows into Herdsman Lake (along with any expressed ground water<br />
that raises the Lake level), along with downstream stormwater catchments and transports this<br />
water to an ocean outfall near Floreat Beach.<br />
Measurements between 1993 and 1999 indicated that 8.7 to 10.4 GL pa flowed into the ocean.<br />
The seasonal variances showed an average summer flow <strong>of</strong> 13.3 ML per day and an average<br />
winter flow <strong>of</strong> 47.1 ML per day.<br />
By way <strong>of</strong> comparison, the Perry Lakes Aquifer Replenishment project may have seen 5 ML<br />
per day <strong>of</strong> treated waste water being saved from ocean outfall.<br />
The existing drain is an open drain to the point closest to Wembley Golf Course at Newman<br />
College at which point it becomes a closed tunnel to the ocean outfall. Refer to picture<br />
attached.<br />
Previous Study<br />
Previous engineering advice in April 2010 demonstrated to the <strong>Town</strong> the feasibility <strong>of</strong> diverting<br />
stormwater from HMD into Wembley Golf Course under gravity pressure rather than the<br />
expense <strong>of</strong> a pumping system.<br />
The study did not determine what could be done with the water once inside Wembley Golf<br />
Course.<br />
Recent Study<br />
A recent study was commissioned to determine:<br />
Potential uses and benefits <strong>of</strong> stormwater harvested from HMD<br />
Likely capital and operating costs <strong>of</strong> preferred options<br />
Level 1 Introductory Risk Assessment <strong>of</strong> most preferred option<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 195
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
This study has been completed and is subject <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
Outcomes<br />
The study found that the following uses <strong>of</strong> the stormwater were feasible:<br />
Create an infiltration basin to allow gravity fed water to replenish the aquifer<br />
Create one or several injection bores to pump water into the aquifer<br />
Pump the stormwater to the main dam on Wembley Golf Course as an <strong>of</strong>fset to some<br />
bore usage<br />
Harvest the water and pump it into feature lakes near several key holes on Wembley<br />
Golf Course<br />
The benefits, depending on the scheme chose, were:<br />
Replenish the aquifer with more water than the <strong>Town</strong> currently extracts for all <strong>of</strong> its<br />
irrigation. The State would be less likely to reduce any future licensing volumes upon<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> in a drying climate whilst our irrigation standards can be maintained<br />
Develop a wetlands feature which would add interest to any potential walking trail<br />
through Wembley Golf Course<br />
Produce feature lakes with potential interest and thus attraction for Wembley Golf<br />
Course. It would be difficult to see how this would translate into increased revenue<br />
Recycle water that would normally go to ocean outfall<br />
It was evident that the most important issue was that by recharging the aquifer with more water<br />
than the <strong>Town</strong> currently takes, we are contributing positively to the overall water balance. In a<br />
drying climate, this matter will be <strong>of</strong> significant benefit to the <strong>Town</strong> in negotiations to maintain<br />
existing licences to extract bore water for irrigation, not only in Wembley Golf Course but for all<br />
<strong>Town</strong> areas.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Water has not yet reviewed the allocation <strong>of</strong> ground water abstraction for<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> hence undertaking this work now is pre-emptive.<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> preferring a gravity fed solution over pumped solutions was to minimise operating<br />
costs.<br />
Most Preferred Option<br />
The most preferred option was to divert stormwater from HMD via gravity into a 10,000 m 2<br />
infiltration basin at Wembley Golf Course and infiltrate ~ 2GL pa <strong>of</strong> water into the aquifer.<br />
This option had the lowest capital costs (~ $960,000) and lowest operational costs ($125,000<br />
pa). All other solutions required the use <strong>of</strong> pumps, which significantly increase the operating<br />
costs.<br />
Attachment 1 details an indicative plan <strong>of</strong> this option.<br />
It is important to note that this option only sees about 20% <strong>of</strong> HMD water being reclaimed, as<br />
volumes above this amount may not be able to be infiltrated into the aquifer successfully<br />
without parts <strong>of</strong> Wembley Golf Course becoming inundated through surface expression <strong>of</strong><br />
groundwater (ie flooding) and the necessary changes to HMD to create sufficient pressure<br />
would be problematic.<br />
Risk Assessment<br />
A Stage 1 entry level risk assessment was undertaken for the project. Attachment 2<br />
summarises the risk issues.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 196
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Of greatest concern is that regulatory approval for the project will need firm data confirming<br />
water quality <strong>of</strong> the stormwater is better than the aquifer. If this is not proven then water<br />
treatment (at significant costs) will be necessary. Sampling to date is not sufficiently robust to<br />
make the risk free assumption that the HMD water quality can be left untreated prior to<br />
infiltration to the aquifer. A significant cost risk is thus left unanswered.<br />
The second main issue is that further hydro geological analysis is necessary to properly model<br />
the ground conditions to ensure sufficient understanding is made <strong>of</strong> water infiltration and<br />
impacts on Water Corporation's drain asset and Wembley Golf Course ground water.<br />
The risk assessment leads to the conclusion that there is insufficient certainty at this stage to<br />
identify the likely capital and operating budgets for the project.<br />
Grant Funding<br />
The Commonwealth Government recently closed submissions for Round 3 funding <strong>of</strong><br />
Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse grants. The <strong>Town</strong> may have been in a position to submit an<br />
application for partial funding (up to 50%) <strong>of</strong> this project however with the degree <strong>of</strong> uncertainty<br />
regarding costs and no <strong>Council</strong> decision to proceed; it was decided not to submit an<br />
application.<br />
If a decision is made to continue with this project, funding sources will be explored.<br />
Perry Lakes<br />
The consultant also provided some advice as to the feasibility <strong>of</strong> harvesting stormwater from<br />
HMD and diverting it to Perry Lakes. The initial advice is that the system would need to pump<br />
water from the drain, into new pressure pipes and into the lakes. The capital cost would be in<br />
the order <strong>of</strong> $4.5 million with significant operating costs for electricity to run the pumping<br />
process. This issue has not been pursued further.<br />
Necessary Works to Reduce Risks<br />
If a decision was made to continue with this project, the following actions need to be<br />
undertaken to better quantify the project capital, operating costs and general risk:<br />
Measure water quality in both the local aquifer and HMD over the same time frame for a<br />
nominal 12 month period<br />
Measure water flow in HMD over a nominal 12 month period to confirm data that is 10<br />
years old<br />
Undertake assessment <strong>of</strong> vegetation and environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> the infiltration basin<br />
Complete hydro geological modelling to greater degree <strong>of</strong> certainty<br />
Review budgets based on the outcomes <strong>of</strong> investigations<br />
It is estimated that the costs <strong>of</strong> these investigative works would be in the order <strong>of</strong> $150,000.<br />
Why should <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Invest in this Project?<br />
Irrigation Supply<br />
Currently, there is no charge levied for bore water licensed to the <strong>Town</strong> for irrigation. The <strong>Town</strong><br />
has a licence for irrigation suffice for current needs (assuming the <strong>Town</strong> continues its program<br />
<strong>of</strong> water friendly plantings). If, in a drying climate, circumstances change and the State<br />
implements significant restrictions to irrigation supply, this project may present itself as a better<br />
financial outcome for the <strong>Town</strong> to continue irrigation <strong>of</strong> its golf course, parks and gardens.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 197
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Wembley Golf Course Amenity<br />
Sub options <strong>of</strong> this project may include pumping some <strong>of</strong> the harvested stormwater to create<br />
feature lakes inside Wembley Golf Course. This would add to the visual amenity <strong>of</strong> Wembley<br />
Golf Course but it is difficult to justify the expense in terms <strong>of</strong> additional golfing revenue.<br />
Walking Trail Amenity<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is considering extensions to the Western Bushland and Lakeland Regional Trails,<br />
inclusive <strong>of</strong> a trail inside Wembley Golf Course at the proposed site <strong>of</strong> the infiltration basin. This<br />
project would add to the visual beauty <strong>of</strong> the trail.<br />
Environmental Benefits<br />
The project sees approximately 20% <strong>of</strong> the HMD stormwater that would normally go to ocean<br />
outfall being reclaimed and infiltrated into the groundwater table. This outcome is considered an<br />
environmental benefit and better improves the overall water balance in urban areas. The<br />
question before <strong>Council</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> who is most responsible to implement this issue?<br />
It is also noted that the project will require about 10,000 m 2 <strong>of</strong> vegetation to be removed. Whilst<br />
it is understood that the area is not a conservation zone nominated by Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Environment (ie no threatened species <strong>of</strong> flora or fauna); clearing <strong>of</strong> trees will make way for<br />
water savings. Further analysis may be warranted to address this issue.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for reuse <strong>of</strong> Herdsman Main Drain water supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020<br />
Strategic Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Environmental Leadership through the action <strong>of</strong> "Reducing our water<br />
consumption and improving the quality <strong>of</strong> ground and surface water, essential to our lake,<br />
wetlands and coastal environments"<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing Community Consultation Matrix, this report would<br />
require the <strong>Town</strong> to inform the community in an appropriate manner. Inclusion within the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> minutes is deemed appropriate at this time.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
1. Herdsman Main Drain delivers a significant amount <strong>of</strong> stormwater, mixed with<br />
groundwater, to ocean outfall.<br />
2. It is technically feasible to reclaim about 20% <strong>of</strong> this outfall by way <strong>of</strong> a gravity fed system<br />
to an infiltration basin within Wembley Golf Course. This amount <strong>of</strong> water would more<br />
than <strong>of</strong>fset the current volume taken by the <strong>Town</strong> from groundwater.<br />
3. Capital costs <strong>of</strong> ~ $960,000 and annual operating costs <strong>of</strong> ~ $125,000 would be<br />
envisaged for this outcome.<br />
4. The need to undertake this project now is not immediately apparent.<br />
5. Further investigations are necessary to quantify and mitigate some risks. Funding in the<br />
<strong>of</strong> $150,000 would be necessary.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 198
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Indicative Site Plan<br />
2. Risk Assessment<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Herdsman Main Drain study for the reuse <strong>of</strong> stormwater/groundwater be noted;<br />
further investigative works to assess project feasibility at a cost <strong>of</strong> $150,000 not be<br />
undertaken until an external grant is sourced to fund these investigations.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 199
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.166 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK - INTEGRATED ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND PARKING<br />
STUDY OUTCOMES<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the progress <strong>of</strong> the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study as it<br />
relates to the approved Master Plan for Wembley Sports Park and to seek further public<br />
comment on the Study.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
At the June 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Meeting, <strong>Council</strong> endorsed the Wembley Sports Park Master Plan<br />
subject to (inter alia):<br />
"the Master Plan be amended as necessary to incorporate changes required as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
traffic and parking study, including stakeholder consultation"<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> the approved master plan is attached for reference.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Traffic Study<br />
The State Government, as part <strong>of</strong> planning for the State Netball Centre, was required to<br />
undertake a traffic and parking study as part <strong>of</strong> its planning approvals process. It was sensible<br />
to work with the State Government to modify the scope <strong>of</strong> the study to meet the overall<br />
objectives <strong>of</strong> the master plan for Wembley Sports Park. Costs for the study are being shared<br />
between <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and State Government.<br />
Aecom, recognised traffic and access consultants, were appointed by the State to undertake<br />
this study.<br />
The aim <strong>of</strong> the study was to model demand for access to Wembley Sports Park over its various<br />
operating modes (winter / summer) and sports activities and to determine optimum facilities for<br />
access to the Park, parking and road layouts.<br />
The Study was suspended for a period <strong>of</strong> time whilst the <strong>Town</strong> and State were resolving the<br />
issues pertaining to cost responsibility for works at Wembley Sports Park. As this matter has<br />
almost been resolved, the Study can now be concluded.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has been advised that the Study report is close to completion at the time <strong>of</strong> writing<br />
this report. If it is available it will be distributed to <strong>Council</strong> prior to meeting.<br />
Consultation<br />
Aecom consulted with <strong>of</strong>ficers from the Western Australian Planning Commission to determine<br />
their likely views <strong>of</strong> the draft outcomes being developed during the study period. The main<br />
outcomes <strong>of</strong> this consultation were:<br />
WAPC support the intent for greater use <strong>of</strong> public transport and pedestrian access to<br />
Wembley Sports Park to partially <strong>of</strong>fset growth in vehicular parking demand.<br />
WAPC do not see any rationale for car parking capacity within Wembley Sports Park to<br />
meet 100% <strong>of</strong> the peak demand for car parking space.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 200
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Public consultation was by way <strong>of</strong> two open forums, held in July and August 2011, facilitated by<br />
the State and <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>. Attendees were generally seeking clarification <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong><br />
the assumptions made in the traffic study as well as to share particular matters <strong>of</strong> concern.<br />
Major improvements to the study report stemming from these forums include:<br />
Refinement <strong>of</strong> the proposed signalised intersection to reduce impacts on Alderbury Street<br />
resident verges<br />
Acknowledgement that current netball and football playing schedules will change over<br />
time, and how these changes need to be recognised in parking arrangements.<br />
Other major stakeholders, such as Perth Netball Association and Wembley Athletic Club<br />
participated in the public forums and their views have been taken into consideration.<br />
The State government consulted with the major parties associated with the State Netball<br />
Centre (Venues West and Netball WA) as part <strong>of</strong> this process.<br />
It is noted that whilst the community were invited to the two open forums, they have yet to have<br />
the opportunity to comment on the final report.<br />
It is proposed to seek feedback from the community on the study and provide a further report to<br />
<strong>Council</strong> as soon as possible.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Sports Park supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020<br />
Strategic Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Planning for Our Community through the actions <strong>of</strong> a wide range <strong>of</strong><br />
quality, accessible recreational facilities.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing Community Consultation Matrix, this study will require<br />
further community consultation to allow them the opportunity to comment on the study's<br />
findings.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
1. The Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study for Wembley Sports Park will be<br />
completed in the near future<br />
2. Further public comment on the Study is recommended.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Approved Master Plan<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 201
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the report relating to the progress <strong>of</strong> the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study for<br />
Wembley Sports Park be noted;<br />
public comment on the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study be invited upon<br />
receipt <strong>of</strong> the Study report;<br />
the outcomes <strong>of</strong> (ii) above to form part <strong>of</strong> a further report to <strong>Council</strong> in February 2012 on<br />
this matter.<br />
Committee Meeting 12 December 2011<br />
During discussion, it was agreed that, due to school holidays, a further report on the outcomes<br />
<strong>of</strong> public comment be submitted to <strong>Council</strong> in March 2012.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report relating to the progress <strong>of</strong> the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking<br />
Study for Wembley Sports Park be noted;<br />
public comment on the Integrated Access, Traffic and Parking Study be invited<br />
upon receipt <strong>of</strong> the Study report;<br />
(iii) the outcomes <strong>of</strong> (ii) above to form part <strong>of</strong> a further report to <strong>Council</strong> in March 2012<br />
on this matter.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 202
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.167 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2011/2012 - CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR RECESS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer to deal with urgent items <strong>of</strong><br />
business, which may arise during the 2011/12 Christmas/New Year recess period.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> will be in its usual recess from the last meeting <strong>of</strong> the year, to be held on 22<br />
December 2011 to the first Committee meetings for the new year to be held in February 2012.<br />
In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable urgent items<br />
<strong>of</strong> business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995 details the <strong>Council</strong>’s ability to delegate some powers and<br />
duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:-<br />
“a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the<br />
exercise <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> its powers or the discharge <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> its duties under this Act other than<br />
those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power <strong>of</strong> delegation.”<br />
Section 5.43 <strong>of</strong> the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief<br />
Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise<br />
provided in the instrument <strong>of</strong> delegation.<br />
Accordingly, it is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government<br />
Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the powers and duties<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the Christmas/New Year<br />
period for 2011/2012, subject to the following:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
in relation to Ward matters, a majority <strong>of</strong> the four Ward Members <strong>of</strong> the relevant Ward<br />
being in agreement with the recommendation;<br />
in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item <strong>of</strong> business <strong>of</strong> a<br />
general nature, a majority <strong>of</strong> all Elected Members being in agreement;<br />
(iii) a report summarising the items <strong>of</strong> business dealt with by delegated authority be<br />
submitted for information to the February 2012 <strong>Council</strong> meeting;<br />
(iv)<br />
the Mayor be kept informed <strong>of</strong> all items <strong>of</strong> business considered during the Christmas/New<br />
Year period.<br />
Should any item require an absolute majority <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>, the requisite level <strong>of</strong> consent will<br />
be sought.<br />
During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive<br />
Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a contact<br />
person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated authority.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 203
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess period <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong> every year since 1995.<br />
At its meeting held on 20 December 2005, the <strong>Council</strong> also decided, as detailed above, that the<br />
Mayor be kept informed <strong>of</strong> all items <strong>of</strong> business considered during the Christmas/New Year<br />
period and noted that Elected Members should be cognisant <strong>of</strong> the urgency associated with<br />
delegated approvals and respond appropriately when requested.<br />
A report providing information relating to details <strong>of</strong> any delegated authority exercised during the<br />
Christmas/New Year period will be submitted to the February 2012 round <strong>of</strong> meetings.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Delegations to the Chief<br />
Executive Officer authorised each year by the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
No unbudgeted expenditure will be incurred unless by an absolute majority decision <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Not applicable.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Not Required" as<br />
the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That in accordance with Section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief<br />
Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the<br />
powers and duties <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 <strong>of</strong> the Act,<br />
from 22 December 2011 to 20 February 2012 provided:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
in relation to Ward matters, a majority <strong>of</strong> the four Ward Members <strong>of</strong> the relevant<br />
Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation;<br />
in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item <strong>of</strong> business<br />
<strong>of</strong> a general nature, a majority <strong>of</strong> all Elected Members are in agreement;<br />
(iii) a report summarising the items <strong>of</strong> business dealt with by delegated authority is<br />
submitted for information to the <strong>Council</strong> meeting to be held on 28 February 2012;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 204
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(iv) the Mayor be kept informed <strong>of</strong> all items <strong>of</strong> business to be considered under<br />
delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period;<br />
(v) Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the<br />
timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that<br />
the status quo position will be maintained (ie no change).<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 205
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.168 NAMING OF BUILDING - PERRY LAKES HOCKEY PAVILION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider a request from the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club to name the YMCC Hockey<br />
Clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
A request has been received from the President <strong>of</strong> the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club,<br />
seeking the <strong>Council</strong>'s consent to name the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve<br />
after long standing club members Dr Des and Mrs Pam Kelly.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
In support <strong>of</strong> the request, the President advises that:-<br />
"Des Kelly joined the YMCA Hockey Club in 1957 and he and his wife have continuously<br />
contributed to the club's development to this day. In 1958 he was a member <strong>of</strong> the club's top<br />
team which won promotion to the State's top division and the team has remained there ever<br />
since, celebrating 50 seasons at this level in 2008. This year, the top men's team was<br />
successful once again in winning the Grand Final. The club has been one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
successful <strong>of</strong> any clubs participating in the top men's and women's divisions in the history <strong>of</strong><br />
hockey in Western Australia.<br />
Des has been instrumental in guiding all the main phases <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the club as it<br />
grew as a fledgling force from its many locations including Langley Park, the Esplanade,<br />
Hollywood and to its present location at Perry Lakes in 1969. From 1957 to 1960 Des and<br />
other club members raised funds and physically constructed the club's first clubrooms, a<br />
modest building on the Hollywood grounds, the present site <strong>of</strong> the Sir Charles Gairdner<br />
Hospital. Des was elected President from 1968 to 1970, during which he guided the forced<br />
relocation <strong>of</strong> the club to the present site. This was achieved with the assistance <strong>of</strong> the Perth<br />
City <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Over many years Des played senior hockey, coached juniors, held many administrative<br />
positions within the club and became involved in veterans hockey for over 20 years.<br />
He was made a Life Member <strong>of</strong> the club in 1973.<br />
In 1985 he was involved in a major club effort to fund and build stage two <strong>of</strong> the Perry Lakes<br />
clubhouse, which has well served the members ever since.<br />
Over the years Des has achieved much in the hockey fraternity:<br />
Member <strong>of</strong> the Executive council <strong>of</strong> the WA Hockey Association for 10 years including the <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
<strong>of</strong> Vice President<br />
Member <strong>of</strong> the Organising Committee <strong>of</strong> the 1979 World Cup held at the Perth Hockey Stadium<br />
Member <strong>of</strong> the Organising Committee <strong>of</strong> the 1985 World Champions Trophy held in Perth<br />
Manager <strong>of</strong> the top YMCA men's team for a number <strong>of</strong> years in the 1980s, including 1985 when<br />
the team won all four major tournaments <strong>of</strong> the WA Hockey Association<br />
Granted Life Membership <strong>of</strong> the WA Hockey Association<br />
As President <strong>of</strong> the club in 1992/1993, he guided the amalgamation with the Coastal City<br />
Ladies Hockey Club to form the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club, or YMCC for short.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 206
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
In recent years, Des and Pam have continued their strong contribution which includes support<br />
for the involvement <strong>of</strong> the club in the Shenton Hockey facility development, liaison with<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Council</strong> for the preparation <strong>of</strong> hockey fields each weekend, which has witnessed up<br />
to 700 boys, girls, men and women enjoying the grounds, active roles in the YM Junior Carnival<br />
held at Perry Lakes since 1972 when over 50 teams from all over WA compete in a carnival<br />
atmosphere and numerous other smaller but extremely important volunteer contributions to the<br />
club and the community.<br />
While Des has been at the forefront <strong>of</strong> all major club developments over a number <strong>of</strong> years,<br />
Pam too has strongly contributed with ideas, with support and in management <strong>of</strong> behind-thescenes<br />
running <strong>of</strong> the club with regard to uniforms, canteen services, procurement <strong>of</strong> personnel<br />
for a variety <strong>of</strong> necessary roles and in general being available for any activity required. The<br />
club values highly the strong contributions made by a number <strong>of</strong> members over many years<br />
and none more highly than that <strong>of</strong> Pam Kelly.<br />
PERSONAL BACKGROUND<br />
Dr D R Kelly AM began working life as a Civil Engineer and worked in the Wa Public Service for<br />
49 years. He was Chief Executive Officer in the Department <strong>of</strong> Mines and the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Resources Development and had a close association with the mining industry for 40 years.<br />
In 1992 he was awarded an Australia Medal (AM) for service to the mining industry. He has<br />
also been awarded a Centenary Medal and an Australian Sports Medal.<br />
Pam and Des secured a block <strong>of</strong> land in Pandora Drive, City Beach and built a home there in<br />
1967, where they have lived ever since. Their children attended Kapinara Primary School and<br />
City Beach High School and their grandchildren now attend Kapinara and Wembley Primary<br />
schools. As well their children and grandchildren also play hockey with the YMCC Hockey<br />
Club.<br />
With respect, in consideration <strong>of</strong> the strong voluntary contribution made by Des and pam Kelly<br />
to the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> outdoor leisure activity at the Perry Lakes site, engaged in by thousands <strong>of</strong><br />
juniors and seniors over a long period <strong>of</strong> time, it is recommended that the hockey clubrooms at<br />
Perry Lakes be named the DES AND PAM KELLY PAVILION."<br />
The request is signed by Mr Patrick Knott, President, on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Board and Members <strong>of</strong><br />
the YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong>'s policy on naming reserves and buildings provides, in part, that:<br />
" All buildings may be named generally to reflect the locality in which the building is situated for<br />
easy identification.<br />
Features <strong>of</strong> buildings (a room, courtyard or garden for example) particularly features <strong>of</strong> regional<br />
buildings, may be named in honour <strong>of</strong> an individual who has made a significant contribution to<br />
the locality in general.<br />
In exceptional and/or unique circumstances or to recognise outstanding achievement, a<br />
building may be named after an individual."<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy 1.2.8<br />
Naming <strong>of</strong> Reserves and Buildings<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 207
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Council</strong>'s Strategic Plan provides for meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> our communities through strong<br />
community consultation, engagement and collaboration.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. . In<br />
accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That consideration be given to naming the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve<br />
the Des and Pam Kelly Pavilion.<br />
Committee Meeting 12 December 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
That the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve be named the Des and Pam Kelly<br />
Pavilion.<br />
Amendment carried 4/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Langer<br />
Cr Walker<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That the YMCC Hockey clubrooms at Perry Lakes Reserve be named the Des and Pam<br />
Kelly Pavilion.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 208
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.169 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NOVEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To confirm the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a<br />
list <strong>of</strong> accounts to be prepared and presented to <strong>Council</strong>. Below is a list <strong>of</strong> the cheques raised<br />
and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts from the Municipal Account (and<br />
Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing <strong>of</strong> all<br />
payments issued for this month.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “<strong>Council</strong> Bank Accounts and Payments”.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The presentation <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> accounts is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan key<br />
outcome area <strong>of</strong> capacity to deliver and its goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level –<br />
Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Account Payment Listing<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That in accordance with Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management)<br />
Regulations 1996, the schedule <strong>of</strong> accounts as detailed below and attached, be<br />
confirmed:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 209
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(i)<br />
CHEQUE PAYMENTS<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Municipal Fund 01-November-2011 04-November-2011 41848 - 41946 $202,935.63<br />
Municipal Fund 07-November-2011 11-November-2011 41947 - 42029 $227,115.34<br />
Municipal Fund 14-November-2011 18-November-2011 42030 - 42111 $233,707.18<br />
Municipal Fund 25-November-2011 25-November-2011 42112 - 42198 $93,468.76<br />
Golf Course 01-November-2011 07-November-2011 00259 - 00260 $2,278.50<br />
Golf Course 24-November-2011 30-November-2011 00151 - 00154 $271.24<br />
Total Cheque Payments $759,776.65<br />
(ii)<br />
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Investments 01-November-2011 30-November-2011 Inv 372 - Inv 378 $7,446,432.42<br />
Direct Bank Charges 01-November-2011 30-November-2011 Sup 136 - Sup 137 $20,305.85<br />
Accounts Payable 01-November-2011 03-November-2011 E 5499 - E 5535 $46,501.86<br />
Accounts Payable 07-November-2001 09-November-2011 E 5536 - E 5544 $220,018.90<br />
Accounts Payable 10-November-2011 14-November-2011 E 5545 - E 5573 $38,730.38<br />
Accounts Payable 16-November-2011 16-November-2011 E 5574 - E 5584 $152,436.84<br />
Accounts Payable 16-November-2011 16-November-2011 E 5585 - E5635 $339,126.42<br />
Accounts Payable 18-November-2011 25-November-2011 E 5636 - E 5687 $822,881.04<br />
Accounts Payable 25-November-2011 30-November-2011 E 5688 - E 5734 $419,592.24<br />
Golf Course 01-November-2011 11-November-2011 E 0092 - E 0092 $47,449.54<br />
Golf Course 17-November-2011 17-November-2011 E 0093 - E 0093 $47,591.26<br />
Golf Course 29-November-2011 29-November-2011 E 0094 - E 0094 $50,087.87<br />
Payroll 01-November-2011 30-November-2011 Pay 370 to Pay 377 1,011,855.00<br />
Total EFT Payments $10,663,009.62<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
TOTAL PAYMENTS $11,422,786.27<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 210
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.170 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise the <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> surplus funds invested, the distribution <strong>of</strong> those funds<br />
and the financial performance <strong>of</strong> each investment (ie. interest earned) year to date.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing <strong>of</strong> funds into direct investment<br />
products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity<br />
guidelines as set out in the policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance<br />
At its December 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia decided to reduce the cash rate<br />
by a further 0.25% to 4.25%.<br />
The Reserve Bank is concerned about the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe which is still<br />
to be resolved and its noticeable impact on growth in Asia which has begun to slow down. It is<br />
expected that global growth will continue to slow throughout the forthcoming year. Economists<br />
are predicting further interest rates cuts during 2012.<br />
On the local economy, the mining industry continues to perform strongly although other industry<br />
sectors such as retail continue to struggle. The Reserve Bank's latest interest rate cut should<br />
give some relief to Australian households and business. Unemployment continues to remain<br />
close to five per cent. Inflation is expected to remain between the Reserve Bank's target <strong>of</strong> 2%<br />
to 3%.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term <strong>of</strong><br />
two to three months are around 5.5% and 5.6%. Interest rates for securities for periods greater<br />
than six months are between 5.5% and 5.7% with the major Australian banks.<br />
The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance <strong>of</strong> interest rates over a 90 day<br />
period) was 4.88% for November 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure<br />
<strong>of</strong> future interest rates) was 4.59% at 30 November 2011. As the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment portfolio<br />
is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate <strong>of</strong> 4.50% for November 2011 is the<br />
more appropriate performance measure.<br />
Against these interest rate indicators, the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio outperformed the cash<br />
rate with a weighted average interest rate <strong>of</strong> 5.80%. The weighted average investment period<br />
<strong>of</strong> 143 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the<br />
major Australian banks) for this period which were an average <strong>of</strong> 5.6%.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 211
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance for November 2011<br />
The graph below shows the interest rate performance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio for the<br />
12 month period November 2010 to November 2011.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
10.00<br />
9.00<br />
8.00<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
1.00<br />
0.00<br />
Investment Performance<br />
For November 2010 to November 2011<br />
Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate<br />
The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio, since November 2008.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance<br />
For November 2008 to November 2011<br />
9.00<br />
8.00<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
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<br />
Weighted Avg Interest<br />
90 UBS Bank Bill Index<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 212
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The total investment at the end <strong>of</strong> November 2011 is $27.8 million which consists <strong>of</strong> Municipal<br />
Funds <strong>of</strong> $16.2 million, Reserve Funds <strong>of</strong> $2 million and Endowment Lands Funds <strong>of</strong> $9.6<br />
million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> from November<br />
2010 to November 2011.<br />
Millions<br />
30<br />
Investment Portfolio<br />
28<br />
26<br />
24<br />
22<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
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<br />
Reserves Endowment Municipal<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 213
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The investment performance as at the end <strong>of</strong> November 2011 is as follows:<br />
Current<br />
Interest<br />
Rate<br />
November<br />
2011<br />
Income<br />
Total<br />
Amount<br />
Invested<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
Funds<br />
Invested<br />
Term<br />
(Days) Rating<br />
Floating Rate Notes .<br />
ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.07% $2,071 $498,763 1.80%<br />
Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.24% $4,026 $947,140 3.41%<br />
Sub-total $6,097 $1,445,903 5.21%<br />
Term Deposits and Bank<br />
Bills<br />
ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 5.94% $5,033 $1,039,371 3.74%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $4,932 $1,010,685 3.64%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $2,466 $505,342 1.82%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1" 5.80% $4,955 $1,053,690 3.79%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit $593<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 5.80% $1,901 $522,053 1.88%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 5.80% $2,664 $563,382 2.03%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit $160<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 5.85% $4,488 $1,004,488 3.62%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit $1,683<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 138 "A1+" 5.65% $376 $81,510 0.29%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.80% $3,623 $770,507 2.77%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.80% $1,525 $401,525 1.45%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.80% $2,384 $506,912 1.83%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 5.80% $4,767 $1,010,488 3.64%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 169 "A1+" 5.80% $4,767 $1,010,488 3.64%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit $8,488<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.68% $2,472 $2,271,459 8.18%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 6.13% $4,031 $822,034 2.96%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.12% $2,630 $537,846 1.94%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 90 "A1+" 5.87% $9,649 $2,022,837 7.28%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.79% $4,759 $1,010,470 3.64%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 99 "A1+" 5.79% $4,759 $1,010,470 3.64%<br />
BOQ - Term Deposit $2,757<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 185 "A1+" 5.79% $9,803 $2,073,387 7.47%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 6.00% $4,932 $1,014,301 3.65%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.75% $3,686 $788,724 2.84%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit $407<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit $5,960<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit $1,324<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 5.70% $144 $307,437 1.11%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.83% $4,792 $1,015,493 3.66%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 5.75% $2,363 $505,592 1.82%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 90 "A1" 5.95% $2,456 $505,070 1.82%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 152 "A1" 5.87% $4,953 $2,204,953 7.94%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 151 "A1" 5.87% $844 $750,844 2.70%<br />
Sub-total $127,525 $26,321,359 94.79%<br />
61.78%<br />
Total Investments $133,622 $27,767,262 100.00%<br />
Weighted Average 143 5.80%<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 214
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the<br />
guidelines set down in the <strong>Town</strong>’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the <strong>Council</strong>’s Budget and it is<br />
therefore important that the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed<br />
monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.<br />
The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> each individual<br />
investment to date. A summary <strong>of</strong> the investment performance to budget is provided below:<br />
Budget<br />
2010/2011<br />
Actual as at<br />
Nov 2010 %<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
Actual as at<br />
Nov 2011 %<br />
General * $544,500 $264,431 48.6% $607,000 $311,006 51.2%<br />
Reserves $304,200 $136,340 44.8% $160,000 $48,441 30.3%<br />
Endowment Lands $576,400 $243,671 42.3% $419,900 $232,890 55.5%<br />
Total Investments $1,425,100 $644,442 45.2% $1,186,900 $592,337 49.9%<br />
* Includes Bank Account Interest <strong>of</strong> $33,805 and Ocean Mia late settlement penalty interest <strong>of</strong><br />
$2,823.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to<br />
Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to<br />
Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - November 2011.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2011 forming part <strong>of</strong> the Notice Paper<br />
be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 215
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
CR11.171 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES -<br />
NOVEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review the financial position for the period ended 30 November 2011 and report on<br />
permanent and timing variances.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
This year's budget has $36.46 million allocated for operational expenditure (including $6 million<br />
<strong>of</strong> non-cash items) and $22.55 million for capital expenditure.<br />
Major works highlighted in the budget include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
$9 million for the design and construction <strong>of</strong> surf clubrooms and cafe/restaurant at City<br />
Beach (subject to commercial feasibility);<br />
$674,000 for remaining work on the Wembley Golf Course and Pro Shop;<br />
$500,000 for the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the City Beach Pavilion;<br />
$500,000 for the shared path network across the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
$500,000 for path improvements around Lake Monger; and<br />
$378,000 for planning and designing the first stage <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Sports Park.<br />
Local Governments are required to report on variations to the monthly budgets and this report<br />
provides a list <strong>of</strong> detailed explanations has been provided for budget line items where<br />
permanent variations are $30,000 or more and timing variances are $100,000 or more.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A table <strong>of</strong> key financial indicators is provided below comparing year to date actual figures<br />
against the year to date budget.<br />
Details<br />
Amended<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Budget<br />
30 Nov 11<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Actual<br />
30 Nov 11<br />
($000's)<br />
Balance Sheet<br />
Current Assets* 40,386<br />
Current Liabilities (8,555)<br />
Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 31,831<br />
*Current assets include investments <strong>of</strong>:<br />
General 16,155<br />
Reserves 2,009<br />
Endowment Lands 9,602<br />
27,766<br />
Capital Expenditure 22,614 5,635 2,786<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 216
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Details<br />
Amended<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Budget<br />
30 Nov 11<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Actual<br />
30 Nov 11<br />
($000's)<br />
Operations<br />
Revenue 39,740 27,315 27,451<br />
Expenditure 36,479 15,509 14,295<br />
Operating Pr<strong>of</strong>it/(Loss) 3,261 11,806 13,156<br />
Other<br />
Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) (80) 15,486 16,048<br />
Transfers from/(to) Reserves (1,191) (656) 388<br />
Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 8,802 3,541 (860)<br />
I. The Balance Sheet<br />
The following observations are made:<br />
<br />
<br />
Cash assets at 30 November 2011 are $28.5 million, down from $28.7 million at the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> October 2011. The inflow <strong>of</strong> rates monies predominantly from instalments<br />
has <strong>of</strong>fset operational and capital expenditures during the month to minimise a<br />
decline in cash <strong>of</strong> only $0.2 million.<br />
Current receivables at end <strong>of</strong> November are $6.3 million, down from $8.2 million at<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> October 2011. During the month, an inflow <strong>of</strong> $1.8 million <strong>of</strong> rates monies<br />
was received and rates outstanding at the end <strong>of</strong> the month represent $5.7 million<br />
<strong>of</strong> the total current receivables.<br />
II.<br />
Financial Operations<br />
Net Result from Operations<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Month Budget Ended<br />
Actual<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 217
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Revenue<br />
Total revenue is 100.5% <strong>of</strong> the year to date budget with $27.5 million actual revenue<br />
against a year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $27.3 million.<br />
Permanent Differences for Revenue<br />
There are no permanent variances for revenue above $30,000 as at 30 November 2011.<br />
Timing Differences for Revenue<br />
There are no new timing variances for revenue above $100,000 as at 30 November 2011.<br />
Expenditure<br />
The expenditure for the period ended 30 November 2011 was below the year to date<br />
budget with actual expenditure being $14.3 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $15.5<br />
million, a variance <strong>of</strong> $1.2 million or 9%.<br />
The majority <strong>of</strong> this variance represents materials and contracts expenditure not spent<br />
with a number <strong>of</strong> maintenance programmes and projects yet to be commenced, and with<br />
invoicing lagging (works completed during the month not yet invoiced).<br />
Material and contract expenses as at 30 November are $3.6 million against year to date<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> $4.7 million.<br />
Permanent Differences for Expenditure<br />
There are no new permanent variances above $30,000 to report on.<br />
Timing Differences for Expenditure<br />
There are no new timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 30 November 2011.<br />
Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement<br />
The surplus as at 30 November 2011 is $16 million which is close to year to date budget<br />
<strong>of</strong> $15.5 million. This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day<br />
operational expenditure and the carrying out <strong>of</strong> budgeted capital works.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 218
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Cash Surplus<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
III.<br />
Capital Works Programs<br />
Budget<br />
Actual<br />
The total amount <strong>of</strong> funds spent on the <strong>Town</strong>’s capital works program for the period<br />
ended 30 November 2011 is $2.8 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $5.6 million, a<br />
variance <strong>of</strong> $2.8 million.<br />
A brief overview <strong>of</strong> the capital works programs at year end shows buildings $0.5 million<br />
against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $1.1 million. A number <strong>of</strong> major project timelines have<br />
already been reviewed and adjusted. The remaining capital project timelines are<br />
currently under review as part <strong>of</strong> the mid year budget review which is expected to bring<br />
year to date budgets more in line with actual progress,<br />
Parks and Reserves expenditure is $0.5 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $1.1<br />
million, roads and lanes $0.6 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $1.9 million and<br />
footpaths $0.2 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $0.5 million.<br />
Capital works projects are very much seasonally influenced with major road works being<br />
carried out during summer.<br />
VI.<br />
Budget Reallocations<br />
No budget reallocations or adjustments have been received:<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports. The<br />
Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34,<br />
expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying<br />
significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact<br />
on <strong>Council</strong> funds.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 219
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The management <strong>of</strong> budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix<br />
Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to<br />
assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Extract <strong>of</strong> Management Financial Statements - 30 November 2011<br />
2. Monthly Financial Statements - November 2011<br />
3. Budget Variation Report<br />
4. Wembley Golf Course Monthly Financial Statements and commentary (Confidential)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 November 2011 be received and the<br />
variances to the budget be noted.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 220
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
10. COUNCIL REPORTS<br />
10.1 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 2010/11 - DECISIONS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider any decisions made at the Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors, held on<br />
Wednesday 14 December 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
This report is submitted to <strong>Council</strong> in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> Section 5.33 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Local Government Act 1995 which states that all decisions made at an electors' meeting are to<br />
be considered at the next ordinary <strong>Council</strong> meeting.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> was held commencing at<br />
7.06 pm on Wednesday, 14 December 2011. There were 5 ratepayers and residents present.<br />
Annual Report<br />
The business <strong>of</strong> the meeting was considered, with the contents <strong>of</strong> the Annual Report for<br />
2010/2011 being approved by the meeting.<br />
Moved by Cr Alan Langer, seconded by Cr Corinne MacRae<br />
That in accordance with the requirements <strong>of</strong> section 5.33 the Local Government Act<br />
1995, the Annual Report for the 2010/2011 financial year be adopted.<br />
Carried<br />
Garden Competition<br />
The Mayor then conducted the Award Ceremony for the Annual Garden Competition,<br />
presenting the following prizes:-<br />
Best Street/Part Street<br />
Nil<br />
Best Commercial / Group Housing Front Garden:<br />
Highly Commended: Nil<br />
Winning Garden:<br />
Dr Kevin Bown<br />
Ocean Gardens Retirement Village<br />
60 Kalinda Drive<br />
CITY BEACH' ($400 plus trophy)<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 221
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Best Water Wise Front Garden:<br />
Highly Commended: Mr William and Mrs Lorraine Donaldson<br />
240 Jersey Street<br />
WEMBLEY ($250 plus certificate)<br />
Winning Garden:<br />
Mr Colin and Mrs Susan Yates<br />
8 Turriff Road<br />
FLOREAT ($400 plus trophy)<br />
Best Residential Front Garden:<br />
Highly Commended: Dr Gregory Makin<br />
31 Aruma Way<br />
CITY BEACH ($250 plus certificate)<br />
Winning Garden:<br />
Ms Natalie Naglan<br />
6 Calver Place<br />
CITY BEACH ($400 plus trophy)<br />
Public Question Time<br />
The Mayor then advised that the next item <strong>of</strong> General Business related to Public Question<br />
Time.<br />
Written Questions:<br />
The Mayor advised that a number <strong>of</strong> questions had been submitted in writing prior to the<br />
meeting. The questions had been responded to in writing and the questions, answers and<br />
relevant attachments were available to the public at the meeting.<br />
Questions raised by Electors at the Meeting:<br />
Nil<br />
The meeting closed at 7.12 pm.<br />
No decisions requiring the consideration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> were made.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors - 2 December 2010 - <strong>Minutes</strong><br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the report relating to the conduct <strong>of</strong> the 2010/2011 Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong><br />
Electors held on Wednesday 14 December 2011, be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 222
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
10.2 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT -<br />
TENDER T20‐11 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To award Tender T20-11 Architectural Services for Surf Club Building and Commercial<br />
Facilities Development at City Beach.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In June 2011, <strong>Council</strong> considered a report outlining the proposed tender actions for the Surf<br />
Club and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> determined, inter alia, that the engagement <strong>of</strong> the Architects will be determined by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
In October 2011, <strong>Council</strong> considered a further report relating to the Tender for Architectural<br />
Services for this project and decided to short list two firms to undertake further work to refine<br />
their designs to assist the <strong>Council</strong> in awarding the tender.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the decision, the two preferred architects have presented their designs to the Elected<br />
Members at a forum held on 29 November 2011.<br />
The outcomes <strong>of</strong> these presentations have assisted in the recommendation <strong>of</strong> a preferred<br />
tenderer.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Tender Evaluation<br />
Two preferred architects were invited to refine their design and present to the Elected<br />
Members. The revised designs and outcomes <strong>of</strong> the presentation augmented information and<br />
assessment conducted previously by the Tender Assessment Panel.<br />
The assessment has identified Christou Design Group as the recommended architect at an<br />
indicative budget fee <strong>of</strong> $536,000, which includes approximately $50,000 <strong>of</strong> specialist sub<br />
consultant services.<br />
The tender assessment is provided as a confidential attachment.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations Part 4 Section 18 Clause (4a)<br />
provides:<br />
"to assist the local government in deciding which tender would be the most advantageous to it<br />
to accept, a tenderer may be requested to clarify the information provided in the tender."<br />
It is viewed that this process is consistent with this Regulation.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 223
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Surf Club site supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic<br />
Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Delivering Our Services. It is an action in response to our strategy <strong>of</strong> maintaining<br />
quality community and civic buildings.<br />
The project, once completed, also contributes to other Strategic Outcomes notably:<br />
Planning for Our Community<br />
Capacity to Deliver - (Financial Sustainability)<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assess 8/0ed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation<br />
Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The preferred architect is Christou Design Group.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Tender Assessment (Confidential)<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the tender for Tender T20-11 for architectural services for Surf Club and<br />
Commercial Facilities Development be awarded to Christou Design Group at an<br />
indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $536,000 for the project;<br />
Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until a lease agreement<br />
is in place between the <strong>Town</strong> and City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Lifesaving Club.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That clause (ii) be deleted and two further clauses be added as follows:-<br />
(ii)<br />
a report to <strong>Council</strong> be prepared on the new lease agreement between the <strong>Town</strong> and<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Lifesaving Club;<br />
(iii) Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until <strong>Council</strong> has<br />
approved the new lease.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
At 8.20 pm, Members agreed that, in accordance with Section 5.23 (2)(e) <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995, further discussion <strong>of</strong> the tender assessment be held behind closed<br />
doors prior to the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the meeting.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 224
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the following matter be discussed behind closed doors in accordance with Section<br />
5.23(2)(e) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
Discussion resumed behind closed doors at 8.52 pm. (Refer Item 13. Cr Bradley left the<br />
meeting at 8.50 pm.)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the tender for Tender T20-11 for architectural services for Surf Club and<br />
Commercial Facilities Development be awarded to Christou Design Group at an<br />
indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $536,000 for the project;<br />
a report to <strong>Council</strong> be prepared on the new lease agreement between the <strong>Town</strong> and<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Lifesaving Club;<br />
(iii) Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until <strong>Council</strong> has<br />
approved the new lease.<br />
Carried 6/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer and Walker<br />
Cr MacRae<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 225
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
10.3 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW - SUBMISSION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the <strong>Town</strong>'s submission to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel in<br />
response to its recently released Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel Issues Paper.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
On 24 June 2011, the Minister for Local Government, Hon John Castrilli MLA, announced an<br />
independent review <strong>of</strong> Perth metropolitan local government and broader governance structures.<br />
The Minister appointed an independent panel, the Metropolitan Local Government Review<br />
Panel, to examine the social, economic and environmental challenges facing metropolitan<br />
Perth.<br />
The panel is chaired by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Alan Robson, Vice Chancellor <strong>of</strong> The University <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia. Other members are Dr Peter Tannock, former Vice Chancellor <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Notre Dame Australia and Dr Sue van Leeuwen, Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> Leadership WA.<br />
The Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference <strong>of</strong> the independent Metropolitan Governance Review Panel are to:<br />
1. Identify current and anticipated specific regional, social, environmental and economic<br />
issues affecting, or likely to affect, the growth <strong>of</strong> metropolitan Perth in the next 50 years.<br />
2. Identify current and anticipated national and international factors likely to impact in the next<br />
50 years.<br />
3. Research improved local government structures, and governance models and structures for<br />
the Perth metropolitan area, drawing on national and international experience and<br />
examining key issues relating to community representation, engagement, accountability<br />
and State imperatives among other things the panel may identify during the course <strong>of</strong> the<br />
review.<br />
4. Identify new local government boundaries and a resultant reduction in the overall number <strong>of</strong><br />
local governments to better meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />
5. Prepare options to establish the most effective local government structures and governance<br />
models that take into account matters identified through the review including, but not limited<br />
to, community engagement, patterns <strong>of</strong> demographic change, regional and State growth<br />
and international factors which are likely to impact.<br />
6. Present a limited list <strong>of</strong> achievable options together with a recommendation on the preferred<br />
option.<br />
The Panel recently released its Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel Issues Paper<br />
(Attached) for public comment, with submissions due by 23 December 2011.<br />
The Issues Paper poses a series <strong>of</strong> key questions to assist with the submission process.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 226
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The Panel expects to release draft conclusions <strong>of</strong> the review in March 2012 and will invite<br />
further comments at that time.<br />
The Panel will report to the Minister for Local Government by 30 June 2012.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is preparing a draft submission to Issues Paper responding to the Panel’s questions<br />
as they relate to the <strong>Town</strong> and, where relevant, as they relate to the Perth metropolitan area<br />
and the local government sector.<br />
The themes <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s draft submission are:<br />
1. There should be a transitional approach to the long term structure <strong>of</strong> local government<br />
in Perth with a minimum level <strong>of</strong> capability and capacity established.<br />
2. No major shift in responsibilities between state and local government except waste<br />
disposal and improvements could be made in the efficiencies and working relationships<br />
between the state and local governments<br />
3. Community <strong>of</strong> interest and localism is the key to successful local government.<br />
It is considered that the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel’s recently released<br />
Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel Issues Paper provides an opportunity for the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> to comment on issues that are fundamental to the reform <strong>of</strong> local government in the<br />
metropolitan area.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
In accordance with the objective <strong>of</strong> the Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 "Capacity to Deliver", two<br />
goals are relevant:<br />
<br />
<br />
Open and transparent governance<br />
Financial sustainability<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter was assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance<br />
with the assessment criteria, no consultation is proposed as this report is to consider the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s response to Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel - Issues Paper and Supplementary<br />
Questions<br />
2. <strong>Town</strong>'s draft submission - to be distributed.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 227
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That the submission responding to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel<br />
Issues Paper be approved.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That the motion be amended by adding the words "the Chief Executive Officer be<br />
authorised to make minor amendments to incorporate comments from Elected<br />
Members."<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That the submission responding to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel<br />
Issues Paper be approved and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make minor<br />
amendments to incorporate comments from Elected Members.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 228
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
10.4 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL - CITY OF STIRLING WITHDRAWAL<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the valuation prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for the value <strong>of</strong> the<br />
current and future rights and obligations, including assets and liabilities, <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> attributable to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling. To also consider City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's request in<br />
relation the value to be paid upon withdrawal.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court action initiated by the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in mid 2010 and<br />
mediation held in August 2010, it is proposed that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling withdraw from the<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
A Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement was entered into by the parties to negotiate in good faith during the<br />
period until 30 April 2011 in relation to the adjustment <strong>of</strong> assets and liabilities <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> to enable the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to withdraw.<br />
The negotiating period expired and the <strong>Town</strong> decided in May 2011 not to approve the extension<br />
<strong>of</strong> the expiry date <strong>of</strong> the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement but agreed to participate in negotiations to<br />
facilitate the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling. For the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement to continue it<br />
required all parties to agree and as the <strong>Town</strong> did not support the extension, negotiations are no<br />
longer being carried out under that arrangement.<br />
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) were appointed to assist the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> and<br />
its members to value City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's interest for the purpose <strong>of</strong> adjusting the assets and<br />
liabilities <strong>of</strong> the regional council.<br />
The valuation exercise was to be undertaken in two stages as follows:<br />
1. Preliminary Report for the identification <strong>of</strong> a preferred method <strong>of</strong> valuation.<br />
2. Final Report based on the methodology from Stage 1 containing a valuation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
current and future rights and obligations, including assets and liabilities <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
After the completion <strong>of</strong> Stage 1, the <strong>Town</strong> at its April 2011 meeting considered the methodology<br />
proposed by PWC based on a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) and decided not to accept the<br />
proposed methodology. It was considered at the time that the DCF method would be based on<br />
assumptions <strong>of</strong> future cash flows and is purely hypothetical and not appropriate for a<br />
cooperative arrangement such as the MRC for the following reasons:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
MRC is an entity owned by the members with the primary function <strong>of</strong> receiving waste for<br />
disposal in the most efficient manner on a cost recovery basis.<br />
MRC was not set up to make a pr<strong>of</strong>it for the owners and this is enunciated in the financial<br />
precept that member’s fees would be set at the cost <strong>of</strong> tipping.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 229
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
From the 2004/05 financial year the MRC no longer distributed surpluses, therefore any<br />
variation in actual cost <strong>of</strong> tipping is to be accumulated in an under/over’s account and<br />
allocated to members in their proportion <strong>of</strong> tonnes tipped for each year <strong>of</strong> operation.<br />
It is only the casual tonnes (surplus pr<strong>of</strong>it) that are to be distributed to the owners in<br />
equity proportions.<br />
Whilst we are customers as well as owners, it was never intended that we charge<br />
ourselves a commercial rate <strong>of</strong> tipping including a risk premium to be distributed as pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
in equity proportions.<br />
MRC does not have an objective to maximise pr<strong>of</strong>it for the owners.<br />
A DCF may be appropriate to value a business that has a pr<strong>of</strong>it objective and where<br />
future cash flows can be reliably estimated. Variability in assumptions can have a<br />
significant impact on the final result.<br />
The NPV <strong>of</strong> an operation run on a cost recovery basis should be zero.<br />
Nevertheless, at a CEO group meeting held in May 2011 it was agreed to proceed with the<br />
valuation approach proposed by PWC with <strong>Cambridge</strong> dissenting.<br />
PWC completed the second stage report in August 2011. This report assessed the value <strong>of</strong><br />
MRC using two scenarios with Scenario A being calculated at $39 million and Scenario B $35.3<br />
million. PWC stated that they considered the value determined under Scenario B to be more<br />
robust and their preferred value.<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has a one-third equity share <strong>of</strong> MRC and this would translate to $13 million<br />
under Scenario A and $11.8 million for Scenario B.<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling considered the valuation prepared by PWC and determined at its<br />
September 2011 meeting that the valuation should be the average <strong>of</strong> both Scenarios A and B<br />
($12.38 million) and discounted by 10% to assist in resolving this matter equating to a value <strong>of</strong><br />
$11.14 million.<br />
Now that the valuation exercise has been completed it is necessary for the members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
MRC to negotiate a price to be paid upon the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Valuation<br />
PWC have calculated the valuation based on the DCF method as detailed in the following table.<br />
Low<br />
($m)<br />
$135 p/t<br />
High<br />
($m)<br />
$140 p/t<br />
Preferred<br />
($m)<br />
Tipping Fee (ex GST)<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> MRC as a whole<br />
- Scenario A 30.1 47.8 39.0<br />
- Scenario B 29.3 41.3 35.3<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Stirling pro rata one-third interest<br />
- Scenario A 10.0 15.9 13.0<br />
- Scenario B 9.8 13.8 11.8<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 230
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
PWC note that the value <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling’s interest in the MRC is higher under Scenario A<br />
“due to the incremental value associated with the assumed acquisition and exploitation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
replacement landfill site when the existing air space at Tamala Park is exhausted”. PWC<br />
acknowledge that under this scenario, “the actual costs may be significantly different from those<br />
estimates. For this reason we consider the pro-rata values determined under Scenario B to be<br />
more robust and our preferred values”.<br />
Effectively PWC have rejected Scenario A as a basis for the valuation. The <strong>Town</strong> supports the<br />
view that Scenario A should be rejected as it highlights one <strong>of</strong> the deficiencies <strong>of</strong> the DCF<br />
method in relation to the validity <strong>of</strong> the assumptions used and the potential to significantly affect<br />
the result as identified in <strong>Town</strong>’s decision to not support the DCF method in April 2011.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> considers Scenario A as a highly inappropriate basis to assess the valuation <strong>of</strong> MRC<br />
because it provides the owners (including Stirling) with the benefit <strong>of</strong> the positive cash flows<br />
derived from a future investment decision to purchase a landfill site after the closure <strong>of</strong> Tamala<br />
Park. At the proposed time <strong>of</strong> the capital investment it is assumed that City <strong>of</strong> Stirling will not<br />
be a member <strong>of</strong> the MRC, so how could they possibly benefit in terms <strong>of</strong> this valuation from the<br />
speculative decision <strong>of</strong> the capital purchase <strong>of</strong> an unknown site, for an unknown amount and at<br />
unknown operation and transport costs? This is a purely hypothetical scenario and should not<br />
have been considered as a reasonable way <strong>of</strong> calculating a valuation <strong>of</strong> MRC.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has further concerns about the assumptions used relating to the DCF valuation as it<br />
is based on the assumption that the members will sell the operations <strong>of</strong> MRC to a private<br />
operator and that the members will continue to tip at Tamala Park at a higher fee per tonne<br />
than the members currently pay so that the new owner will be able to make a return on their<br />
investment. Members currently pay a tipping fee <strong>of</strong> $123 (ex GST) per tonne and the valuation<br />
assumes that the Low valuation is based on $135 (ex GST) per tonne and the High valuation at<br />
$140 (ex GST) per tonne (refer to the table above).<br />
In reality, the market value <strong>of</strong> tipping is significantly less than this. It is understood that the City<br />
<strong>of</strong> Stirling has negotiated a fee to tip its waste at Red Hill landfill managed by the Eastern<br />
Metropolitan Regional <strong>Council</strong> at $94 (inc GST) per tonne which is $85.50 (ex GST). The City<br />
<strong>of</strong> Canning went to tender several years ago for the disposal <strong>of</strong> its waste to landfill and is<br />
currently in the third year <strong>of</strong> a contract with Sita and is also paying $94 (inc GST) per tonne.<br />
Both these disposal rates demonstrate that the market rate for tipping is much lower than the<br />
assumptions made in the PWC valuation. The fees charged by MRC are higher because <strong>of</strong><br />
their investment in a Resource Recovery Facility to divert waste from landfill which operates at<br />
a higher cost. Clearly, if members were ambivalent to resource recovery they could tip their<br />
waste direct to landfill at a much lower cost.<br />
It is difficult to accept that the members would agree to sell MRC to a private operator and then<br />
enter into contracts to pay a higher tipping cost so that the operator could make a pr<strong>of</strong>it when<br />
there are lower cost alternatives in the market.<br />
The MRC operates as a cost recovery business to keep the cost <strong>of</strong> tipping down for members.<br />
It is not operated as an investment or wealth generation facility for the members. Therefore a<br />
valuation that assumes pr<strong>of</strong>its is a flawed approach to valuing the business operations and this<br />
is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s decision in April 2011 not to support the methodology. The<br />
members do not plan to sell the operations <strong>of</strong> the MRC but to continue to dispose <strong>of</strong> waste at<br />
the site.<br />
The method used by PWC does not account for the post closure obligation <strong>of</strong> the owners <strong>of</strong><br />
MRC <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park site such as monitoring and any possible rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> the site that<br />
are unknown at his stage. Any agreement for the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to withdraw should be<br />
conditional upon them retaining their post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in<br />
proportion to the tonnes tipped to the total <strong>of</strong> members’ tonnes over the life <strong>of</strong> the landfill.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 231
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Discount<br />
PWC have advised in their valuation that "a discount should be applied to the pro rata value to<br />
reflect the fact that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling is not able in its own right to force a sale <strong>of</strong> the business<br />
and the realisation <strong>of</strong> the assets. It can only do so with the agreement <strong>of</strong> the other <strong>Council</strong>lors<br />
representing the member <strong>Council</strong>s". They further noted that discounts applied to the valuation<br />
<strong>of</strong> privately held shareholdings are <strong>of</strong>ten greater than that applied to publically traded<br />
shareholdings which fall in the range 15% to 25%. In this case discounts up to 50% can be<br />
applied.<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling - Initial Proposal<br />
As noted in the background, the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling considered the valuation prepared by PWC and<br />
determined at its September 2011 meeting that the valuation should be the average <strong>of</strong> both<br />
Scenarios A and B ($12.38 million) and discounted by 10% to assist in resolving this matter<br />
equating to a value <strong>of</strong> $11.14 million.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the withdrawal process, they also proposed to withdraw from the financial guarantee<br />
withy respect to the Biovison contract relating to the operation <strong>of</strong> the Resource Recovery<br />
Facility (RRF) and to retain their shareholding in the land at the Tamala Park site.<br />
It is considered that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling should retain its responsibilities under the RRF<br />
guarantee as that was part <strong>of</strong> the condition to enter into the contract with the operator and<br />
along with the other members. The <strong>Town</strong> would not want to accept any further exposure to this<br />
guarantee.<br />
In relation to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling retaining its shareholding in the land, it is not considered that<br />
this is a matter for negotiation with respect to the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the MRC<br />
as the MRC lease the land from the seven owners including the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>.<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong><br />
The MRC considered the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's proposal to withdraw at its meeting held on 8<br />
December 2011 and decided:<br />
That:<br />
1. A Working Group comprising the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> Chairman and Chief Executive<br />
Officer, and the participant local government mayors and/or their elected representatives,<br />
be established to consider options for the membership, structure and the operations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
2. The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling be requested to seek from the Hon. Minister for Local Government a<br />
further 3 months’ extension to their current withdrawal request from the Mindarie Regional<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
3. The Working Group deliberations include all options, including progressing the withdrawal<br />
<strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 232
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling - Second Proposal<br />
Following the MRC meeting <strong>of</strong> last week, the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has now reconsidered its proposal<br />
and has advised that its <strong>Council</strong> decided on 14 December 2011:<br />
to continue with the withdrawal process<br />
request the Minister for Local Government to extend the withdrawal process for 3<br />
months (to 31 Match 2010)<br />
not participate in the working group established by MRC on 8 December 2011<br />
reduce their request for a payout to 75% <strong>of</strong> the PWC averaged valuation<br />
not to seek withdrawal as a guarantor from the RRF guarantee.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> also decided that if the agreements to effect the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's withdrawal from<br />
MRC are not effected by 31 March 2012, they will recommence the Supreme Court<br />
proceedings against the MRC and the other participants.<br />
In relation to the reduced payout amount referred to above, a 25% discount would reduce the<br />
amount to $9.285 million ($12.38 million average valuation @ 75%) from the earlier request <strong>of</strong><br />
$11.14 million.<br />
As indicated in the analysis <strong>of</strong> the PWC methodology, it is considered that Scenario A does not<br />
have any merit and any discussion on valuation using that method should be based on<br />
Scenario B only. Scenario B determined the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's one-third share at $11.8m,<br />
therefore at a 10% discount this would be reduced to $10.62 million and at 25% the reduced<br />
amount would be $8.85 million.<br />
It is noted that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling are no longer seeking to withdraw from the RRF guarantee<br />
which is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s position.<br />
Financial Costs<br />
Should the members agree to pay the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling $9.285 million to withdraw, the <strong>Town</strong> will<br />
be liable for $1.16 million <strong>of</strong> that payment (one eighth). In addition, the tipping costs have<br />
increased approximately $20 per tonne due to the reduced waste being delivered by the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Stirling which creates an extra cost to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> $200,000 per year. The valuation prepared<br />
by PWC does not take into account the additional costs to the remaining members as a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling withdrawing from the MRC as it is not part <strong>of</strong> the business value.<br />
However, any negotiation with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to withdraw needs to take into account the<br />
adverse financial impact on the remaining members. As a continuing member, it is deemed<br />
acceptable to pay a higher tipping price due to the reduced tonnes that will result in extending<br />
the life <strong>of</strong> the landfill, but not to also be paying a high exit price for the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> a member.<br />
It is also considered that any payment to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling should come from MRC funds and<br />
the remaining participants should not be required to make a proportional payment to MRC to<br />
facilitate the payment. The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling payment should be paid as follows:<br />
from City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's paid in capital which at 30 June 2011 is $844,000 as stated in the<br />
audited financial statements<br />
paid their share <strong>of</strong> the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. under/over’s<br />
account) which had a balance as at 30 June 2010 <strong>of</strong> $1.926 million in total with Stirling's<br />
share being $667,000. Note: this amount needs to be updated with the 2011 end <strong>of</strong><br />
year financial results;<br />
any residual amount negotiated be paid from annual operational surpluses <strong>of</strong> the<br />
regional council over a period <strong>of</strong> time inclusive <strong>of</strong> interest;<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 233
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
A further matter to consider is the <strong>Town</strong>'s continued membership <strong>of</strong> the MRC. If the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Stirling is able to withdraw from the MRC on favourable terms with a payment <strong>of</strong> approximately<br />
$9 million then it may also be in the <strong>Town</strong>'s financial interest to withdraw and achieve a similar<br />
pro rata payment <strong>of</strong> around $2.25 million. The <strong>Town</strong> would the need to find an alternative<br />
waste disposal site to tip waste. The <strong>Town</strong>'s current waste strategy is to reduce the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
waste sent to landfill and if successful will see the tonnages reduce over time. If the <strong>Town</strong><br />
wanted to pursue this action it is considered necessary to act now at the same time the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Stirling withdraw. If not it is unlikely that the <strong>Town</strong> would ever achieve such favourable<br />
conditions in the future. This matter would need serious consideration and evaluation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
impacts before proceeding.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The withdrawal <strong>of</strong> a participant in a Regional <strong>Council</strong> is to follow the process outlined in Section<br />
699 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1960.<br />
If negotiations in relation to the adjustment <strong>of</strong> assets and liabilities <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional<br />
<strong>Council</strong> are not finalised in good faith, the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has the option to resume the Supreme<br />
Court Action.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The financial implications relate to the impact <strong>of</strong> the potential change in ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>. The net assets <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> at 30 June 2010<br />
were approximately $27.5 million. The financial implications for the <strong>Town</strong> are detailed earlier in<br />
this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
In accordance with the objective <strong>of</strong> the Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 "Capacity to Deliver", two<br />
goals are relevant:<br />
<br />
<br />
Open and transparent governance<br />
Financial sustainability<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter was assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance<br />
with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is administrative in<br />
providing information to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 234
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the valuation <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> determined by<br />
PriceWaterhouseCoopers not be accepted due to the flawed basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
assumptions used to calculate the value;<br />
(ii)<br />
the following be noted:<br />
(a) position <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in relation to the value <strong>of</strong> their shareholding in<br />
the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, request to withdraw from the Resource<br />
Recovery Facility guarantee and retention <strong>of</strong> their shareholding in the Tamala<br />
Park land;<br />
(b) that the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement to negotiate the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
expired on 30 April 2011 and has not been renewed or extended;<br />
(c) the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> agrees to continue participating in the negotiations to<br />
facilitate the withdrawal if the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
(iii) the decision <strong>of</strong> Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> to set up a working group comprising<br />
the regional council Chairman and CEO, and mayors <strong>of</strong> the member councils to<br />
consider options for the membership, structure and operations <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> be noted;<br />
(iv) Mayor Simon Withers represent the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> on the Working Group<br />
proposed in (iii) above;<br />
(v)<br />
in relation to negotiation for the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s position is that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling:<br />
(a) be paid their paid-in capital contributions;<br />
(b) be paid their share <strong>of</strong> the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e.<br />
under/over’s account);<br />
(c) be paid any residual value based on negotiations for a financial settlement to<br />
be negotiated;<br />
(d) be paid be from current accumulated Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> funds in<br />
relation to (a) and (b) above and any additional payments, should there not be<br />
sufficient funds held by the regional council, be paid from annual operational<br />
surpluses <strong>of</strong> the regional council over a period <strong>of</strong> time inclusive <strong>of</strong> interest;<br />
(e) not be released from its liabilities under the Resource Recovery Facility<br />
guarantee to Biovision;<br />
(f) retain its post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in proportion to<br />
the tonnes tipped to the total <strong>of</strong> members tonnes over the life <strong>of</strong> the landfill;<br />
(g) retain its shareholding in the land at the Tamala Park site.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 235
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the valuation <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> determined by<br />
PricewaterhouseCoopers not be accepted as a basis for determining the<br />
withdrawal payment to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling due to the flawed basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
assumptions used to calculate the value, namely that the remaining members will<br />
incur a “commercial” surcharge to the tipping fees;<br />
(ii)<br />
the following be noted:<br />
(a) the position <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in relation to the value <strong>of</strong> its shareholding in<br />
the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, retaining its liability relating to the Resource<br />
Recovery Facility guarantee and retention <strong>of</strong> its ownership share in the land at<br />
the Tamala Park landfill site;<br />
(b) that the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement to negotiate the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
expired on 30 April 2011 and has not been renewed or extended;<br />
(c) the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> agrees to continue participating in the negotiations to<br />
facilitate the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling;<br />
(iii)<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's withdrawal from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> will reduce the<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling’s tipping costs and increase the tipping costs <strong>of</strong> the remaining<br />
members <strong>of</strong> Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, and the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has <strong>of</strong>fered no<br />
compensation for the increased tipping costs to the remaining members;<br />
(iv) in relation to negotiations for the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, the <strong>Town</strong>’s position is that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling:<br />
(a) be paid no more than its:<br />
(i) paid-in capital contributions; and<br />
(ii) share <strong>of</strong> the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. unders/overs<br />
account);<br />
from current accumulated Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> funds;<br />
(b) not be released from its liabilities under the Resource Recovery Facility<br />
guarantee to Biovision;<br />
(c) retain its post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in proportion to<br />
the tonnes tipped to the total <strong>of</strong> members tonnes over the life <strong>of</strong> the landfill;<br />
(d) retain its ownership share in the land at the Tamala Park landfill site;<br />
(v)<br />
in the event that Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> agrees to pay the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling an<br />
amount greater than that detailed in (iv)(a) above, this <strong>Council</strong> applies to the<br />
Minister for Local Government to withdraw from Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> in<br />
accordance with Section 699 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1960 at the same time<br />
and on the same financial terms as the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling for the following reasons:<br />
(a) the payment to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in excess <strong>of</strong> that detailed in (iv)(a) above<br />
will add greater financial risk to the members <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong><br />
without any compensation for the increased cost <strong>of</strong> tipping that will be met by<br />
the members;<br />
(b) it is unlikely that the <strong>Town</strong> would be able to withdraw from the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> on similar terms in the future;<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 236
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(c)<br />
the financial interests <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s ratepayers are better served by receiving<br />
a payment on similar terms as the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling for its share <strong>of</strong> the equity in<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> than remaining a member <strong>of</strong> Mindarie Regional<br />
<strong>Council</strong>;<br />
(vi) a further report be prepared and presented to <strong>Council</strong> on the implications <strong>of</strong><br />
withdrawing from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the valuation <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> determined by<br />
PricewaterhouseCoopers not be accepted as a basis for determining the<br />
withdrawal payment to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling due to the flawed basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
assumptions used to calculate the value, namely that the remaining members will<br />
incur a “commercial” surcharge to the tipping fees;<br />
(ii)<br />
the following be noted:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
the position <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in relation to the value <strong>of</strong> its shareholding in<br />
the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, retaining its liability relating to the Resource<br />
Recovery Facility guarantee and retention <strong>of</strong> its ownership share in the land<br />
at the Tamala Park landfill site;<br />
that the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement to negotiate the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
expired on 30 April 2011 and has not been renewed or extended;<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> agrees to continue participating in the negotiations to<br />
facilitate the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling;<br />
(iii)<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's withdrawal from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> will reduce the<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling’s tipping costs and increase the tipping costs <strong>of</strong> the remaining<br />
members <strong>of</strong> Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, and the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has <strong>of</strong>fered no<br />
compensation for the increased tipping costs to the remaining members;<br />
(iv) in relation to negotiations for the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>, the <strong>Town</strong>’s position is that the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling:<br />
(a) be paid no more than its:<br />
(i) paid-in capital contributions; and<br />
(ii) share <strong>of</strong> the Members Revenue Equalisation Reserve (i.e. unders/overs<br />
account);<br />
from current accumulated Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> funds;<br />
(b) not be released from its liabilities under the Resource Recovery Facility<br />
guarantee to Biovision;<br />
(c) retain its post closure liabilities for the Tamala Park landfill in proportion to<br />
the tonnes tipped to the total <strong>of</strong> members tonnes over the life <strong>of</strong> the landfill;<br />
(d) retain its ownership share in the land at the Tamala Park landfill site;<br />
(v)<br />
in the event that Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> agrees to pay the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling an<br />
amount greater than that detailed in (iv)(a) above, this <strong>Council</strong> applies to the<br />
Minister for Local Government to withdraw from Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> in<br />
accordance with Section 699 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1960 at the same time<br />
and on the same financial terms as the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling for the following reasons:<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 237
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
the payment to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling in excess <strong>of</strong> that detailed in (iv)(a) above<br />
will add greater financial risk to the members <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional<br />
<strong>Council</strong> without any compensation for the increased cost <strong>of</strong> tipping that will<br />
be met by the members;<br />
it is unlikely that the <strong>Town</strong> would be able to withdraw from the Mindarie<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> on similar terms in the future;<br />
the financial interests <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s ratepayers are better served by receiving<br />
a payment on similar terms as the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling for its share <strong>of</strong> the equity in<br />
Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> than remaining a member <strong>of</strong> Mindarie Regional<br />
<strong>Council</strong>;<br />
(vi) a further report be prepared and presented to <strong>Council</strong> on the implications <strong>of</strong><br />
withdrawing from the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 238
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
11. URGENT BUSINESS<br />
Nil<br />
12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN<br />
Nil<br />
13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS<br />
Meeting Behind Closed Doors<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the following matter be discussed behind closed doors in accordance with Section<br />
5.23(2)(a) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
At 8.48 pm, Mayor Withers requested all persons other than Elected Members and <strong>Council</strong><br />
Officers to leave the <strong>Council</strong> Chamber.<br />
Cr Bradley left the meeting at 8.50 pm.<br />
13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - ANNUAL REVIEW<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, the Chief Executive Officer, in accordance with Section 5.65<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, declared an interest in this matter.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the confidential Final Performance Appraisal report, as attached, prepared by the<br />
CEO Performance Review Committee be received and the recommendations contained<br />
therein be adopted.<br />
Carried 7/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 239
COUNCIL<br />
20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
14. CLOSURE<br />
There being no further business the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and<br />
declared the meeting closed at 9.07 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\December 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 240