Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

28 AUGUST 2012

COUNCIL MINUTES 

TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012 

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

28 AUGUST 2012 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

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

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

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

4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 8 

5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 8 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 9 

7. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................................. 9 

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 9 

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

Development Committee 10 

DV12.86 Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, City Beach - Second Storey Addition, 

Lift and Walkway - Referred Back Further Report- Amended Plans 12 

DV12.87 Lot 129 (No. 6) Hornsey Road, Floreat - Retrospective Approval for 

Garage Door 17 

DV12.88 Lot 496 (No.326) Railway Parade, West Leederville -Two Grouped 

Dwellings 21 

DV12.89 Lot 101 (No. 11) Caddy Avenue, West Leederville - Proposed Rear 

Two Storey Dwelling 26 

DV12.90 Lot 9 (No. 107B) St Leonards, Avenue, West Leederville - Two Storey 

Dwelling 31 

DV12.91 Lot 280 (No. 280) The Boulevard, City Beach - Single Storey Dwelling 35 

DV12.92 Lot 323 (No.107) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Additions and 

Alterations 40 

DV12.93 Lot 487 (No. 5) Orana Crescent, City Beach - Amended Plans for 

Three Storey Dwelling with Undercroft 45 

DV12.94 Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach - Amended Plans for 

Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft 49 

DV12.95 Lot 99 (No. 21) The Grove, Wembley - Double Carport 56 

DV12.96 Lot 1776 (No. 7) Katrine Street, Floreat - Garage Door and Fencing 59 

DV12.97 Lot 4 (No. 8) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - SAT 

Reconsideration - Reconsideration of Condition 62 

DV12.98 Revised Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5 West Leederville - Proposed 

Amendments to West Leederville Precinct Policy for Adoption By 

Council For Readvertising 65 

DV12.99 Leederville Station Link Design and Feasibility Study - Update Report 74 

DV12.100 Proposed Scheme Amendment for Additional Use 'Consulting Rooms 

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

Scheme Amendment No. 23 78 

DV12.101 Proposed Amendments to Parking Restrictions - Railway Parade and 

Oxford Close, West Leederville 84 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\August 2012\A Council Front.docx 

i



DV12.102 Review of Beach Lifeguard Service and Outcome of Beach User 

Forum 88 

DV12.103 Sustainability Information Report 96 

DV12.104 Authorisation of Officers - Development and Sustainability 102 

DV12.105 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for July 2012 106 

Community and Resources Committee 108 

CR12.114 Gregory Street (Ruislip to Lake Monger Drive) Kerbside Parking 111 

CR12.115 Kerbside Parking Amendments - Daglish Street 115 

CR12.116 Alderbury Street - Kerbside Parking Amendments Adjacent Alderbury 

Reserve 118 

CR12.117 445 Cambridge Street - Verge Paving Request 120 

CR12.118 Bus Shelter Management Program 123 

CR12.119 Provision of Horticultural Services RFT 17-12 129 

CR12.120 2012 Community Awards and Recognition Program 132 

CR12.121 50th Anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games - 

Event Celebrations 136 

CR12.122 2013/2014 Community Sporting Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) 

Small Grant Applications 139 

CR12.123 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Minutes - 31 July 2012 144 

CR12.124 Cambridge "High" Street - Outcomes of Community Consultation 146 

CR12.125 City Beach Oval Pavilion - Approval to Award Construction Tender 

RFT01-12 154 

CR12.126 Former Nursery Site Jolimont - Advertising Business Plan 157 

CR12.127 

Wembley Sports Park Landscaping Strategy - Outcomes of 

Community Consultation 160 

CR12.128 State Netball Centre - Design Approval 167 

CR12.129 Ocean Gardens Retirement Village - Appointment of Director 174 

CR12.130 Documents Sealed - August 2012 178 

CR12.131 Enviro 2012 Conference and Exhibition 180 

CR12.132 Payment of Accounts - July 2012 182 

CR12.133 Investment Schedule - July 2012 184 

CR12.134 Year End Review for Financial Year 2011/2012 189 

CR12.135 Amendment to the Budget for the Year Ending June 2013 192 

CR12.136 

City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club - Agreement for Redevelopment 

and Lease of Premisess 196 

CR12.137 Proposed Modifications to Clancy's Fish Bar 199 

CR12.138 Cambridge Coastcare Proposal - City Beach BioLINC Project 201 

10. Council Reports 124 

10.1 Lot 1107 (No.36) Dodd Street, Wembley - Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre 

- Parking and Landscape Proposal for Dodd Street 207 

11. Urgent Business 214 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given...................................................214 

12.1 Cr Bradley - Cash for Containers Scheme for Western Australia 

13. Confidential Reports ....................................................................................................216 

14. Closure .........................................................................................................................216 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\August 2012\A Council Front.docx 

ii

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

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

TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012. 

1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.03 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley 

Louis Carr 

Sonia Grinceri 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Otto Pelczar 

Colin Walker 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Planning 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) 

Catherine Celenza, Personal Assistant to CEO 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Nil 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\August 2012\A Council Front.docx 1



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Questions 

Mr Graham Hornel, 93 Empire, City Beach 

In the major works item in the August, 2012 'Cambridge News' it was announced that the 

2012/13 budget allocates $540,000 for the Wembley Golf Course hospitality project. In 

response to my question on this to the CEO, an informative response from the Director 

Projects explained some of the background behind this allocation - and referred me to a 

link on the Town Web site. The information presented in the linked item states that over 

500 of us accepted the Town's email invitation to respond to an online survey canvassing 

our opinion on the nature and feasibility of hospitality improvements at the Golf Course. 

Having given of my effort and time to respond - and other than an electronic thanks note 

at the end of this e-survey - it appears that I was one of the 500 plus who then heard 

nothing further directly until that 'Cambridge News' announcement some months later. 

Question 1 

Was a component of the Town's agreement with the successful tenderer for that survey, 

the requirement to follow up to keep those who contributed fully informed with even a 

summary of the results - and, if not, then why not 

Response 

The survey was managed by a sub consultant to the Architect who was awarded the 

contract for this project. The sub consultant's brief did not include publication of results. 

The purpose of the survey was to gain some market research to inform the design 

process for a preferred concept for future community consultation and does not relate to 

a specific decision to be made at this time. The results of this work have not yet been 

presented to Council and the designs have not yet progressed to a stage where 

community consultation is ready. 

Question 2 

Towards avoiding the perception that the overall process is not totally transparent 

because there was no formal follow up, is it agreed that all contracts for such surveys 

should include provision for programmed follow up 

Response 

The Town has a policy for community consultation and will ensure feedback is provided in 

accordance with the policy. 

Question 3 

Since a response of over 500 represents a fairly significant number of ratepayers and 

residents, is it agreed that is totally inadequate that, in order to obtain further information - 

even if this does not include even a summary of the survey input and results - the only 

source is the few words included in an item that is only accessible through a very long 

link to the Town web site 




Response 

A summary of the responses will be published on the Town's website. As the survey was 

intended to be used in forming a preferred concept for future community consultation, it is 

proposed to include the survey results as part of that future consultation process. 

Question 4 

What is Cambridge hiding, given this overall absence of total transparency 

Response 

The Town is not hiding anything and is using the market research in an appropriate 

manner to assist in the design process. 

Question 5 

Each school day at around 0900 two 91 buses meet on Brookdale Street between 

Rannoch and Grantham Streets - and usually between Peebles Road and Grantham 

Street - outside Newman Junior College. 

There are at least four Transperth bus stops between Rannoch and Grantham Streets. 

The Town allows vehicle parking on both sides of Brookdale Street, but has designated a 

few meters only around that College as No Stopping/No Parking and yellow lines and 

letters have been painted on the road. Neither these 91 buses or other motorists are able 

to pass safely, due to a combination of the both sides parking and the dozens of vehicles 

parked and stopped along this stretch each morning and again each afternoon on 

schooldays. Safe access to the bus stops for both passengers and these 91 buses is 

prevented by the many vehicles parked near or outside the College and bus drivers have 

constant difficulty in both seeing waiting passengers and in safe access to the bus stops 

in very small spaces between parked vehicles. 

Since similar on street both sides parking and stopping certainly is not permitted on Bent 

Street and Brompton Road at Holy Spirit Primary School in City Beach, why has the 

Town allowed this to continue on Kirkdale Avenue, Floreat for some years now 

Response 

The preamble and questions refer to Brookdale Street and they should refer to Kirkdale 

Avenue. 

A technical comment is that this section of Kirkdale Avenue has a constructed pavement 

width of 10 metres. Normal parking allowance of 2.4 metres each side results in a clear 

pavement width of 5.2 metres which is sufficient for vehicles travelling in opposite 

directions to pass safely when utilising due care as required under the Road Traffic Code 

2000. 

On this basis it is not always necessary to impose any parking restrictions other than 

those which reinforce the requirements of the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Council Policy 

such as "No Stopping" near an intersection. 

Both Brompton Road and Bent Street have pavement widths of 7.5 metres and cannot 

safely accommodate parking on both sides of the road. 




Question 6 

Has the management of Newman Junior College ever formally sought approval or 

dispensation from the Town as regards special parking and stopping arrangements on 

Kirkdale Avenue near the College – and, if so, when and what was the Town’s reply 

Response 

There have been no known street parking restrictions requested or implemented that do 

not conform to Council's Parking Restriction Policy. Under this policy Council considers 

requests received in writing from residents, ratepayers and others. No special 

arrangements in contravention of Council Policy have been made with Newman Junior 

College. 

Question 7 

How many Elected Members and Senior Town Staff Members have relatives who are 

employed at that College – and how many have children, grandchildren or relatives 

enrolled at this College currently 

Response 

We do not have this information. 

Question 8 

How often have the Town Rangers/Parking Inspectors patrolled this section of the 91 Bus 

Route during 2012 and how many notices have been issued for parking infringements 

Response 

There are ten primary schools in the Town which the Rangers visit two to three times a 

week during the set down and pick up periods. Most of our primary schools are operating 

either at capacity and in some cases expanding and with more children being driven to 

and picked up from school these days, traffic congestion is almost inevitable. We try to 

work with all of the schools to deal with this situation as best we can. 

In relation to the matter raised by Mr Hornel, we have not received any specific 

complaints, either from Transperth or from the school or the police. 

Over the past twelve months, ten parking infringements have been issued for parking in 

'No Stopping' areas in the streets around the Newman Junior School. Rangers generally 

take a tolerant approach in these areas and ask parents to move on. 

Question 9 

How often are these Town staff scheduled to patrol the main Transperth bus routes 

throughout Cambridge, towards ensuring that situations similar to those on Kirkdale 

Avenue are thoroughly monitored to enable both public transportation and other road 

users to travel safely along such routes 

Response 

There is no regular patrol of bus routes as such. In the event of Transperth bringing 

particular concerns to the Town's attention, we work with them to resolve these. 




Question 10 

Now that the Kirkdale Avenue danger has been formally brought to the Town’s attention 

again, what early action will Cambridge now take to resolve this now long-running 

anomaly 

Response 

Technically it is not agreed that the current parking of cars in Kirkdale Avenue (Brookdale 

Street in letter) creates a danger to either motorists or pedestrians. 

As no site inspection has been conducted at this moment, it will be inspected to review 

the current parent parking practices. 

Question 11 

The following was the response to my question presented at the 24 July, 2012 Council 

Meeting: The Town has yet to investigate opportunities with Perth Waste to sponsor local 

walking trails and the Travel Smart Guide/Brochure will be updated with existing 

resources within the next 3-4 months. 

Follow up Question: Given that the Perth Waste Sponsorship suggestion was first 

submitted to the Town on 5 June, 2012 has this opportunity now been thoroughly 

investigated nearly three months later - and, if so, what was the outcome 

Response 

Yes, Perth Waste advised that they would not sponsor a Walking Trail within the Town of 

Cambridge as it is not related to their core business which is Waste Management. 

Question 12 

Follow up Question : For the planned update of the Town's Walking Trails brochure 

"within the next 3-4 months", is it the Town's intention to actively seek input from 

ratepayers and residents towards soliciting their input on recommended Walking Trails for 

addition to this brochure - and, if so, how and when will this be actioned 

Response 

The Local TravelSmart Guide/brochure is prepared by local governments participating in 

the state government TravelSmart programme. It is not proposed to seek individual input 

from residents in the update of this guide as it is an interim measure to enhance the 

current guide to include the 'Bush to Beach' trail. However, if Mr Hornel has any 

suggestions that could be incorporated they would be considered. The guide provides a 

map and general advice on how to get around the Town by means other than the car; i.e. 

walking, cycling or public transport. 




Jim and Margaret Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley 

Question 1 

Part of the redevelopment of the City of Perth nursery land involves removing the existing 

Trust Development Covenant. My question is for what purpose was the Trust created and 

does the proposed actions of the Council meet the required Trust's conditions 

Response 

The conditions of the trust upon the land known as lot 520 (which includes Matthews 

Netball Centre, Pat Goodridge Reserve, Henderson Park and the former Nursery Site) 

are that it is to be used and held upon trust solely for the purpose of Municipal 

Endowment. The proposed action of Council is to seek to remove this trust condition only 

upon the former nursery site part of Lot 520. 

The purpose of the Endowment is to generate revenue through leasing as advised by the 

Department of Lands and when they are no longer required for this purpose they are to 

be returned to the State or the trust may be removed upon payment to the State of the 

lands unimproved market value. In the case of the nursery site which is no longer used a 

s nursery the Town has negotiated a more favourable financial arrangement for the Town 

with the State. 

Question 2 

The Council engaged consultants to advise on the future use of the Nursery Land. At that 

time we sought permission from the Council to view the consultant's terms of reference. 

We were told they were commercially confidential and unavailable to the public. Now that 

the development of this land has been transferred to Landcorp, what authority has the 

Council to influence Landcorps proposals 

Response 

Any proposal for development of the land will be subject to Council approval and the 

Council will be involved in the planning process. 

Question 3 

What opportunity, if any, will the public have to contribute to the future plans of Landcorps 

for the development of the Perth City Nursery Land 

Response 

The Town is in discussions with Landcorp as to the timing and nature of community 

consultation during their planning phase. As a minimum requirement the structure plan 

will be released for public comment prior to adoption. 

Question 4 

For what specific purpose will the Council use the money from the sale of the Nursery 

Land 




Response 

The intent of the agreement with the State Government is that an initial $5m of the 

revenue coming to the Town from this development will be used to facilitate subsequent 

stages of Wembley Sports Park development. The balance of funds to be received have 

not yet been earmarked for any other works but they will be used for management of the 

Town's assets on behalf of ratepayers. 

Verbal Questions 

Clive Miller, 24 Halesworth Road, Jolimont 

Question 

Has there been any further progress on the Draft Park Trees Management Plan deferred 

in April to a Council Forum 

Response 

No further progress due to other commitments. 

Ellen Smith, Regional Policy Officer, Rec Fish West 

Re: Item DV12.102 - Review of Beach Lifeguard Service and Outcome of Beach 

User Forum 

Question 

Could Council reconsider the proposed fishing restrictions at City Beach and Floreat 

groynes and undergo some consultation involving Rec Fish WA prior to making a 

decision 

Response 

Anglers were present at the Beach User Forum and agreed to the proposed restrictions. 

This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting. 

Paul Higgenbotham, Chief Executive Officer, Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre 

Re: Item 10.1 - Lot 1107 (No.36) Dodd Street, Wembley - Telethon Speech and 

Hearing Centre - Parking and Landscaping Proposal for Dodd Street 

Question 

Can Council confirm that if the cost of the road carriageway component of the 

construction exceeds $120,000, no contribution will be sought from the Speech and 

Hearing Centre 

Response 

This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting. 




Jim Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley 

Question 1 

Why has Council abrogated its responsibility in not developing the Nursery Site land for 

the benefit of the residents of Wembley and handballed it to Landcorp 

Response 

The statement that the Council has abrogated its responsibility is not accepted. 

If Council was to develop the land, it would have buy the Government's share and fund 

the development, the cost of which would be $10 to $20 million which would have to be 

raised through land sales or borrowings. We would have to manage the development 

which would take up a lot of officer time which may result in other projects being put on 

hold. By the Government developing the land, they buy the Town's share of the land, and 

manage the development. In general terms, however, the outcome should be the same. 

As far as meeting the needs of Wembley residents, the prime objective of the 

development will be to provide a choice of housing to meet the needs of the community. 

Question 2 

Some time ago, it was acknowledged at a Council meeting by one of the Elected 

Members present that the traffic on Jersey Street represented a danger to children going 

downhill to Cambridge Street and agreed that something should be done. Since then, 

modifications have been undertaken for parking but nothing has been done for the safety 

of children. 

Sam Birmingham, President West Coast Sporting Association 

Re: Item CR12.125 - City Beach Oval Pavilion - Approval to Award Construction 

Tender RFT01-12 

Question 

Can the Town please provide more detail on what it sees the next steps as being should 

the proposal be approved tonight in order that I can pass on the information to Committee 

members and Clubs 

Response 

The tender documents included a programme where works commence on 10 September 

2012 and due for completion on 15 March 2013. The decisions of Council tonight for a 

report to be considered may obviously change these dates. This matter will be discussed 

at tonight's meeting. 

4. PETITIONS 

Nil 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 




6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Cr Pelczar requested leave of absence from 1 October to 31 October 2012 inclusive. 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer 

That in accordance with Clause 3.7 of the Standing Orders, approval be given for 

Leave of Absence to be taken by Cr Pelczar from 1 to 31 October 2012 inclusive. 

Carried 9/0 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Walker 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 24 July 2012 be 

confirmed. 

Carried 9/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

Mayor Withers presented Cr Langer with an award from WALGA for his loyal and long 

service to local government over 13 years. 

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 

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

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

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

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

matter that they may have before the Council. 

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

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

Development: Items DV12.90, 92, 98 and 103 

Community and Resources: Items CR12.114, 117, 124, 127, 128, 129 and 

134 

Declarations of Interest: 

Item DV12.94 - Cr Pelczar - Proximity Interest 

Item CR12.114 - Cr King - Financial Interest 

Item CR12.124 - Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri 

- Financial Interest 

Item CR12.126, 127 and 128 - Mr C Colyer - 

Proximity Interest 

Item CR12.129 - Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and 

Pelczar - Impartiality Interest 

Item 10.1 - Mr Ian Birch - Financial Interest 




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 21 August 2012 was 

submitted as under: 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

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

6.02 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.09 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 8.09 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 8.09 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 8.09 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Louis Carr 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.07 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


Nil 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item DV12.87 

Item DV12.88 

Item DV12.90 

Item DV12.91 

Kim Lawrence, applicant 

Belinda Moharich, on behalf of applicant 

Tom Lim, neighbour 

Richard Lilley, owner 

Stephen Algie, neighbour 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\AUGUST 2012\B DV.DOCX 10



Item DV12.92 

Item DV12.94 

Item DV12.96 

Item DV12.100 

Elok Reinoud, neighbour 

Alex Pallis, owner 

Vivienne Chinery, on behalf of neighbour 

Nanda Day, applicant 

Yorick and Nadia Van Dommelon, on behalf of owner 

Ben Carter, on behalf of neighbour 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 19 

July 2012 as contained in the July 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 




DV12.86 

LOT 338 (NO. 6) TUMUT ROAD, CITY BEACH - SECOND STOREY 

ADDITION, LIFT AND WALKWAY - REFERRED BACK FURTHER REPORT- 

AMENDED PLANS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 

No. 6 Tumut Road, corner Windarra Drive, City Beach. The plans show a new third storey 

comprising of a lookout room, corridor and a lift to access this lookout room. 

The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the 

building height performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and 

objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved 

through a condition of planning approval. 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

• the proposed height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality 

and does not protect the amenities of the adjoining properties, in particular access to 

views of significance from the adjoining properties. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for additions and alterations requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of building height. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 435DA-2011 

Owner: J and M Johnson 

Applicant: J and M Johnson 

Zoning: Residential R12.5 

Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted 

Land area: 835 m² 

DETAILS: 

Development description 

• The existing dwelling situated on the subject site is a two storey dwelling with 

undercroft that faces Tumut Road. The dwelling has a pitched roof and large ground 

and upper floor balconies facing Tumut Road. 

• The proposal is to add a flat roofed third storey which will face Tumut Road and sit 

above the existing first floor void and part of the first floor balcony in the centre of the 

front elevation. 




• The third storey comprises a large room with windows on the north, south and west 

elevations, a corridor to the lift with windows each side (north and south elevations), 

and a lift. 

Applicant's justification 

The owner has provided written justification for the proposed development which is available 

to view for Elected Members. The main reason for the proposed development is to ensure 

the property retains ocean views over any new development that will be constructed on the 

five subdivided blocks opposite the subject site. 

Neighbour submission 

The applicant has provided a copy of plans that has signed statements of no objection to the 

proposal from the owners of No. 4 Tumut Road (south), No. 15 Windarra Drive (east) and 

No. 14 Windarra Drive, across the road to the north. The Town notified the owners of five 

additional properties in the vicinity. Three submissions objecting to the proposed 

development on the basis of potential loss of ocean views, possible precedent and negative 

impact on the streetscape were received from the owners of No. 8, No. 10 and No. 11 

Windarra Drive, City Beach. Copies of the submission are available to view for Elected 

Members. 

Performance criteria assessment 

Building height 

Overall (roof) height 

for a flat roof 

Proposed 

Acceptable development provision 

9.2 metres – 12 metres Max 7.5 metres 

Performance criteria: 

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

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

• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

• access to views of significance. 

The dwelling in its current form is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the 

locality. The majority of dwellings in the vicinity are of a similar or lesser height than the 

current dwelling at No. 6 Tumut Road. 

The addition of the third storey would add bulk to the dwelling on all elevations. This third 

storey is wholly above the maximum building height acceptable development provisions of 

Council’s Building Height Policy. The proposed additional height and bulk would be out of 

keeping with the existing streetscape and may set an undesirable precedent for rear 

neighbouring properties that would like to increase their height to reclaim ocean views that 

may be lost by this addition. 

The applicant (owner) has advised in his submission that if the overall height of the dwellings 

to be constructed on the subdivided lots across the road is not more than 9 metres, then he 

will not need to build the lookout. To date, the Town has received and approved under 




delegated authority plans for a two storey dwelling on the subdivided block across the road, 

on the corner of Windarra Drive and Tumut Road (No. 19 Windarra Drive). This dwelling has 

a maximum ridge height of approximately 8.0 metres. The Town has not yet received an 

application for the adjoining lot (No. 7 Tumut Road). Due to the site works involved with the 

subdivision, it is highly unlikely that variations to the building height acceptable development 

provisions would be approved on any of the subdivided lots across the road from the subject 

site. 

It should be noted that in response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey, 

recent developments in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 to 

adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for overall height 

(reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres). The Building 

Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for dormers. 

The intent of revising the Building Height Policy to a lower maximum overall height restriction 

and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two storeys and 

allow roof space for general storage only rather than a usable floor with a habitable room 

such as that proposed here. 

It is acknowledged that obtaining and keeping views is a significant issue affecting 

development in City Beach. Dispensing with the height requirements (performance criteria) 

to allow the applicant to get better views is not considered appropriate. The performance 

criteria are intended to facilitate alternative design solutions which result in comparable or 

better outcomes than what the acceptable development provisions provide. In this particular 

case, the proposed third storey is not likely to provide similar or better outcomes for the 

streetscape and the neighbouring properties than the acceptable development provisions. It 

is considered the proposed third storey does not satisfy the above performance criteria and 

is therefore not supported. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed building height 

shown on the plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following grounds:- 

• the increased height and bulk of the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the 

streetscape and the amenity of the neighbouring properties, particularly access to 

views of significance. 

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: 

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

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

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

There are no financial implications related to this report. 

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: 

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

the priority area 'Planning for our Community'. 




COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: 

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

for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning 

Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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

Council REFUSES the application for additions and alterations (third storey) submitted by J 

and M Johnson at Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, City Beach, for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of Council’s 

Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria of Part 6.7.1 of the 

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; and 

approval of the additional building height would establish an undesirable precedent for 

the area. 

Council Meeting 28 February 2012 

Members were advised that the owner of the subject property has requested that the item be 

withdrawn from tonight's meeting and be referred back to the Development Committee to 

enable them to clarify some details with Elected Members. 

COUNCIL DECISION: 

That the item relating to Lot 338 (No.6) Tumut Road, City Beach be referred back to the 

Development Committee for further consideration. 

Committee Meeting 20 March 2012 

Members were advised that the owner of the subject property has requested that the item be 

deferred for one month to enable further amendments to be made to their plans. 


That the item relating to Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, City Beach be deferred for further 

consideration. 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council 27 March 2012) 

On 10 July 2012, the owners submitted revised plans showing only a lift shaft. 

The proposed lift shaft is 2.4 metres long and 2.4 metres wide, and projects a maximum of 

1.5 metres from the roof line. The lift shaft will be located behind the main ridge line and will 

not be visible from Tumut Road or Windarra Drive. The overall height of the lift shaft is 

below the overall height of any part of the roof on the dwelling. The lift shaft has a flat roof 

with a maximum height of 6.7 metres which is well within the Town’s overall height 

acceptable development requirements (maximum permissible is 7.5 metres). In view of 

these comments, it is considered that the amended plans dated 10 July 2012, showing only 




a lift shaft can be supported. The Administration's Recommendation has, therefore, been 

changed. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley 

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

1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations (lift shaft) 

submitted by J and M Johnson at Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, City Beach as shown 

on the amended plans dated 10 July 2012. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.87 

LOT 129 (NO. 6) HORNSEY ROAD, FLOREAT - RETROSPECTIVE 

APPROVAL FOR GARAGE DOOR 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for a garage at No. 6 

Hornsey Road, Floreat. A carport was approved on the site in June 2009. The owner at 

some time installed a garage door. The owner was requested to remove the door on 12 

October 2011 and further on the 9 July 2012. 


primary street setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R 

Codes). 


reason:- 

• does not contribute the desired streetscape and character of the 'Garden Suburb' of 

Floreat. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

K and D Lawrance 

Applicant: K Lawrance 


Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted 


An application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, including an open carport 

at the front of the dwelling, was approved on 16 June 2009 and a building licence was 

issued on 17 November 2009. 

A solid garage door to the front of the carport has subsequently been installed. 

DETAILS: 


• The applicant requests retrospective approval for an existing garage door to the 

double carport at the front of the single storey dwelling. 

• The site slopes up approximately 1.0 metre from the street boundary to the rear 

boundary with the floor level of the dwelling sitting approximately 1.0 metre above the 

level at the front boundary. 

• The carport has a pitched, colorbond roof and is set back 1.8 metres from the front 

boundary. 





The applicant has provided written justification for the variation to the acceptable 

development provisions relating to the garage door to the carport in the front setback area 


Setbacks of buildings generally 

Proposed 

Acceptable development 

provision 

Primary Street 1.8 metres 9.0 metres 


Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: 

• contribute to the desired streetscape 

• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and 

• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. 

The Residential Design Codes define a carport as an unenclosed roofed structure except to 

the extent that it abuts a dwelling or property boundary on one side, and being without a 

door unless that door is visually permeable. The construction of the carport with a minimum 

setback of 1.8 metres was permitted in recognition that the structure was to remain open, 

and therefore does not present a solid mass of building into the streetscape. An open 

carport retains an open aspect to allow for clear and unobstructed views through to the 

dwelling and does not detract from the dominant elements of houses and landscape within 

the streetscape. 

By virtue of the definition in the R Codes, the inclusion of a solid door to the front of the 

carport means it no longer is considered to be a carport and becomes a garage. The 

setback requirement for garages in Floreat is 9.0 metres in recognition of the visual impact 

that such structures impart on the streetscape. The remainder of the walls to the carport are 

proposed to remain open. 

The carport is in front of part of the dwelling that does not have a major opening facing the 

street so that the solid door does not assist in providing additional privacy for the dwelling. 

As the carport is located forward of the dwelling the solid garage door dominates the front 

setback and is out character with the streetscape. 

A site inspection of other carports in front setbacks along Hornsey Road between Oceanic 

Drive and Newry Street show that they are all open structures. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the 

garage from the primary street boundary is not acceptable and does not comply with the 

performance criteria for the following reason:- 


Floreat. 

It therefore it is recommended the solid door be removed. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

Committee Meeting 21 August 2012 

During discussion, the Administration was requested to investigate whether an open grilled 

style garage door could be approved as part of this application. 




That:- 

(i) 

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

1, Council REFUSES the application for retrospective approval for a garage as 

submitted by K Lawrance at Lot 129 (No. 6) Hornsey Road, Floreat, as shown on 

the plans dated 26 July 2012 for the following reasons: 

(a) 

(b) 

the garage does not meet the acceptable development or the performance 

criteria of Clause 6.2.1 (Setbacks of Buildings generally) of the Town of 

Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual and Residential Design 

Codes of Western Australia; and 

does not contribute the desired streetscape and character of the 'Garden 

Suburb' of Floreat; 




(ii) the garage door at Lot 129 (No. 6) Hornsey Road, Floreat be removed by the 25 

September 2012; 

(iii) 

failure to comply with (ii) above, the owner of the property be prosecuted. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.88 

LOT 496 (NO.326) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE -TWO 

GROUPED DWELLINGS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for two grouped dwellings at No. 326 Railway Parade, 

West Leederville. The plans show two, two storey dwellings on the lot with a boundary wall 

to the eastern boundary of unit 2 which is not supported by the adjoining landowner. 


setback of buildings generally and buildings on the boundary performance criteria of the 

Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the 

consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

• does not have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscape, 

• conforms with the existing and desired character of the streetscape, 

• does not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 196DA - 2012 

Owner: 

Mr Brian Fetch, Ms Margaret Cruz & Grovewest Pty Ltd 

Applicant: Urban and Rural Perspectives 

Zoning: 

Residential R30 



This application was originally submitted in May 2012 showing a boundary wall 

approximately 2.9 metres in height. Since then the wall has been amended to maximum 

height of approximately 2.5 metres. It is this wall that is the subject of the report. 

DETAILS: 


• The site is located on Railway Parade with the Railway Line and Patersons Stadium 

located opposite. It has a north/south orientation with a relatively flat site topography. 

• The lot frontage is angled and so there is only a small section of the dwelling that 

projects into the 4.5 metre primary street setback area. 

• The proposal is for two, two storey dwellings on the lot. 

• Unit 1 is set back at 2.75 metres from the primary street boundary to the first floor 

balcony and 3.117 metres to the ground floor garage. 

• Unit 2 has a boundary wall on the right/eastern side with a length of 8.7 metres and a 

maximum height of 2.5 metres. 





The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable 

development provisions relating to setback of buildings generally and buildings on the 

boundary. 


The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the eastern and 

northern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 1 and 1B Tate Street, West Leederville. 

One submission was received from the owners of No.1B Tate Street, West Leederville 

objecting to boundary wall due to the impact on the amenity of the development in terms of 

privacy, access to direct sun and building bulk. 



Balcony setback to primary 

street boundary 

Garage setback to primary 

street boundary 

Proposed 


provision 

2.75 metre setback 4.5 metre setback 







With the Railway Line and Patersons Stadium located across Railway Parade, the reduced 

setback to the primary street boundary is unlikely to have an impact on adjoining neighbours' 

amenity. A number of dwellings in the immediate locality, such as the adjoining lot to the 

east, have solid walls within the setback area to protect against the noise pollution in the 

area. This proposal is a preferable outcome. Also, the proposal of the balcony within close 

proximity to Railway Parade allows the dwelling to maintain passive surveillance of the 

street. This is a valuable contribution to the streetscape in this particular area. 

The subject site is constrained by a sewer line in the middle of the lot as well as the narrow 

width of the lot and so Unit 1 cannot be moved further towards the rear without having a 

detrimental impact on the internal or outdoor living areas of Unit 1. Maintaining adequate 

internal and outdoor living areas is essential as well as providing a safe access way down 

one side of the lot so the need to extend the dwelling laterally is apparent. 

Given that the garage and balcony only consume 7.4 metres of the 13.88 metre frontage, 

and that the remainder of the frontage is open, it is not considered that the proposal will not 

have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. 





development from the Railway Parade boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance 

criteria for the following reasons:- 


• conforms with the existing and desired character of the streetscape. 

Buildings on boundary 

Setback of store, kitchen and 

living room wall to 

right/eastern boundary 


Proposed 

Nil setback with a 

boundary wall 


provision 

1.0 metre setback 

Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so 

in order to: 

• make effective use of space; or 

• enhance privacy; or 

• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and 

• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of 

adjoining properties is not restricted. 

The location of the boundary wall on the eastern boundary allows adjoining properties to 

maintain access to the northern sun and also prevents an impact on adjoining neighbours' 

access to the morning sun. The wall will have some impact on access to direct sun during 

the afternoon to the adjacent lot to the east, however, meets the acceptable development 

requirements regarding overshadowing. The wall is relatively low at a maximum of 2.5 

metres in height, and is a length of 8.7 metres, so the building bulk is minimised. 

The wall will abut the rear boundary of the adjacent lot to the east with a narrow outdoor 

passageway to the laundry, utilised by the residents, and window to the kitchen. It will not 

adjoin the major outdoor living area located to the south-east of the neighbouring site. 

Given the zoning of the lot at R30 and the location within a relatively built up area of West 

Leederville, the proposal of such a boundary wall is not considered insurgent to the current 

and future development within the immediate locality. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed store, kitchen and 

living room wall on the right/eastern side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the 


















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 


Council APPROVES the application for two grouped dwellings submitted by Urban and Rural 

Perspectives at Lot 496 (No. 326) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as shown on the plans 

dated 11 May 2012, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to being 

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the visual privacy screens for the balcony being designed to restrict views to the 

neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with the acceptable 

development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes 

of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling. 





During discussion, Members agreed that the proposed store of Unit 2 should be deleted to 

reduce the amount of building bulk on the boundary. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

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

(iii) 

the proposed store of Unit 2 on the boundary being deleted. 

Amendment carried 4/0 


(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 



1, Council APPROVES the application for two grouped dwellings submitted by Urban 

and Rural Perspectives at Lot 496 (No. 326) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as 

shown on the plans dated 11 May 2012, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to 

being rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the visual privacy screens for the balcony being designed to restrict views to the 

neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with the acceptable 

development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design 

Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the 

dwelling. 

the proposed store of Unit 2 on the boundary being deleted. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.89 

LOT 101 (NO. 11) CADDY AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED 

REAR TWO STOREY DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at the rear of No. 11 Caddy 

Avenue, West Leederville. The plans show a contemporary designed home with a mix of flat 

and skillion roofing, an internal courtyard, and a double garage accessed off the adjacent 

right-of-way. 



objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved 



reasons:- 

 

the proposed building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the 

locality and does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the 

adjoining properties. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

D and S Thal 

Applicant: D and S Thal 

Zoning: 




DETAILS: 


• There is an existing two storey dwelling on the subject site facing Caddy Avenue. The 

dwelling has a double garage with roof top terrace above. No changes are proposed 

to the front dwelling. 

• The rear of the subject site is relatively flat and currently vacant. The rear of the site is 

approximately 2.7 metres higher than the level adjacent to the front boundary. A 

retaining wall separates the front dwelling from the rear, and there are steps up in the 

pedestrian accessway to reach the rear of the site. 

• The proposed pedestrian accessway to the rear of the site is 1.5 metres in width for a 

length of 7.2 metres, then narrows to a width of 1.0 metre for a length of 10.5 metres. 

The 1.0 metre wide portion cannot be wider as it is directly adjacent to the side of the 

existing dwelling. 




• The proposed dwelling is two storey, comprising:- 

o Ground floor: double garage with store, kitchen, meals, living room, laundry and 

toilet, 

o First floor: three bedrooms, three bathrooms and a living room. 

• The dwelling is u-shaped, with a focus to an internal courtyard on the western side of 

the property. 

• The dwelling has a combination of flat and skillion roofing, and a mix of wall finishes 

including feature cladding, tiles and rendered zego. A fixed vertical screen is also 

proposed above the courtyard on the western side. 

• The double garage is proposed to be accessed from the adjoining right-of-way (ROW). 

This ROW is 3.0 metres wide and is privately owned. The owners have provided a 

copy of an agreement with the owner of the ROW granting the subject site an access 

easement over the ROW. 

• In addition, there is a stormwater drainage pipe through the property. The pipe runs 

from Caddy Avenue to Warwick Street. The Town's Technical Services has advised 

that the applicant will have to concrete encase the pipe under the garage with the 

thickness of the concrete being 100mm with F62 mesh. 


The applicant has provided written justification for the variation to the acceptable 

development provisions relating to building height. A summary of the applicant’s justification 

is attached to this agenda. 


The Town notified the owners of the following properties directly adjoining the subject site, 

being No. 13 Caddy Avenue to the west, No. 9 Caddy Avenue to the east, and No. 119 

Kimberley Street, No. 4 Warwick Street and No. 6 Warwick Street to the rear (south-east, 

south and south-west respectively). Two submissions were received. One from the owners 

of No. 119 Kimberley Street objecting to use of the ROW, and another from the owners of 

No. 6 Warwick Street objecting to the height and shape of the roof, overshadowing, and the 

toilet window. A summary of the submissions are attached to this agenda. 

In response to the comments received, the applicant has provided the following information:- 

• ROW: the subject site has an access easement over the ROW and therefore the ROW 

can be used to access the proposed dwelling and its double garage. As the ROW is 

private, the condition of, and damage to, the ROW is a civil, rather than Council, 

matter. 

• Toilet window: the plans have been amended to show that the ensuite toilet window 

facing south will have obscure glass. 






Overall height for a skillion or 

flat roof 


Proposed 

Maximum 7.5 metres 


provision 

Maximum 7.0 metres 


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

adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

access to views of significance. 

The plans show the majority of the dwelling with a flat roof 0.4 metres below the acceptable 

development overall height limit of 7.0 metres. The dwelling does have, however, an 11 

degree skillion roof over the upper floor bedroom 1 and WIR, which has an overall height of 

7.5 metres. The skillion roof is a small part of the roofing and has been included to provide 

some interest to the roof form, rather than having a flat roof throughout. It is noted that the 

West Leederville roof pitch requirements are not applicable, as the dwelling is not visible 

from the primary street (Caddy Avenue). 

The owner of No. 6 Warwick Street has raised concerns this roof may restrict views to Mt 

Hawthorn and may increase shadowing. Views of significance are generally to natural 

features such as the ocean, lakes, bushland or parkland rather than to another suburb. In 

relation to overshadowing, the applicant has provided an overshadowing diagram, showing 

that the shadow cast by the development at midday on 21 June will cover 6.4% of No. 6 

Warwick Street and 16.8% of No. 4 Warwick Street. This is well in compliance with the R 

Codes maximum permissible amount of overshadowing of 35%. No. 6 Warwick Street 

shares 3.6 metres of its 10.06 metre long rear boundary with the subject site. The shadow 

onto No. 6 Warwick Street covers a width of 2.4 metres due to the 1.2 metre side setback of 

the upper floor. 

The lowest point of the skillion roof is adjacent to the rear boundary thus reducing building 

bulk and overshadowing impacts on the rear neighbours. It should also be noted that the 

owner has chosen flat and skillion roof forms to reduce the impact of the development on the 

adjoining properties. A pitched (hipped or gabled) roof could be at least 1.5 metres higher 

than the highest point of the skillion, and even 3.0 metres higher depending on the ridge 

length. 

With regard to the performance criteria, the proposed height of the dwelling is consistent with 

the desired height of buildings in the locality, being two storey. The amenities of the 

adjoining properties are not significantly impacted by the roof. A pitched roof would have 

significantly more impact on building bulk and any views of significance. As previously 

stated, the extent of overshadowing is well within acceptable development limits. 




Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the 

development is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• the proposed building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the 

locality and does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the 

adjoining properties, particularly in relation to building bulk, overshadowing and access 

to views of significance. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey grouped dwelling submitted by 

D and S Thal at the rear of Lot 101 (No. 11) Caddy Avenue, West Leederville, as shown 

on the amended plans dated 27 July 2012, subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the visual privacy screen for the upper floor living room window being designed 

to restrict views from the living room to the neighbouring property to the west in 

accordance with the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual 

Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be 

installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling; 

the surface finish of boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the east to 

being rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 




(iii) 

the pipe under the garage being concrete encased with the thickness of the 

concrete being 100mm with F62 mesh. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.90 

LOT 9 (NO. 107B) ST LEONARDS, AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO 

STOREY DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 107b St Leonards 

Avenue, West Leederville. The plans show a dwelling with a 5 degree roof pitch. 


roof pitch performance criteria of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 


reason:- 

• the roof form does not respect the architectural styles which characterise the 

immediate locality. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Richard and Sarah Lilly 

Applicant: Residential Attitudes 

Zoning: 




The Town approved an application for two side-by-side two storey grouped dwellings on the 

original lot at its meeting on 23 March 2010 (Item DV10.20) which had 30 degree roof 

pitches visible from the street to both dwellings. The dwelling on the southern lot (No. 107a 

St Leonards Avenue) has subsequently been constructed. The current application retains a 

similar floor plan to the dwelling previously approved for the lot but proposes the roof be 

replaced with a low pitch skillion roof. 

DETAILS: 


• Lot is 7.55 metres wide and slopes up from front to rear by approximately 1.75 metres. 

• The dwelling proposes boundary walls to both side boundaries which abut boundary 

walls constructed on adjoining properties. 

• The proposed dwelling has a skillion roof with a five degree pitch over the two store 

section of the dwelling. The single storey section has a 30 degree roof pitch but this is 

not visible from the street. 






development provisions relating to the roof pitch variation. 


Roof pitch in West Leederville 

Primary roof visible from 

street 


Proposed 

5 degree pitch skillion 

roof 


provision 

Primary roofs of a dwelling that 

are visible from the street are 

hipped and/or gabled, and have a 

pitch between 30 and 40 

degrees. 

• Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the 

street and immediate locality; 

Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate 

locality; and 

Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours which are characteristic of 

housing in the immediate locality. 

The applicant proposes a skillion roof with a pitch of 5 degrees in lieu of the requirement 

within West Leederville of a hipped and/or gabled roof with a roof pitch of between 30 and 40 

degrees. Roof pitches of between 30 and 40 degrees reflect the architectural style of the 

existing residential stock in the locality with most of the dwellings along St Leonards Avenue 

having been designed with roof pitches reflecting this characteristic. 

The applicant has provided several examples of dwellings with roof pitches of less than 30 

degrees on St Leonards Avenue, however these examples were approved under redundant 

policies relating to roof pitch and do not set a precedent for any new dwellings to be 

approved by the Town with similar low roof pitches. In addition, these roof pitches, whilst not 

pitched/gabled roofs of 30 degrees, were designed to reflect the character of the West 

Leederville precinct which is what the previous roof pitch policies required. The proposed 

dwelling would appear as a low pitched skillion roof from the street and is therefore not 

considered to respect the existing and desired architectural style or character of dwellings 

within the immediate locality. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed roof pitch does not comply with the performance 

criteria for the following reason: 

• the roof form does not respect the architectural styles which characterise the 

immediate locality. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 21 August 2012) 

At the Development Committee meeting on 21 August 2012, an application for the two 

storey dwelling was refused for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not meet the acceptable development provisions or 

performance criteria of Clause 6.2.7 Roof Pitch of Policy 3.1, Town Planning 

Scheme Policy Manual; and 

the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the existing and desired 

character of the streetscape. 

The applicant has provided an amended plan with regard to the roof pitch as a result of the 

Committee decision. The amended plan provides for a 30 degree pitched colorbond roof to 

the dwelling as viewed from the street whilst maintaining a flat roofed parapet wall over 

Bedroom 2. The amended plan is considered to meet the acceptable development 

provisions of Clause 6.2.7 of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual and can be 

supported. 

In addition, the applicant has modified the driveway in the front setback area to increase the 

amount of landscaping to address relevant performance criteria for landscaping in the front 

setback area. 

The amended plan is forwarded to you for your consideration. Should the Council support 

the amended plan, the following recommendation is applicable. A condition is proposed to 

ensure that the boundary walls that do not abut neighbouring boundary walls are finished to 

the satisfaction of the Town. 

It is therefore recommended that, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town 

Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling 

submitted by Residential Attitudes at Lot 9 (No. 107b) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville 

Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 27 August 2012 subject to the following 

condition:- 




(i) 

the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the north and 

south and not abutting the boundary walls of the adjoining properties to the north and 

south, to be rendered and painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. 





1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by 

Residential Attitudes at Lot 9 (No. 107b) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as 

shown on the plans dated 20 July 2012 for the following reasons: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not meet the acceptable development provisions or 

performance criteria of Clause 6.2.7 Roof Pitch of Policy 3.1, Town Planning 

Scheme Policy Manual; and 

the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the existing and desired 

character of the streetscape. 

Lost 0/9 


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King 


1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by 

Residential Attitudes at Lot 9 (No. 107b) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville Beach 

as shown on the amended plans dated 27 August 2012 subject to the following 

condition:- 

(i) 

the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the 

north and south and not abutting the boundary walls of the adjoining properties 

to the north and south, to be rendered and painted or face brickwork to the 

satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.91 

LOT 280 (NO. 280) THE BOULEVARD, CITY BEACH - SINGLE STOREY 

DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling at No. 280 The Boulevard, 

City Beach. The dwelling has a triple garage and has an alfresco within the rear setback 

area. 


buildings setback from the boundary and site works performance criteria of the Residential 

Design Codes of WA (R.Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation 

period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria relating to buildings 

setback from the boundary and site works for the following reasons:- 

• retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street and 

adjoining properties; and 

• the alfresco will have minimal impact on direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining 

properties and is well set back from both side boundaries. 

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to rear setback 

and site works. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 194DA-2012 

LANDOWNER: 

Mr Graham S Macgregor 

APPLICANT: 

Redink Homes Pty Ltd 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted) 

LAND AREA: 932m 2 

DETAILS: 


• New single storey dwelling proposed with existing dwelling to be demolished. 

• Site slope from the right (east) side to the left (west) side by approximately 1 metre. 

• Retaining wall proposed on the left (west) side boundary of up to 0.965 metre resulting 

in a variation to the acceptable development standards for site works. 




• Alfresco proposed 3.870 metres from the rear (north) boundary resulting in a variation 

to the acceptable development standards relating to buildings setback from the 

boundary. Alfresco is setback 13.3 metres from the east (right) side boundary and 5.0 

metres from the west (left) side boundary. 



development provisions relating to the rear setback and site works variation 


A submission was received from the adjoining landowner at No.282 The Boulevard, City 

Beach, objecting to the proposed rear setback and site works. 

The applicant has submitted amended plans addressing the adjoining landowner's concerns 

relating to the potential of overshadowing, specifically, reduced access to morning (east) 

sunlight. In an attempt to reduce the potential impact of the proposed retaining wall on the 

adjoining property to the west, the applicant has submitted amended plans reducing the 

finished floor level of the proposed dwelling by 74 millimetres. This is the maximum the level 

could be reduced without requiring support of the existing retaining wall by chemical injection 

or other structural means. 

The original plans submitted showed the alfresco area built up to 1.5 metres from the left 

(west) side boundary, with the western side of the alfresco enclosed up to a height of 1.8 

metres. The amended plans have deleted this section of alfresco on the western elevation, 

setting the remaining portion of alfresco back from the western boundary by 5 metres from 

the western boundary. This will ensure that rear setback area of the adjoining property to the 

west receives sufficient morning sunlight. The neighbour to the rear does not object to the 

setback 

Assessment against the performance criteria 

Buildings set back from the boundary 

Rear setback 


Proposed 

3.870 metres from the rear 

(north) side boundary. 


6.0 metres 

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

• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

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

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

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

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

• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 




The alfresco area (7.290 metres in length and 2.5 metres in height) located in the rear 

setback area is setback 3.870 metres from the rear (north) boundary. The enclosed portion 

of wall to the kitchen on the western side of the dwelling is now setback an acceptable 6.220 

metres from the rear (north) boundary. The new setback of 5.0 metres to the alfresco from 

the left (west) side boundary provides a staggering of the overall portions of wall on the 

western elevation providing articulation and breaking up any perception of building bulk of 

the subject wall on the west elevation. 

There are no issue relating to overlooking with the privacy between the proposed dwelling 

and the adjoining properties protected. As the proposal is for a single storey dwelling the 

applicant is seeking a reduction in rear setback in order to achieve the same amount of floor 

space as a two storey dwelling. The single storey dwelling has less building bulk and privacy 

issues than a two storey may have. 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback satisfies the relevant performance 

criteria for the following reason:- 

• the alfresco will have minimal impact on direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining 

properties and is well set back from both side boundaries. 

Site works 

Fill within 1 metre of a 

common boundary. 

Proposed Acceptable development 

provision 

Maximum height of 0.965 Maximum height of 0.5 metre. 

metres on the left (west) 

side boundary. 


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

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

The floor level of the dwelling is consistent with the average natural ground level of the site. 

The proposed retaining wall ranges from 0.425 metres in height at the rear of the left (west) 

side boundary up to 0.965 metres in the middle of the western boundary and back down to 

0.735 metres from the natural ground level where it abuts the existing 2.2 metre high brick 

wall located on the adjoining property to the west. 

The proposed fill will retain the natural level of the site as viewed from the street with the 

subject property sloping from east to west by approximately 1 metre. It is consistent with 

adjoining properties in the immediate locality which have similar height retaining. The 

retaining of less than 1.0 metre at the highest point is not considered to have an undue 

impact on the adjoining property to the west in terms of building bulk or overshadowing. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed fill on the west (left) side boundary satisfies the 

relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- 

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

other public place, or from an adjoining property. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Applicant's justification and neighbour comments. 



Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Redink Homes 

Pty Ltd at Lot 27 (No. 280) The Boulevard, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 7 

August 2012 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the landscaping areas, as indicated in red on the approved plan, to be installed and 

reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the 

satisfaction of the Town. 


Amendment 



(ii) 

the street tree being retained. 









1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by 

Redink Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 27 (No. 280) The Boulevard, City Beach as shown on the 

plans dated 7 August 2012 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the landscaping areas, as indicated in red on the approved plan, to be installed 

and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained 

to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the street tree being retained. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.92 

LOT 323 (NO.107) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS 

AND ALTERATIONS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at 

No. 107 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The plans show additions to an existing dwelling 

including a garage and carport built on the south-eastern boundary, a new porch and lounge 

area as well as further minor alterations. 


setback of buildings generally and buildings on the boundary performance criteria of the 

Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the 



reasons:- 


• conforms with the existing and desired character of the streetscape, 



BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Alex Pallis 

Applicant: Alex Pallis 

Zoning: 

Residential R/12.5 



This application was originally submitted in April 2012 with plans showing a solid wall for a 

length of 16.4 metres along the south-eastern side boundary. To address some of the 

concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of neighbouring properties, 

amended plans were submitted in August 2012 showing the solid section of the carport on 

the south-eastern boundary being replaced with an open-style carport. It is the latter set of 

plans that are the subject of the following report. 

DETAILS: 


• The lot slopes significantly from front (south-west) to rear (north-east), declining a total 

of 4.46 metres from south to north 

• Existing on the lot is a single storey dwelling to the front of the site with a small section 

of double storey to the rear of the site as the lot slopes down. 

• The proposal is for the construction of a garage and carport along the south-eastern 

boundary with a parapet wall for the length of 11.26 metres, reaching a maximum 




height of 2.79 metres and an open carport for a further 5.143 metres. The carport will 

be attached to the dwelling and a minimum of 2.0 metres from the Branksome 

Gardens frontage with the garage a minimum of 7.0 metres. A porch, entry and lounge 

area is also proposed. The lounge and entry are set back a minimum of 7.2 metres 

from the Branksome Gardens frontage and the porch is set back 5.5 metres. 



development provisions relating to setback of buildings generally and buildings on the 

boundary. 


The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the south-eastern boundary 

of the subject site, being No. 109 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. A submission was 

received objecting to the boundary wall. 



Setback of porch from the 

primary street frontage 

Setback of lounge from the 


Setback of garage from the 


Proposed 


provision 









The front lot boundary of the site is angled in a way that the existing residence is set back 

well beyond the 7.5 metre primary street setback area along the south-western side of the 

frontage. Due to this orientation, however, the proposed lounge and garage additions, whilst 

in line with the existing dwelling, will project into the 7.5 metre setback area for a small area. 

This is a very minor projection of a maximum of 0.5 metres and will not have a significant 

impact on the streetscape. 

The porch will protrude forward of the lounge and entry area, however, it is covers only an 

area of 5.25 square metres and will not dominate the streetscape in terms of building bulk. 

The carport is set back at 2.0 metres from the Branksome Gardens boundary and meets the 

acceptable development provisions regarding setbacks of buildings generally. 





development from the Branksome Gardens boundary is acceptable and satisfies the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 


• conforms with the existing and desired character of the streetscape. 


Setback of garage and 

carport wall 


Proposed 

Nil setback with a 

boundary wall 


provision 

1.0 metre setback 


in order to: 







The proposed boundary wall is solid for a 11.26 metre section, the garage, and open for a 

further 5.143 metre section towards the front of the lot, the carport. It reaches a maximum 

wall height of 2.79 metres. Being single storey and low in overall height the boundary wall 

will not present an imposing structure in terms of building bulk and will not significantly 

impact the amenity of the adjoining lot. 

The boundary wall will adjoin a proposed 6.0 metre boundary wall to a garage on the 

adjacent lot to the south-east. The majority of the wall will abut this wall and the proposed 

driveway to the neighbour's garage. The garage wall only projects pasts the adjoining 

boundary wall for a length of 1.5 metres so will not have a significant impact on the 

neighbours outdoor living area or kitchen window. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage and 

carport wall on the south-east/right side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the 


















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by Alex Pallis at 

Lot 323 (No. 107) Branksome Gardens, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 8 August 

2012, subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south-west to 

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; 

the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; 

the pickets of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface with an 

open to solid ratio of no less than 1:1. 


The adjoining neighbour to the south addressed Committee in relation to this matter and 

advised that he was not proceeding with his approved development and therefore no garage 

was being built on the boundary. 

During discussion, the Administration was requested to clarify this matter prior to the next 

meeting of Council. 

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




FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 21 August 2012) 

At the Development Committee (21 August 2012), the item was submitted to Council for 

determination due to new information raised by the adjoining owner. 

The neighbour advised he was not proceeding with his development and therefore no 

garage was being built on the boundary. The Administration was requested to clarify the 

matter. 

The Manager Development met with the neighbour and it was confirmed that the approved 

development application for 109 Branksome Gardens, that included a double garage, on the 

boundary was not been proceeded with. The neighbour has new plans for his site which do 

not include a garage on the northern boundary but rather a garage 1.3 metres set off the 

boundary in a similar location. 

The Administration when recommending support for the proposed garage on the boundary 

did take into consideration the approval development next door. Now that it is not being 

proceeded with, it is recommended that the item be referred back to the Development 

Committee so the proposal can be reconsidered in terms of the neighbours new plans. 

The Manager Development has also met with the applicant and discussed some of thie 

issues raised by the neighbour and has suggested that:- 

• The wall to be reduce to 9 metres in length; and 

• The height of the wall be lowered to 2.7 metres which would mean modifying the design 

of the garage. 

The applicant is willing to consider these points and will submit new plans for the 

Development Committee to consider. 

It is therefore recommended that the item relating to the application for additions and 

alterations submitted by Alex Pallis at Lot 323 (No. 107) Branksome Gardens, City Beach be 

referred back to Development Committee for consideration. 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That the item relating to the application for additions and alterations submitted by 

Alex Pallis at Lot 323 (No. 107) Branksome Gardens, City Beach be referred back to 

Development Committee for consideration. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.93 

LOT 487 (NO. 5) ORANA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - AMENDED PLANS 

FOR THREE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application to modify the third floor rear guest bedroom of the 

dwelling substantially completed at No. 5 Orana Crescent, City Beach. The plans show an 

increase in the ceiling height to 2.4 metres for the majority of the bedroom, and changes to 

the roof and window to accommodate this amendment. 



an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved 



reasons:- 

• the amendment is unlikely to result in further significant bulk, privacy or overshadowing 

impacts on the adjoining properties; and 

• the amendment does not impact on the streetscape. 


BACKGROUND: 

Application: 60DA-2009.02 

Owner: 

Y Xie and J Rose 

Applicant: Seacrest Homes 




At the Council meeting held on 28 July 2009, Council approved a three storey dwelling with 

undercroft. For the third floor, the approved plans showed a guest bedroom facing the front 

boundary and an attic with a raked ceiling and a dormer facing the rear boundary. Prior to 

construction the third floor plans were modified to show a large void facing the front 

boundary and the guest bedroom (with the same raked ceiling and dormer) facing the rear 

boundary instead of the attic. 

Construction of the dwelling has been substantially completed and the applicant has advised 

that the owner is not happy with the way the guest bedroom has turned out and wishes to 

raise the roof to result in a flat, 2.4 metre high, ceiling for the guest bedroom rather than a 

raked ceiling. 




The applicant submitted amended plans on 24 November 2011 proposing a higher ceiling 

height for the third floor rear guest bedroom. These plans were considered by Council at its 

meeting held on 28 February 2012, and in this particular case, the Council decided the 

refuse these plans for the following reasons: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of Council's 

Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria of Part 6.7.1 of the 

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; and 

the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for future development in City Beach. 

The applicant has reviewed the plans that were refused by Council and, in consultation with 

Council's planning officers, has redesigned the roof and window to still achieve the higher 

ceiling height in the bedroom but with less wall and roof projecting from the existing roof. 

Plans showing this redesign were submitted on 30 July 2012 and are the subject of the 

following report. 

DETAILS: 


• The subject development comprises a three storey dwelling with undercroft. Due to 

the slope of the site, the development presents as a two storey with undercroft from 

the front (third floor not clearly visible on front elevation) and three storeys from the 

rear (cannot see undercroft on rear elevation). 

• Amendments are proposed to the rear of the third floor to replace the raked ceiling with 

a flat ceiling throughout the guest bedroom. 

• From the exterior (rear), the amendments include replacing the existing dormer with a 

wall projection rendered to match the existing walls and an extension to the existing 

roof ridge so the roof meets the new wall projection with the same pitch as the existing 

roof. 


The applicant has provided written justification for the proposed amendment. 


The Town notified the owners of the properties directly adjoining the subject site, being No. 7 

Orana Crescent to the west, No. 3 Orana Crescent to the east, and Nos. 210, 212 and 214 

Oceanic Drive (south-east, south and south-west respectively. One submission was 

received from the owners of No. 7 Orana Crescent objecting to the proposed amendments. 




provision 

Wall height 8.3 metres Max 6.5 metres 

Overall (roof) height 10.1 metres Max 9.0 metres 










Compared with the 24 November 2011 plans that were refused, the current plans show less 

wall projection and less roof. The roof shown on the refused plans had a large projection to 

the rear, whist the roof shown on the current plans angles downwards. This results in a less 

bulky projection. Furthermore, the window has substantially decreased in size from the 

window proposed on the refused plans and shown on the approved plans. 

The dwelling was initially assessed under the Town’s previous Building Height Policy, which 

allowed as acceptable development a maximum overall height of 10.5 metres for a pitched 

roof and did not have any size restrictions for dormers. 

In response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey, recent developments 

in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 just prior to approval of 

this dwelling to adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for 

overall height (reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres). 

The Building Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for 

dormers. 

The intent of the revising the Building Height policy to a lower maximum overall height 

restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two 

storeys and allow roof space for general storage only rather than as a usable floor with a 

habitable room such as that proposed here. 

As constructed, the approved third floor rear dormer is visible from adjoining properties, 

however, it is the second storey alfresco that dominates the amenity impact on the adjoining 

properties. The current proposal will increase the size of the roof projection and will also add 

some additional bulk, as the highest ridge of the dwelling is proposed to be increased in 

length to accommodate the increased ceiling height. The overall bulk of the development 

will increase as the third storey would become more visible, particularly on the side and rear 

elevations. However, the streetscape elevation will not be affected as the amendment is at 

the rear. 

Considering the performance criteria, the third floor is central to the dwelling with large 

setbacks to side and rear boundaries, so access to sunlight and ventilation for the adjoining 

properties will not be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments. The owners of 

adjoining properties have not raised specific concerns about loss of ocean views. In relation 

to protecting amenity, it is difficult to argue that the proposed amendments will protect 

neighbour amenity. 

Whilst the previous plans showed little regard for impact on the adjoining properties, the 

current plans have been more sympathetic, with a reduction in the size of the window and 

roof projection. The amendment is now unlikely to result in further significant bulk, privacy or 

overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties. Furthermore, there is no change to the 




streetscape as it is at the rear. It is therefore considered that the amendments are 

satisfactory and can now be supported. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the 

development is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• the amendment is unlikely to result in further significant bulk, privacy or overshadowing 

impacts on the adjoining properties; and 

• the amendment does not impact on the streetscape. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the amended plans for the three storey dwelling with 

undercroft (amendment to third floor rear guest bedroom) submitted by Seacrest 

Homes at Lot 487 (No. 5) Orana Crescent, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 30 

July 2012. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.94 

LOT 341 (NO. 240) OCEANIC DRIVE, CITY BEACH - AMENDED PLANS FOR 

TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for an upper roof deck and shed at No. 240 Oceanic 

Drive, corner Tumut Road, City Beach. A two storey dwelling with undercroft is currently 

under construction on the subject site. The approved plans show a flat roofed section facing 

west to Tumut Road, adjacent to the north boundary. The amended plans show a roofed 

deck in this location, accessed via an extension to the lift shaft. A shed is also proposed in 

the north-eastern corner of the site. 


wall height, rear and side setback, and visual privacy setback performance criteria of the 

Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and objections have been received during the 



reasons:- 

 

the increased height and bulk of the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the 



Accordingly, the roof deck proposal is recommended for refusal. The shed is, however, 

recommended for approval. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 424DA-2009.01 

Owner: 

Mr C Cardaci 

Applicant: Ms N Day 




The amended plans were submitted on 19 December 2011. The plans were assessed and 

advertised to the owners of the adjoining properties in January 2012. Numerous objections 

were received. As a result of the objections, the applicant advised the Town to place the 

amended plans on hold, to consider further amendments to the drawings. In July 2012, the 

applicant advised the Town that the owner would like the amended plans submitted in 

December 2011 to be considered by Council, without further amendment. 




DETAILS: 


• A two storey dwelling with undercroft is currently being constructed at the subject site. 

• The dwelling faces Tumut Road (west), with balconies facing west and the garage 

accessed off Tumut Road. 

• The subject site has a slope up from Tumut Road (west) to the east boundary and also 

from Oceanic Drive (south) to the north (rear) boundary. 

• The proposal is to convert a flat concrete roof above the second floor lift/stair area to a 

roofed deck, enclosed on three sides and open to Tumut Road. The plans show an 

extension to the lift shaft to provide access to this roofed deck. 

• The plans also show a rendered brick shed with colorbond roof to match the dwelling 

in the north eastern corner of the site. 

• In addition, further paving in the primary street setback area than what was granted on 

the building licence is shown on the plans. 



development provisions relating to wall height for the roof deck and boundary setbacks for 

the shed. 


The Town notified the owners of five properties in the vicinity of the subject site, being No. 4 

Tumut Road to the north, Nos. 236 and 238 Oceanic Drive to the east, and Nos. 13 and 15 

Windarra Drive to the north-east. Submissions were received from the owners of 238 

Oceanic Drive, 13 Windarra Drive, and 15 Windarra Drive. 


Wall height 


provision 

Wall height 7.6 metres – 8.25 metres Max 6.5 metres 







The dwelling currently under construction is over wall height at one point along the southern 

elevation where the ground drops significantly. However as the wall goes back to the east 

the ground levels increase and the rest of the wall complies and is in fact under the 

requirement. This over height wall is not visible to the eastern neighbour and hence cannot 

affect views. The over height wall was approved under delegated authority. 




The proposed addition of the upper roof deck is clearly over the wall height acceptable 

development requirement, protruding out of the roof space. The roof deck will add bulk to 

the dwelling, particularly on the Tumut Road and northern elevations. The proposed 

additional height and bulk would be out of keeping with the existing streetscape and may set 

an undesirable precedent for surrounding properties that would like to increase their height 

to reclaim ocean views that may be lost by this addition. 

It is acknowledged that obtaining and keeping views is a significant issue affecting 

development in City Beach. Dispensing with the height requirements (performance criteria) 

to allow the applicant to get better views is not considered appropriate. The performance 

criteria are intended to facilitate alternative design solutions which result in comparable or 

better outcomes than what the acceptable development provisions provide. In this particular 

case, the proposed upper roof deck is not likely to provide similar or better outcomes for the 

streetscape and the neighbouring properties than the acceptable development provisions. It 

is considered the proposed upper roof deck does not satisfy the above performance criteria 

and is therefore not supported. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed wall height shown 

on the plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following grounds:- 

• the increased height and bulk of the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the 



Buildings setback from the boundary 


provision 

Rear setback (north) 2.0 metres for upper roof Min 6.0 metres 

deck 

Nil for shed 

Min 1.0 metre 

Side setback (east) Nil for shed Min 1.0 metre 

Performance criteria (for buildings setback from the boundary):- 

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

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

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

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

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

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

assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

Performance criteria (for buildings on the boundary): 


in order to:- 

make effective use of space; or 

enhance privacy; or 

otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and 

ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of 





Upper roof deck 

The upper roof deck is proposed to be located in the rear setback area. The dwelling under 

construction has been approved with a rear setback ranging from 1.187 to 7 metres. 

Justification for approving the variation to the rear setback acceptable development 

requirement was that the northern boundary acts as a side boundary to the neighbour to the 

north and hence that dwelling is located close to the common boundary. 

The proposed upper roof deck is to the south of the adjoining property (rear), and therefore it 

will not increase overshadowing, however, as previously stated in the wall height section 

above, the upper roof deck will add bulk to the dwelling that will be clearly visible from the 

adjoining property to the north. Visual privacy is discussed below. Whilst the northern side 

of the deck is brick, the western opening of the deck is set back from Tumut Road and will 

have views into the adjoining property to the rear (north). 


upper roof deck from the northern (rear) boundary is not acceptable and does not satisfy the 


• the proposed upper roof deck does not assist in ameliorating the impacts of building 

bulk on the adjoining property to the north (rear) and does not assist in protecting 

privacy between the subject site and the adjoining property to the north. 

Shed 

The plans show a brick shed in the north-eastern corner of the property, adjacent to the 

boundaries. The shed is 4.224 metres long on the northern boundary and 4.124metres long 

on the eastern boundary. The roof will be a low pitched skillion roof, with the lowest point 

adjacent to the northern (rear) boundary. The height of the shed will range from 2.5 metres 

to 3.0 metres. 

The backyard will be cut into the site and in the location of the proposed shed, the ground 

level will be lower than the natural ground levels of the adjoining properties to the north and 

east. The bulk impact of the shed on the adjoining properties to the north and east is 

therefore reduced. The owner of the adjoining property to the east has no objection to the 

shed, and the owner of the adjoining property to the north has not submitted comments on 

the proposal. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed nil setback of the 

shed from the northern (rear) and eastern side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the 


• the shed is relatively small with a low pitched skillion roof and will be finished to match 

the dwelling 

• the shed will be cut into the site, thereby reducing its height and bulk impact on the 

adjoining properties to the north and east. 

A condition can be imposed to ensure that the surface finish of boundary walls facing the 

adjoining properties are rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. 




Visual privacy 

Upper roof deck 


Proposed 

Minimum 3.0 metres at a 

45 degree angle 


provision 

Minimum 7.5 metres 

Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is 

minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active 

habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. 

Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid 

overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. 

Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal 

impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. 

Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the 

distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. 

The upper roof deck is located adjacent to the northern boundary but set well back from the 

street (approximately 15.5 metres). Whilst the northern side of the deck is enclosed with a 

brick wall, the west facing opening is likely to have views into the private areas and windows 

of the adjoining property to the north at the 45 degree angle, as the deck is set so far back 

from the street. Requiring screening along the western opening of the deck will negate the 

purpose of the deck. Combined with the wall height variation, the visual privacy variation 

further confirms that the upper roof deck is not acceptable and cannot be supported. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed overlooking from 

the deck is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for the following 

reason:- 

• the upper roof deck will have views to the active habitable spaces and outdoor living 

areas of the adjoining property to the north. 

Landscaping in the primary street setback area 

The plans show less landscaping and more paving in the primary street (Oceanic Drive) 

setback area than what was shown on the plans submitted and approved for a building 

licence. The additional paving is not supported, as the secondary street setback area is 

almost fully paved, apart from a small area in front of the garage and there is no requirement 

for paving for a driveway as the garage and both accesses to the garage are off Tumut 

Road. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

Council Meeting 28 August 2012 

Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Pelczar, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local 

Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter. 




That:- 

(i) 

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

1 Council REFUSES the application for an upper roof deck submitted by Ms N 

Day at Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 

19 December 2011, for the following reasons:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of 

Council’s Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance 

criteria of Part 6.7.1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; 

the upper roof deck will have views to the active habitable spaces and 

outdoor living areas of the adjoining property to the north; and 

approval of the additional building height would establish an undesirable 

precedent for the area; 

(ii) Council APPROVES the application for a shed submitted by Ms N Day at Lot 341 

(No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 19 December 

2011 subject to the following condition:- 

(a) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the 

north and the adjoining property to the east to be rendered, painted or face 

brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 




(b) 

a minimum of 60% of the primary street (Oceanic Drive) setback area to be 

landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town and in accordance with the 

building licence plans. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.95 

LOT 99 (NO. 21) THE GROVE, WEMBLEY - DOUBLE CARPORT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a double carport within the front setback at No. 21 

The Grove, Wembley. 

The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performance criteria 

of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) relating to the side boundary setback as 

an objection has been received during the consultation period. 


reasons:- 

• the carport will not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining 

property. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a carport requiring assessment under the performance criteria 

of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to ground floor side setback. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

John Manera 

Applicant: John Manera 

Zoning: 




DETAILS: 


• The proposed application is for a double carport located within the front setback of the 

property. 

• The 6.1 metre x 5.5 metre carport contains a pitched roof to 4.4 metres, and is 

positioned on the north-eastern boundary. It is to replace an existing single carport 

structure. 



development provisions relating to the side setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is 

available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to 

this report. 





The Town notified the owner of the property adjoining the subject site, being No. 23 The 

Grove to the north-eastern side. A submission was received from this owner objecting to the 

nil setback of the proposed double carport. 



Proposed 


Carport side setback Nil 1 metres 


Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: 







The proposed carport is set back nil to the north-eastern boundary in lieu of the required 1 

metre. The structure is to replace an existing single carport structure that is also positioned 

on the boundary. 

The existing solid boundary wall will ensure that no issues arise in relation to privacy, and 

the open-style carport will not prevent sun access to habitable rooms. It is noted that the 

pitched roof of the proposed carport, as well as its materials of construction, are to match 

those of the existing dwelling on the subject site. This ensures that the amenity of adjoining 

neighbours will not be adversely impacted by the new carport structure. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the reduced side boundary 

setback is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• the carport will not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining 

property. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of applicant's justification. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport submitted by John Manera at Lot 

99 (No. 21) The Grove, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 24 May 2012 subject to 

the following condition:- 

(i) 

the carport to remain open/unenclosed. No solid door to be installed. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.96 

LOT 1776 (NO. 7) KATRINE STREET, FLOREAT - GARAGE DOOR AND 

FENCING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a garage door and side fencing at No. 7 Katrine 

Street, Floreat. Currently the dwelling has an open carport setback 6.6meters from the 

street. 


setback of buildings generally and street walls and fences performance criteria of the 

Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria to for the following 

reason:- 

• does not contribute to the desired streetscape and character of the 'Garden Suburb' of 

Floreat. 

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Nexus Concepts Pty Ltd 

Applicant: Nexus Concepts Pty Ltd 




DETAILS: 


• Existing single storey flat roofed dwelling with existing open garage structure and front 

fence with infill panels of approximately 10% visual permeability. 

• Proposed translucent garage door setback 6.6 metres from the front lot boundary to be 

installed and new slat fencing on the sides of the garage and proposed new portion of 

fence and gate as well as modification of existing infill panels to the front fence. 

• Proposed garage door results in a variation to the acceptable development standards 

relating to the setback of buildings generally. 

• Proposed slat fencing and modification of existing infill panels with an open to solid 

ratio of 0.35:0.65 results in a variation to the acceptable development standards 

relating to street walls and fences. 



development provisions relating to setbacks of building generally and street walls and 

fences. 






Garage Door 


provision 

6.6 metres from the front 9.0 metres from the front lot 

lot boundary. 

boundary. 






The Residential Design Codes define a carport as an unenclosed roofed structure except to 

the extent that it abuts a dwelling or property boundary on one side, and being without a 

door unless that door is visually permeable. By virtue of the definition in the R Codes, the 

inclusion of a solid door to the front of the carport means it no longer is considered to be a 

carport and becomes a garage. The setback requirement for garages in Floreat is 9.0 

metres in recognition of the visual impact that such structures impart on the streetscape. 

The existing carport structure is already bulky in its own right and with the inclusion of a 

garage door will have a negative impact on the streetscape. Floreat is typified by open 

streetscapes and this proposal is not in keeping with the character of the suburb. 


garage from the primary street boundary is not acceptable and does not comply with the 



Floreat. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Applicants justification. 


The applicant addressed Committee in relation to this matter and requested whether or not 

the Town would consider supporting a perforated open grille garage door. The applicant 

was advised by the Committee to discuss this proposal with the Administration prior to the 

next meeting of Council. 





1, Council REFUSES the application for a garage door and fencing submitted by 

Nexus Concepts Pty Ltd at Lot 1776 (No. 7) Katrine Street, Floreat, as shown on the 

plans dated 6 July 2012 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the garage does not meet the acceptable development or the performance 

criteria of Clause 6.2.1 (Setbacks of Buildings generally) of the Town of 

Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual and Residential Design Codes 

of Western Australia; and 

does not contribute the desired streetscape and character of the 'Garden 

Suburb' of Floreat. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.97 

LOT 4 (NO. 8) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - SAT 

RECONSIDERATION - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION 

SUMMARY: 

Following a directions hearing, the Town is invited to reconsider its decision to apply a 

condition on the planning approval for Additions and Alterations at 8 St Leonards Avenue, 

West Leederville that required the existing solid fence to be removed or modified, pursuant 

to Section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 82-DA - 2012 

Owner: 

Mr Jeremy P King & Ms Yonnene H Pearce 

Applicant: James Edwards 

Zoning: 


Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted 


Council, at its Ordinary meeting held on 24 April 2012 approved a development application 

for additions and alterations at the above mentioned address. The proposed works involved 

additions and alterations to the ground and upper floor areas to the rear of the existing 

dwelling. 

In addition there was a proposed new double garage located in the rear south-east corner off 

the property with vehicular access from Priestley Lane. 

In approving the application Council placed a condition on the approval requiring the existing 

solid fence to be removed or modified as follows:- 

"(ii) 

the solid front fence be removed or modified to comply with the Town's Planning Policy 

3.2 Streetscape within 3 months of approval of this building application;". 

The applicant subsequently submitted a request to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) 

for a reconsideration of this decision. A directions hearing was subsequently held on 1 

August 2012, following the hearing, SAT issued orders to the effect of:- 

"1. Pursuant to s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent 

is invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting on 28 August 2012 having regard to 

the test of nexus between the condition in question and the development applied for 

and approved. 

2. The proceeding is adjoined to a further directions hearing at 2 pm Tuesday 4 

September 2012." 




COMMENT: 

In the directions hearing the SAT member referred to three previous SAT cases where the 

reasonableness or fairness of conditions applied by local government authorities have been 

considered. The three cases that are regarded as examples in terms of the reasonableness 

of conditions are as follows:- 

• Baumgartner and City of Joondalup [2005] WASAT 234; 

• Kellett and Town of Vincent [2007] WASAT 155; & 

• Booth and Town of East Fremantle [2008] WASAT 155. 

In all three of these previous cases "The Newbury Tests" which are the recognised and 

established tests for the reasonableness and validity of a condition applied in a Planning 

Approval were referred to. 

In Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 

CLR 30 at [57], McHugh J in the High Court of Australia endorsed the tests for the validity of 

a condition of planning approval articulated by the House of Lords in Newbury District 

Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 in the following terms: 

"A condition attached to a grant of planning permission will not be valid therefore unless: 

(1) The condition is for a planning purpose and not for any ulterior purpose. 

(2) The condition reasonably and fairly relates to the development permitted. 

(3) The condition is not so unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority 

could have imposed it" 

The second Newbury test considers whether a condition reasonably and fairly relates to 

the approved development is applicable. As outlined by SAT in the above mentioned 

cases, there must be a nexus between the subject condition and the variations applied 

for. A condition of approval can be said to reasonably relate if it arises from changes 

precipitated by the development. 

In this case, the proposed works were located at the rear of the existing dwelling and off 

the rear laneway. There were no works proposed to the original front portion of the 

traditional style home or within the front setback area. It can be said therefore, that the 

condition to remove or modify the existing solid front wall on St Leonards Avenue does 

not fairly or reasonably relate to the variations applied for and therefore fails to meet the 

second test for the validity of a condition as articulated above. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 




That, in accordance with Section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 

(WA) and orders received 2 August 2012 condition (ii) of the planning approval dated 

2 May 2012 for additions and alterations to existing dwelling submitted by James 

Edwards at Lot 4 (No. 8) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville is deleted. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.98 

REVISED POLICY 6.5 - PRECINCT P5 WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO WEST LEEDERVILLE PRECINCT POLICY FOR 

ADOPTION BY COUNCIL FOR READVERTISING 

SUMMARY: 

The West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study was concluded in December 2010 

and since this time, focus has shifted towards drafting the necessary Town Planning 

Scheme amendments to implement the study. Whilst progress is being made with these 

Town Planning Scheme amendments, the initiation of a comprehensive amendment is some 

time away. 

In the meantime, to provide clarity in regard to the assessment of development applications, 

particularly where there were inconsistencies between the West Leederville Study and 

current Scheme provisions, Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville has been amended to 

reflect the findings of the West Leederville Study. 

It is noted this interim amendment to the precinct policy only addresses built form and 

development standards for properties within the study area already zoned Commercial. 

Changes to zoning of properties and the introduction of specific land use classifications, can 

only occur through the statutory Town Planning Scheme amendment process, requiring the 

approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Minister for Planning. 

The review of the Policy, undertaken through the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering 

Committee, has focused on the Cambridge High Street and Southport Street Nodes, defined 

by the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. Whilst maintaining the broad 

intent of the Policy, a number of changes have been made to development standards, as 

well as strengthening certain wording to more clearly express the intent of the Policy 

provisions. 

The modified Policy has now undergone a number of revisions and has previously been 

considered by Council at its meetings on 27 March and 26 June 2012. Since that time it has 

transpired that further drafting and formatting changes to further strengthen its effect would 

be required. In this regard the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee has 

continued to give consideration to the development provisions, refinement of wording and 

formatting. The Council is now requested to adopt the current draft Policy for the purpose of 

readvertising. 

Initial advertising of the draft Policy as required under the Scheme occurred in January 2012 

and resulted in the evaluation of public submissions. It was therefore considered that 

subsequent versions of the Policy did not require further advertising under the Scheme 

provisions as public comments had been taken into account. However, the outcome of a 

number of subsequent revisions has resulted in a document that is somewhat different to 

that originally advertised for public comment and to that previously adopted by Council. 

Readvertising is therefore strongly recommended. This will ensure transparency in regard to 

the process of adopting the Policy, as required under the Scheme, and strength of the Policy 

in regard to its legal soundness. 

Revocation of the current Policy is not recommended at this point. The current Policy 

(adopted by Council in June 2012) should stand until the readvertising process is completed. 




BACKGROUND: 

February 2008 

Council adopted a progressive approach to the review of the Town Planning Scheme 

commencing with the development of the Local Planning Strategy and the West Leederville 

Planning and Urban Design Study (Item DV08.20). 

December 2010 

Adoption of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study (Item DV10.122) shifted 

the focus towards implementation of the Study and the drafting, advertising and adoption of 

the necessary Town Planning Scheme amendments. While progress is being made with the 

drafting of the Town Planning Scheme amendments (being facilitated through the Scheme 

Review Steering Committee), the initiation of an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 

1 is still some time away. 

To provide clarity in regard to the assessment of development applications for the existing 

West Leederville commercial areas, particularly where there were inconsistencies between 

the West Leederville Study and current Scheme provisions, it was proposed as an interim 

measure to amend Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville to reflect the proposed new 

development standards identified by the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

Council Meeting - 20 December 2011 

Concerns arising from the assessment of the development proposal for 110 Cambridge 

Street (seven storey mixed use development comprising two shops and 79 multiple 

dwellings) prompted a review of the West Leederville Precinct Policy and an amended draft 

Policy was adopted by Council for advertising (Item DV11.129). Advertising took place 

during the months of January and February 2012. Nine written submissions were received 

and a number of comments were also received as part of submissions on the development 

application for 110 Cambridge Street. No comment was received from the WAPC. 

Council Meeting - 27 March 2012 

A report on the outcomes of advertising the proposed draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West 

Leederville and subsequent amendments to development standards was considered and 

Council decided to adopt the amended Policy and to provide the necessary notification in a 

local newspaper, as well as advise the WAPC and community members who made 

submissions about Council's adoption of the Policy. 

However, in light of concerns arising following the assessment of the development proposal 

for 110 Cambridge Street (refused by the Metro West Development Assessment Panel on 

18 April 2012) against the adopted Policy a further review of the Policy was prompted. As 

such, the Administration did not advertise the adoption of the amended Policy, notify 

community members who made a submission, nor provide a copy to the WAPC, as initially 

required by Council's decision. 

Council Meeting - 26 June 2012 

The revised Policy reconsidered by Council (Item DV10.2) included amendments to more 

clearly express the intent in regards to development in the Precinct. In summary the 

revisions and format changes incorporated the following:- 

• distinction between the primary commercial areas (Southport Street and Cambridge 

High Street) from other commercial areas in the Precinct; 




• arrangement of the text according to respective development provisions (i.e. plot ratio, 

height, street setbacks etc.) rather than by commercial nodes, with the intention of 

avoiding repetition; 

• building height: 

• additional building height performance criteria deleted; and 

• Cambridge Street (north side) three storey height limit with additional two storeys 

where bonus plot ratio awarded; 

• setbacks - new setback provisions from adjoining properties, particularly in regard to 

residential zoned land; 

• provision for connecting neighbouring surface car parks; and 

• requirements for bin storage and waste collection. 

At this meeting Council resolved to:- 

• revoke its decision of 23 March to adopt the Policy; 

• adopt the revised Policy; 

• advertise the Policy's adoption in the local newspaper; 

• advise the WAPC and provide the organisation with a copy of the Policy; and 

• notify community members who previously made submissions. 

The WAPC and community members have not been notified of the Policy's adoption 

following the June Council meeting due to the ongoing revision of the Policy. 

Council Meeting - 24 July 2012 

Council officers reported on the progress of the development application for 110 Cambridge 

Street. Following refusal of the proposal for a seven storey mixed use development 

comprising two shops and 79 multiple dwellings by Metro West JDAP an Application for 

Review was lodged on 18 May 2012 with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The 

matter was then considered at mediation on 26 June where SAT determined that the matter 

be adjourned to a further mediation on 18 July and that Council officers be invited to attend 

the mediation. The outcome of the most recent mediation has not been made public. 

Over recent months the Steering Committee has focussed on refinement of the development 

provisions for the Southport and Cambridge Street commercial nodes and continued to 

revise the Policy for ease of interpretation. In this regard minor amendments, refinement of 

wording and formatting changes have been made to the Policy. The details of the most 

recent changes are outlined in the following section. 

DETAILS: 

This report outlines the most recent changes made to Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West 

Leederville since its adoption in June. Minimal change has been made to Policy content in 

regard to development provisions; however some noticeable changes have been made in 

regard to formatting and general layout of the document. 




The formatting changes have resulted in additional tables, figures and diagrams in place of 

wording making the document more 'user friendly' and allowing for greater ease of retrieving 

information. The layout of information in the Policy has remained unchanged and is based 

on development standard subheadings (e.g. plot ratio, building height, parking etc.). This 

avoids repetition of development standards throughout the text. 

The more substantive development provision changes are outlined below under the subheadings 

applicable to the Policy. 

Indicative Development Plans 

It was considered helpful to provide some background information and to further clarify the 

role of Indicative Development Plans; as such the following two clauses were added. 

• Indicative Development Plans were prepared as part of the West Leederville Planning 

and Urban Design Study. They provide an illustration of how future development of the 

area could occur to meet the desired planning outcomes and form the basis of several 

development standards in this Policy. Reference will be made to these plans when 

assessing individual development proposals. 

• The Indicative Development Plans reflect circumstances as they were at the time they 

were prepared and it is noted that over time development opportunities may change. 

Notwithstanding the above comments the Indicative Development Plans have been revised 

in some respects to reflect current planning objectives. 


Editing was required to clarify the relationship between plot ratio, building height and 

setbacks. In this regard the following development provisions were included in the building 

height section. 

• Height limits apply. 

• Building height is restricted by plot ratio allowances regardless of maximum height 

limits. 

• Street and boundary setbacks are relative to building height. Building height above 

three storeys is subject to additional setbacks. 

Maximum and minimum building height limits are now provided in table format rather than in 

text. 

Street and Right of Way Setbacks 

The street setbacks for each storey of a building were previously expressed in text form. 

These provisions are now expressed in diagrams and tables as outlined in the attached 

Policy. No wording changes have occurred. 




The following right of way setback provisions were modified in order to provide greater 

clarification. 

ROW widening 

• Development may be required to be setback from an adjacent ROW, at ground level, 

to facilitate two-way vehicular traffic (maximum width of ROW is 6 metres). 

• Where rights of way separate the proposed development site from an adjacent 

residential zoned lot the width of the ROW is included in the setback measurement. 

Subheadings have been introduced for right of way setback provisions to improve clarity. 

Design Elements - Special Corner Design Features 

Slight wording changes have been made to three provisions in this section as outlined 

below. 

Special corner design features 

• Architectural design elements are encouraged to assist with defining corner locations 

or the creation of landmark buildings. These corner elements should be open and 

transparent and demonstrate a lighter architecture. They cannot be used to 

incorporate additional floor space in the development. 

In regard to the form of architectural design elements the following elements were added to 

the list. 

• building truncations; 

• wall projections and features; and/or 

• artwork. 

The Steering Committee also considered it more appropriate to strengthen the wording in 

regard to whether architectural elements should be allowed to extend into the street. 

Previously the Policy suggested architectural design elements could extend into the street. 

The provision has been reworded as follows. 

'Architectural design elements that extend into the street setback may be considered.' 

Parking and Access 

An additional development provision reads. 

'Parking standards as per the Town's Off-Street Parking Policy (Policy 5.1).' 

Bin Storage and Waste Collection 

Further consideration was also given to bin storage and waste collection with the aim of 

strengthening the Policy provisions. The following requirements have been included in this 

section of the Policy. 

• Bin storage for all developments must not be visible from a verge, public street or 

property frontage. 




• Waste collection from a verge, public street or property frontage will not be permitted. 

Collection is to be effected from a ROW (where possible) or purpose built bin storage 

and waste collection areas incorporated within the building and accessible by waste 

collection service vehicles. 

• Submit details outlining how commercial and residential waste will be recycled, 

including onsite disposal and collection by waste management contractor. 

• Waste collection must be taken from rights of way where available. 

The following provision has been deleted as it has been replaced with a clause that 

necessitates waste be collected from specifically designated areas incorporated within the 

building and screened from public view. 

• Further design of buildings and access arrangements that allow for waste collection 

directly from the bin storage area are encouraged and will be favourably considered. 

It was also considered appropriate to incorporate the bin storage and waste collection 

provisions in the development standards section of the Policy for the other commercial areas 

in the Commercial Zone, and also for the Commercial/Residential and Medical Zones. 


The changes proposed will again amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning 

Scheme No. 1 by replacing Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville (adopted by Council 

on 26 June 2012) with a further amended Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville that 

incorporates revised development provisions arising from the West Leederville Planning and 

Urban Design Study and additional input from the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering 

Committee. 


The cost of advertising Council's draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville in the local 

paper and advising the various interested parties is covered in the Town's budget. 


Further amendments proposed to the West Leederville Precinct Policy are consistent with 

the goals identified for the Key Focus Area 'Planning for the Community' in the Town's 

Strategic Plan 2009-2020, and will assist with facilitating a choice of housing and the 

creation of attractive and diverse shopping and business areas for the Town. 


Background 

In accordance with clause 48 (7) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, a planning policy adopted 

by the Council may be altered or rescinded only by following the procedure for making and 

adopting a planning policy as set out in this clause. 




Draft Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville was advertised earlier this year (during 

January and February) in accordance with clause 48 (3) of the Scheme and at the close of 

advertising nine written submissions were received. 

Generally, submissions received outlined the following themes for consideration: 

• impact of nil setbacks in terms of streetscape and safety; 

• building heights - suggested maximum building heights include three and four storeys; 

• green areas for workers and roof top gardens; 

• energy and water efficiency of buildings; 

• improved waste management, including recycling; 

• residential densities; 

• parking demands; and 

• impact on surrounding residential amenity - increased traffic, overshadowing, 

overlooking. 

In accordance with clause 48 (4), the Council is required to:- 

(a) 

(b) 

review the draft Planning Policy having regard to any written submissions; and 

determine, by resolution, to adopt the draft Planning Policy, with or without 

amendment, or not to proceed with it. 

During the drafting of the previous amendments to the West Leederville Precinct Policy 

regard was given to the written submissions received. It was therefore considered that the 

amendments proposed and considered by Council in March and June did not require the 

Policy to be readvertised prior to Council's adoption of the proposed changes. 

However, given preceding versions of the Policy and the current revisions have now resulted 

in a document that is quite different to that originally advertised and to that which Council 

previously adopted it is considered prudent to readvertise. This will ensure transparency in 

regard to the process of adopting policy as required under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 

and strength of the Policy in regard to its legal soundness. 

Re-advertising Requirements 

Having prepared a draft Policy clause 48 (3) of the Town Planning Scheme requires that 

Council: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

advertise a summary of the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive 

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft 

Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not 

less than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be 

advertised under clause 24 or 25 of the Scheme, in which case no further 

advertisement is required; 

where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council, might be 

directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and 

to forward a copy of the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that 

the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions of the Scheme or with state and 

regional planning policies. 




In advertising the proposed draft West Leederville Precinct Policy, the following advertising 

method is recommended:- 

a) advertisements be placed in the local newspapers under the Town of Cambridge 

noticeboard; 

b) a notice and copy of the draft policy be placed on the Town's website; 

c) a letter sent to ratepayer groups; 

d) a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and 

e) persons on the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Mailing List and the 

residents who initially made submissions on the Policy be informed of the proposed 

amended draft Policy. 

If Council endorses the draft Policy for advertising at its August meeting advertising could be 

undertaken in September with a view to reporting to Council in October for final adoption. 

Revocation of the current Policy is not recommended at this point. The current Policy 

(adopted by Council in June 2012) should stand until the readvertising process is completed. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Revised and amended (draft) West Leederville Precinct Policy (August 2012). 



That:- 

(i) 

Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville, as 

amended and attached to this agenda, be adopted for the purpose of advertising 

as specified in accordance with clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme and be 

advertised as follows:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

an advertisement be placed in the local newspapers under the Town of 

Cambridge noticeboard; 

a notice and a copy of the draft Policy be included on the Town’s website; 

and 

a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission, local 

ratepayer groups, persons on the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study mailing list, as well as those residents who initially made 

submissions on Draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5:West Leederville. 

During discussion, Cr MacRae proposed an amendment to the motion to add a further 

clause in relation to the bonus plot ratio provisions for the Cambridge High Street and 

Southport Street Nodes, relating to the provision of ROW's and public spaces. 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar 


(i) 

the following clause be inserted in the policy above Table 1 Bonus Plot Ratio for 

the Commercial Zone - Primary Areas (Cambridge High Street Node and 

Southport Street Node) as a third dot point: 

• A development will not qualify for bonus plot ratio in Table 1 unless it 

meets development requirements 3, 5, 7 or 10 as applicable. 



That:- 

(i) 

the following clause be inserted in the policy above Table 1 Bonus Plot Ratio for 

the Commercial Zone - Primary Areas (Cambridge High Street Node and 

Southport Street Node) as a third dot point: 

• A development will not qualify for bonus plot ratio in Table 1 unless it 

meets development requirements 3, 5, 7 or 10 as applicable. 

(ii) 

Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville, as 

amended and attached to this agenda, be adopted for the purpose of advertising 

as specified in accordance with clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme and be 

advertised as follows:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

an advertisement be placed in the local newspapers under the Town of 

Cambridge noticeboard; 

a notice and a copy of the draft Policy be included on the Town’s website; 

and 

a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission, local 

ratepayer groups, persons on the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study mailing list, as well as those residents who initially made 

submissions on Draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5:West Leederville. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.99 

LEEDERVILLE STATION LINK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - UPDATE 

REPORT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town in conjunction with the City of Vincent had developed options for an improved link 

between the West Leederville and Leederville centres. Both Councils resolved to progress to 

detailed design for Options 2A and Options 2B (a new pedestrian deck with options for a 

transit link) subject to continued support from other stakeholders. 

After having secured $20,000 in funding from the Department for Transport, the Town and 

City of Vincent lodged a joint application to the federal government in December 2011 for 

funding as part of the Liveable Cities program yet was unsuccessful in its submission. 

Following further non successful attempts to obtain the necessary funding for a downscaled 

study (based on Option 2A), the project has for the time being been put on hold. The City of 

Vincent may be able to provide funds as part of its mid year budget review to add to the 

$60,000 which has been allocated by the Town, which will be required in order to progress 

the study. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town and the City of Vincent have respectively undertaken detailed planning studies for 

the West Leederville and Leederville centres (The West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study and Leederville Masterplan). To facilitate improved connections between the 

centres, Aurecon (consultants in the field of engineering, urban design and planning) were 

jointly appointed by the Town and City of Vincent to undertake a preliminary design exercise 

to explore options for designing an improved link. 

Four options for the design of the link were developed including:- 

• Option 1: An upgrade to the existing pedestrian bridge; 

• Option 2A: A new pedestrian connection deck structure; 

• Option 2B: A new pedestrian connection deck structure with the opportunity for future 

development into a transit link and; 

• Option 3: A transit link option which could accommodate bus movement and retail 

development along the bridge. 

Council, at its meeting held on 22 November 2011 endorsed the following:- 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Options 2A and 2B (full integration that would allow for a future connection to extend to 

Cambridge Street) be endorsed for the purpose of progressing the project to a detailed 

concept plan; 

the Administration continue to liaise with State Government to obtain their level of 

support for the project and ascertain how State Government could possibly contribute 

towards an improved link; 

subject to continued participation with City of Vincent and support from State 

Government, Council is prepared to provide a future contribution towards further 

detailed concept planning; 




(iv) 

(v) 

in regards to item (iii) and subject to State Government support, a joint submission with 

the City of Vincent for grant funding under the Australian Government's Liveable Cities 

Program be made by 15 December 2011; 

in relation to items (i), (iii) and (iv), a further report to Council be provided when advice 

is received on the grant application. 

The decision to pursue Options 2A and 2B recognised that at the very least a new bridge 

would be required in the event the bus transfer station proceeded and that there should also 

be examination into future upgrading for a transit link. 

The City of Vincent Council, at its meeting also held on 22 November 2011, indicated its inprinciple 

support for Options 2A and 2B in order to undertake detailed design work for these 

options, pending the support of other stakeholders. 

An estimate of $220,000 was provided to prepare a detailed concept plan for the enhanced 

link covering architecture and urban design, engineering (structural, civic) design, staging, 

project management and cost estimation. 

Following the resolutions made by the Town and City of Vincent Councils, a request for 

funding and support was sought from the Department of Transport. The Department offered 

$20,000 in funding for the 2012/13 financial year towards the design and feasibility study as 

outlined in correspondence to the City of Vincent dated 7 December 2011. The Department 

of Transport identified two key areas for further investigation before the detailed design 

concept could be progressed including whether a transit link would ever be considered 

necessary and cyclist access upon the removal of the spiral ramps. 

A joint submission was then made by the Town and City of Vincent to seek a federal grant 

under the Liveable Cities Program in December 2011. The Liveable Cities Program was set 

up to provide grants to assist in planning and design projects in capital cities that are 

experiencing population growth pressures and transport affordability cost pressures. The 

application was made for $110,000 towards funding the design and feasibility study, under 

the program's planning and design stream. Under this cost breakdown, the Town and City of 

Vincent would have contributed $45,000 each. 

In advice received on 13 April 2012, the application under the Liveable Cities Program was 

unsuccessful. According to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, while the 

submission was considered a strong contender for funding, competition for funds was strong 

from around the country. 

Given the funding shortfall, the project scope was revised to exclude the transit bridge option 

(Option 2B) as this would be a longer term prospect while there is a more pressing need for 

a pedestrian connection. The estimated cost of the scope of work was revised to $140,000. 

The Department of Transport was approached again to obtain additional funding under a 

proposal which would have seen their contribution increased to $40,000 and the Town and 

City of Vincent each contributing $50,000. As the Department had finalised their budgets at 

that time it was not in the position to commit any additional funding. 

The Town has committed $60,000 towards the project in the 2012/13 financial year budget. 

The Town approached the City of Vincent to see whether their contribution could also be 

increased to $60,000, which in addition to the Department of Transport's existing 

contribution of $20,000 would have generated the $140,000 required to progress the study. 

However, Vincent indicated that there was no funding available at this stage and that the 

City would re-examine possible funding options as part of the mid-year budget review. 




DETAILS: 

Comment 

In the absence of sufficient funding to progress with the design and feasibility study, there 

has been no further progress made on the project. Commitment to the project and financial 

contributions from the various stakeholders including state government agencies and the 

City of Vincent are necessary in order to progress the Study. Looking ahead, opportunities 

for funding may arise through the City of Vincent's mid-year budget review, in which case, 

the project could be revisited in the second half of the 2012/13 financial year. 

The Leederville Link forms an important element of the implementation of the West 

Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and failure to progress at all with the link 

would reduce the opportunity to redevelop the area in line with the Indicative Development 

Plan for the Leederville Link. Furthermore, the Town has already invested in the purchase of 

38 Cambridge Street and 39 and 43 Southport Street, West Leederville, to help facilitate an 

improved connection between Leederville Station and Cambridge Street. 

In addition, the case for an improved connection has recently been reinforced by the 

Department of Transport's commitment to a Bus Interchange Facility at Leederville Station 

(to be accommodated on Main Roads land to the east of Southport Street) with steps to the 

existing bridge and the introduction of a new "Green CAT" service between Leederville and 

the Esplanade which is to operate from July 2013. These plans, in addition to the possible 

extension of the Subiaco Shuttle bus service, will result in Leederville Station becoming an 

important transfer station. 

While the Leederville Link project is on hold at the moment, it remains important that it is 

resumed into the future and that the Town's existing financial commitments to the project in 

the 2012/13 budget are preserved for future use. The Town's administration will continue to 

liaise with other project partners to identify opportunities to progress the project which will 

most likely be designs for Option 2A. 


Improving the pedestrian/transit connection with the Leederville train station and town centre 

is an initiative that arose from the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study and 

forms part of implementing the study. 


In order to proceed with the study and develop Option 2A, it is estimated that $140,000 is 

required (revised down from $220,000 to develop both Options 2A and 2B). 

The Town had allocated $60,000 towards the Leederville Link design and feasibility project 

for the 2012/13 Financial Year and the Department of Transport has committed $20,000 to 

the project. The City of Vincent is unable to commit funding at this stage but has indicated 

that funds may become available mid-way through the 2012/2013 financial year. 

The cost estimate provided only accounts for the design and feasibility study and does not 

cover the cost to progress the project to the construction stage. 





The Leederville Station Link Design and Feasibility Study as a joint initiative with the City of 

Vincent and Department of Transport is consistent with priority area: Planning for Our 

Community of the Town's Strategic Plan. In particular, our goals for 'Transport Options' 

(which may be achieved through promoting an integrated transport system and advocating 

for improvement of public transport services) and 'Alignment of Town Plans with the 

Regional Plans of Other Local Governments' (achieved through developing alliances and 

creating partnerships with neighbouring councils for possible collaborations with planning 

and developments). 


There are no community consultation requirements directly relating to this Item. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That the report relating to an update on the Leederville Station Link Design and 

Feasibility Study be received. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.100 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL USE 'CONSULTING 

ROOMS GROUP - DENTAL SURGERY' - LOT 353 (NO. 24) FLOREAT 

AVENUE, FLOREAT - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 23 

SUMMARY: 

The proposed Scheme Amendment seeks to introduce an additional use 'consulting rooms 

group - dental surgery' to allow a dental surgery to operate at Lot 353 (No. 24) Floreat 

Avenue, Floreat. Through advertising, the Town received submissions relating to parking 

and traffic, loss of the residential nature of the area and that the application could set a 

precedent for commercial expansion around Floreat Avenue. 

The additional use does not alter the existing residential zoning over the land and is 

supported as it is a small-scale operation with a maximum of four consulting rooms and 

sufficient parking is to be provided for the use on site. Development controls will be in place 

so that the building is in keeping with the residential nature of the area and to prevent 

impacts on adjoining properties. For significant changes to commercial activity in the area, 

an activity centre plan for Floreat Forum district centre, which would be subject to landowner 

consultation, would be required to set the future direction of planning in the area. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Council, at its meeting held on 20 December 2011 decided:- 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council resolves to 

initiate an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Planning Scheme No. 1 to introduce 

an additional use for "consulting rooms group - dental surgery' for Lot 353 (No. 24) 

Floreat Avenue, Floreat to the existing "Residential R12.5" zone; 

Schedule 2 in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be amended to include the following 

Development Standards and Conditions for the additional use "consulting rooms group 

- dental surgery" at Lot 353 (No.24) Floreat Avenue:- 

• the design of the building to be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes 

and the Town's Residential Planning Policies, unless specified otherwise; 

• provision of open space may be less than 55%. All open space areas shall be 

substantially well maintained gardens; 

• no car-parking to be located in the primary street setback area; 

• car parking areas to be screened from adjacent residential properties and from 

the street and noise attenuation measures to be introduced; 

• a maximum of four practitioners can operate from the dental surgery at any one 

time; 

• any signage proposals to satisfy signage policy; 

• parking to be provided in accordance with the Town's Planning Scheme parking 

requirements. 

A copy of the proposed amendment was provided to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission. 




DETAILS: 

Advertising: 

The Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Town 

Planning Regulations 1967. Two signs were erected on the site and letters to adjoining 

property owners were distributed with an advertising period from 28 June 2012 to 10 August 

2012. A total of 17 submissions were received during the advertising period. Of these, three 

(3) submissions indicated direct support for the proposal, nine (9) raised objections and five 

(5) provided no objection or advice from service providers and government agencies. 

Of the submissions that objected to the amendment, the main concerns were:- 

• The amendment will set a precedent for other commercial re-zonings in the area and 

the expansion of Floreat Forum; 

• Parking will be insufficient and place additional pressure on the Floreat Forum car park 

and parking on nearby streets, in particular Hornsey Road; 

• There will be increased traffic in the area and traffic safety concerns given the location 

of the site directly opposite the Floreat Forum car park entry; and 

• The residential nature of the area and the residential value of properties will be 

reduced. 

In those submissions which did not object to the proposal, the following comments were 

provided:- 

• Signage should be 'kept small'; 

• We support the proposal on the basis that the parking bays along Floreat Avenue 

should be for residential use only, as they could be used by visitors to the dental 

surgery whereas they are needed for residents and their visitors; 

• We support the proposal as it will go towards providing a greater level of service to the 

community and will make a positive contribution to the Floreat locality, however, 

support is on the provision that the following standards are incorporated into the 

amendment to account for the fact that commercial development will abut residential 

development:- 

- additional privacy standards (including highlight window treatments and obscure 

glazing, a 2.5 metre high boundary wall to the southern side and retention of 

mature landscaping along the southern side); 

- an 'acoustic impact assessment' is to be required to show that plant and 

machinery will comply with noise regulations. 

Details of the submissions are contained in a schedule attached to this agenda (Attachment 

1). 

Comment: 

The proposed additional use 'consulting rooms group - dental surgery' at No. 24 Floreat 

Avenue will allow the applicant to develop a dental surgery use at the site with no other 

commercial or medical uses able to be approved on the site. The additional use is 

considered appropriate as it limits development at the site to four dental consulting rooms 

and includes specific standards to ensure that the scale of development is compatible with 

the neighbouring residential area. 




The scheme amendment application is accompanied by plans for a proposed two-storey 

development (see Attachment 2) which has been designed largely in keeping with the 

residential built form standards of the Town's Planning Scheme Policy Manual and 

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. These plans are intended to be submitted 

should the scheme amendment be approved and were presented as part of the advertising 

material to illustrate the likely development outcome, but do not form part of the formal 

amendment documentation. 

The site is considered suitable for the introduction of a small scale commercial use such as a 

dental surgery as it is located directly opposite Floreat Forum district centre. With regard to 

concerns that the additional use would set a precedent for the expansion of commercial 

activity in the area, in accordance with State Planning Policy 4.2 - Activity Centres for Perth 

and Peel, prior to major changes to commercial floor space around Floreat Forum an activity 

centre plan will need to be prepared. Given the modest scale of the proposal, it also 

presents few restrictions on future development options for the area into the future. 

Parking and Traffic 

With regard to concerns relating to parking as raised through objections to the amendment, it 

is considered that the requirement for 16 parking bays in accordance with the Town's Offstreet 

parking policy requirements for consulting rooms (4 bays per consulting room) will be 

adequate. As the nature of the use is by appointment, it is not expected that demand for 

parking will often exceed 16 bays. Broader parking and access considerations raised 

through submissions, which are not directly related to the subject site, would be explored as 

part of future centre planning for Floreat Forum district centre. 

There are limited opportunities for on street parking along this section of Floreat Avenue 

given the two bends in the road the location of the shopping centre car park crossover and 

the street signs and power poles on the verge and therefore it is not expected that the street 

would be used for on-street parking for the dental surgery. Should any parking problems 

emerge when the dental surgery is in operation the Town could review parking on Floreat 

Avenue at this time. 

There would be no significant increase to traffic volumes on Floreat Avenue and local streets 

as a result of the additional dental use. Additionally, no safety concerns have been identified 

with the installation of a crossover on Floreat Avenue and its proximity to the shopping 

centre entry, provided that the standard provision that crossovers are at least 7.5 metres 

from a corner is also met. 

Development Standards 

Additional use provisions in the Town Planning Scheme allow for specific design standards 

based on the concept plans which have been incorporated into the proposed amendment. 

These standards will ensure that the development generally appears residential in nature, 

require screening and noise attenuation measures to reduce impacts of parking areas on 

neighbouring properties and the streetscape and require landscaped setback areas. 

The requirements listed below are proposed to be included in the scheme amendment for 

future development on the site, which aim to address comments raised through advertising. 

In particular, the requirements serve to further limit the impact of the dental surgery building 

on adjoining properties. The applicant is aware of the inclusion of additional requirements. 

• Signage to be limited to one sign identifying the name of the building, maximum size of 

0.2m2, which is consistent with signage provisions for residential land use; 




• In order to reduce noise impacts and enhance privacy, a boundary wall along southern 

boundary (behind the 9.0 metres front setback) would be required as part of the 

development of a dental surgery. The wall is to be of masonry or brick construction 

and 2.5 metres in height as measured from the higher side (which is from 22 Floreat 

Avenue); 

• Upper storey windows facing residential dwellings to have obscure glazing or to be 

highlight windows to prevent overlooking onto dwellings and reduce views to and from 

the dental surgery (It is noted that a submission specifically requested that windows be 

highlight windows with obscure glazing. However, privacy would be adequately 

addressed by meeting either one of these measures); and 

• Retention of mature vegetation as part of landscaping along boundaries. 

Whilst already covered by noise regulations, it is also proposed that the requirement that 

noise regulations are met is reiterated in the schedule of development provisions to highlight 

management of any noise issues from parking as well as from the dental operations. A 

submission was received which requested that any future development application for a 

dental surgery be accompanied by an acoustic report to demonstrate that plant and 

machinery would comply with applicable noise regulations, however, the Town is unable to 

require such reports for a dental surgery use and it is considered that the noise regulations 

would control noise effectively. 

In addition, the scheme amendment is to specify operating hours to be between 7am and 

6pm Monday to Friday and 7pm and 2pm Saturday. The inclusion of these specific operating 

hours is aimed to further control the operation of the site. 


The introduction of an additional use will involve an amendment to Schedule 2 of the Town 

Planning Scheme to include the additional use and associated development standards and 

conditions. 




Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan for the provision 

of orderly planning to enhance the Town's natural and built environment through effective 

and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. 


The Town Planning Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the provisions 

of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Attachment 1: Schedule of Submissions 

2. Attachment 2: Dental Surgery Concept Plans 

3. Attachment 3: Scheme Amendment Report (to be tabled at Meeting) 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the submissions in relation to Amendment No. 23 to Town Planning Scheme No. 

1 be noted; 

pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Amendment No. 

23 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be adopted with modification as follows:- 

(a) 

introduce an additional use for "consulting rooms group - dental surgery' 

for Lot 353 (No. 24) Floreat Avenue, Floreat to the existing "Residential 

R12.5" zone 

(b) 

Schedule 2 in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be amended to include the 

following Development Standards and Conditions for the additional use 

"consulting rooms group - dental surgery" at Lot 353 (No.24) Floreat 

Avenue:- 

• the design of the building to be in accordance with the Residential 

Design Codes and the Town's Residential Planning Policies, unless 

specified otherwise; 

• provision of open space may be less than 55%. All open space areas 

shall be well maintained gardens and mature vegetation along 

property boundaries to be retained; 

• no car-parking to be located in the primary street setback area; 

• car parking areas to be screened from adjacent residential properties 

and from the street and noise attenuation measures to be provided; 

• a maximum of four practitioners can operate from the dental surgery 

at any one time; 

• signage to be limited to one sign identifying the name of the building, 

to a maximum size of 0.2m 2 ; 

• parking to be provided in accordance with the Town's Planning 

Scheme parking requirements; 

• upper storey windows with views to adjoining residential properties 

to have obscure glazing or to be highlight windows (1.6 metres above 

finished floor level); 

• a boundary wall of brick or masonry construction along the boundary 

with No.22 Floreat Avenue and behind the 9.0 metres front setback is 

required as part of any development on the site, which shall be 2.5 

metres in height as measured from the No.22 Floreat Avenue side; 

• the dental surgery operating hours shall only be between 7am and 

6pm Monday to Friday and 7pm and 2pm Saturday; 

• requirements under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 

1997 relating to the operations on the site to be met. 

(iii) 

the Western Australian Planning Commission be requested to consider 

Amendment No. 21 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and seek the final approval 

of the Hon. Minister for Planning; and 




(iv) 

the applicant be advised that support for the amendment does not constitute 

approval of the concept plan. Should the amendment be gazetted, any 

redevelopment requires submission of a development application and 

assessment against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.101 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS - RAILWAY 

PARADE AND OXFORD CLOSE, WEST LEEDERVILLE 


To revise parking restrictions in Railway Parade (between Kerr Street and Hamilton Road 

bridge) and Oxford Close (west side between Railway Parade and Harrogate Street). To 

approve the installation of two Disabled parking bays in Oxford Close. 

BACKGROUND: 

1. Railway Parade 

At its meeting in July 2008, the Council considered Report DV08.101 - Location of Paid 

Parking Machines and Fees for Parking in Metered Zones. That report proposed locations 

for the installation of new ticket machines; and recommended a range of parking fees. 

Recommendations were also made to alter the parking restrictions in Railway Parade 

(between Northwood and Abbotsford Streets) to accommodate the operation of parking 

ticket machines. 

At that meeting, the Council made the following decision in respect to parking restrictions in 

Railway Parade:- 

“(v) a "2 Hour - At all other times" restriction apply on the southern side of Railway 

Parade, commencing 7 metres west of Kerr Street and extending westwards a distance of 

60 metres, in lieu of the "1 Hour" parking restriction; 

2. Oxford Close 

At its meeting in February 2010, the Council considered Report DV10.14 - Parking Ticket 

Machines, Oxford Close/ Harrogate Street precinct- Adoption of parking fees and 

amendments to parking restrictions. Part of that report proposed amendments to parking 

restrictions in Oxford Close and Harrogate Street to be made in conjunction with the 

installation of ticket machines in that area. 

At that meeting, the Council made the following decision in respect to parking restrictions on 

the western side of Oxford Close, between Railway Parade and Harrogate Street. 

(iv) 

"One hour Ticket, 8am to 5:30pm, Mondays to Fridays; 8am to noon - Saturdays" with 

"Ticket Parking, 5:30pm to 10pm, Monday to Friday; 8am to 10pm, Saturday, Sunday 

and Public Holidays" parking restrictions be applied on the west side of Oxford Close, 

between Railway Parade and Harrogate Street. 




DETAILS: 

Proposed amendments to Parking Restrictions 

1. Railway Parade 

Observations of actual usage indicates the majority of the 9 available parking bays in 

Railway Parade, between Kerr Street and Hamilton Street bridge are vacant most of the 

time. Statistical information from the operation of the ticket machine in this location (Railway 

3) clearly supports theses observations. 

Financial year Parking per hour Yearly income Average weekly income 

2010 - 2011 $1.50 $1,791.50 $35.13 

2011- 2012 $1.50 $1,085.30 $20.87 

These 9 bays currently have the out-dated two hour football parking restrictions with 

residential parking permits permitted. 

The reasons for the very high vacancy rate may be that:- 

• The time restriction is too short; 

• There is little demand for short term on- street parking; 

• Cheaper on-street parking is available nearby in City of Subiaco. 

Long term parking is in high demand in this area. The 10 hour paid parking zone 

immediately to the east (between Hamilton Road bridge and Kimberley Street) is well 

patronised and the available parking bays are regularly fully occupied. As this area 

develops, the need for short term parking may increase; however, in the shorter term, these 

parking bays could be better utilised for longer term parking. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the parking restrictions be amended to "10 hour Ticket, 

7am to 10pm, all days - Residential Parking Permits Exempted"; and "No Parking on verge". 

In accordance with the Council's Fee Schedule, the parking fees for this area would be 

$1.20 per hour or $8.00 for 10 hours. 

2. Oxford Close 

The standard recommended for short term ticket parking within the Town is 2 hours. This 

period is practical to manage and give motorists the option to purchase a shorter period if 

desired. A two hour restriction is also practical in terms of surveillance and enforcement 

activities. 

In terms of ticket machine operations, the instructions on each machines advises motorists 

to purchase tickets from adjacent machines when a ticket machine is out of service. This 

has often caused problems in Oxford Close as there have been numerous occasions when 

motorists have parked in the One Hour zone and have had to purchase a ticket from a ticket 

machine on the opposite side of the street. On many of those occasions, the motorists have 

inadvertently purchased a Two Hour ticket for use in a One Hour zone. 




Accordingly, it is recommended that the one hour restriction on the western side of Oxford 

Close be changed to "Two hour Ticket, 8am to 5.30pm, Monday to Fridays; and 8am to 12 

noon, Saturdays" and "Ticket Parking, 5.30pm to 10pm, Monday to Friday; 12 noon to 10pm, 

Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays". 

3. Oxford Close - Disabled Parking Bays 

Recent alterations to the commercial building at 35 Oxford Close have resulted in the 

crossover to that property being abandoned. This has left an on-street area that is 7.3 

metres wide being available for use as on-street parking. 

In accordance with the objectives of the Town's Disability Access and Inclusion Plan, it is 

recommended that the redundant cross over adjacent to 35 Oxford Close be converted into 

two Australian Standards compliant disabled parking bays. Drivers will be required to 

purchase parking tickets, but will get double the time. 


The proposed parking restriction amendments are in accordance with Council Policy No. 

5.2.22 (i)(b) - parking restrictions shall be reviewed when considered necessary by the 

Town. 

Changes to parking restrictions require a formal decision by the Council in accordance with 

the requirements of Clause 2.1 of the Town's Parking Local Law. 


The estimated cost of new signage is $1000, which will be charged to Budget Item - Road 

Name Signs and Parking Signs. 


The proposed changes to parking restrictions are consistent with the Strategic Plan 2009- 

2020 goals of community infrastructure facilities that are well used and maintained; and 

financial sustainability. 


Parking restrictions are determined and amended by the Council in accordance with the 

Parking Local Law. The public are informed of parking restrictions by the installation of 

Australian Standards compliant on-street signage that clearly states the applicable parking 

restriction. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

"10 hour Ticket, 7am to 10pm, All days - Residential Parking Permits Exempted" 

and "No Parking on verge" parking restrictions be applied to the southern side 

of Railway Parade, between Kimberley Street and Hamilton Street bridge; 

"Two hour Ticket, 8am to 5.30pm, Monday to Fridays; and 8am to 12 noon, 

Saturdays" and "Ticket Parking, 5.30pm to 10pm, Monday to Friday; 12 noon to 

10pm, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays" parking restrictions be applied to 

the western side of Oxford Close between Harrogate Street and Railway Parade; 

the cost of installing new signage in (i) and (ii) above be funded from budget 

item - Road Name Signs and Parking Signs; 

the redundant cross over adjacent to 35 Oxford Close be converted into two 

Australian Standards compliant disabled parking bays with the costs funded by 

budget items - Line Marking, and Road Name Signs and Parking Signs. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.102 REVIEW OF BEACH LIFEGUARD SERVICE AND OUTCOME OF BEACH 

USER FORUM 


To review the Lifeguard Service and report on the outcome of the Beach User Forum held 

on 6 June 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting on 22 November 2011, the Council awarded the Beach Lifeguard Services 

Contract to Surf Lifesaving WA. At that time, the Council decided that: 

"A report be submitted to Council in April 2012 to further review the service provision and to 

determine the future level of service and an appropriate budget allocation for the 2012/2013 

financial year." 

At its meeting on 21 February 2012, the Council decided to establish a Beach User Forum 

after concerns were raised about conflict between user groups throughout the previous 

summer. The Council decided that: 

"An annual Beach User Forum be hosted by the Council at the end of each summer to assist 

the Town in the formulation of operational practices and policy to manage beach and aquatic 

use at Floreat and City Beaches." 

DETAILS: 

To assist the Council in defining issues and arriving at solutions regarding the beach 

lifeguard service and the beach environment in general, consultation with interested 

community groups was undertaken on 6 June 2012 

Community group representatives who attended the Beach User Forum included:- 

• Surf Life Saving Western Australia; 

• Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club; 

• City Beach Surf Riders Club; 

• WA Kite Surfing Association; 

• Individual residents; 

• Swimmers; 

• Fishermen; 

• Board riders; 

The Town was represented by two Coast ward councillors and four Administration officers. 

Key issues raised by the community and the Administration during the Forum were:- 

1. Conflict in the use of swimming area at City Beach groyne, 

2. Beach lifeguard service contract (review of current services), 

3. Beach signage (conflicting, or out-of-date), 

4. Conflict between fishermen and aquatic users at both groynes, 




5. Inadequate beach cleaning (rocks & rubble on beach), 

6. Boardwalk access and signage, 

7. Review of Local Law provisions relating to the beach. 

1. Conflict in the use of swimming area at City Beach Groyne 

The attendees of the Forum expressed concern that there was no Council funded lifeguard 

service on summer season weekends following the commencement of the new service. 

One of the key issues was that board riders were still using the north side of the City Beach 

groyne after 6am when they should have vacated the area for swimmers. The Town 

received numerous complaints about the abuse of the 'No surf appliances after 6am' 

restriction at City Beach. This has been the subject of perennial and fairly regular verbal 

complaints from early morning swimmers. 

Previously, the beach inspector had successfully managed the "No Surf Appliances after 

6am" restriction on the north side of the City Beach groyne on weekends when they started 

duty at 6am. 

However, since the implementation of the new contract, the beaches were no longer 

patrolled on weekends, as mentioned above. This resulted in some members of the board 

riding and fishing fraternity ignoring the restrictions and taking advantage to the detriment of 

swimmers. 

To resolve this situation, it is proposed that:- 

1) The current Beach Lifeguard Service contract be varied to include a Roving Lifeguard in 

the summer season weekends and public holidays to monitor swimming and general 

aquatic safety; 

2) The restrictions on board rider use of City Beach groyne be amended. 

Currently, swimming is permitted from 1 October to 31 March and board riding is 

permitted from 1 April to 30 September each year. 

It is proposed to amend the permitted swimming months to 1 November to 30 April, and 

the permitted board riding period to 1 May to 30 October each year. 

2. Beach Lifeguard Services Contract (review of current services) 

As a result of ongoing conflict between user groups, it is proposed that the current 

contracted service be amended to add:- 

"Roving Lifeguard from 6am to 12noon Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, from 1 

November to 31 March". 

The key function of this additional service would be to manage aquatic safety zones and 

maintain separation of incompatible activities that are likely to cause conflict between 

competing user groups (such as the situation between board riders and swimmers 

mentioned in 1 above). 

Surf Lifesaving WA has quoted $17,881 to undertake this service, as a variation to the 

existing Contract. 




The user forum proposed that the existing swimming season be changed so as to 

commence in November (and not October). This proposal was supported by a majority of 

the forum attendees. 

Current services: 

• October - two lifeguards man a flagged area north of the City Beach groyne from 10am 

to 5pm - Monday to Friday (excl Public Holidays). 

• April - a Roving Lifeguard operates from 11am to 6pm - Monday to Friday (including 

School Holidays), with an additional lifeguard operating at City Beach during school 

holidays. 

Proposed services: 

• October - a Roving Lifeguard from 11am to 6pm Monday to Friday (including School 

Holidays) and an additional Lifeguard at City Beach during School Holidays. 

• April - two lifeguards at City Beach from 6am to 6pm - Monday to Friday (excluding 

Public Holidays). The proposed changes are shown in the attached Schedule of 

Beach Lifeguard Services. 

This will require a variation to the current Beach Lifeguard Service Contract for the services 

provided in months of April and October. In simple terms, the proposal is to swap the 

services provided in October to April; and the services provided in April to October. 

Surf Lifesaving WA has advised the Administration there will be minimal cost (essentially 

CPI only) associated with swapping the contract services provided in the months of October 

and April. 

$317,000 has been allocated in the 2012-2013 budget for Beach Lifeguard Services. In 

anticipation of the proposal for the additional "Roving Lifeguard" service in summers, 

adequate provision was made in the budget to cover the cost of this additional service. 

The contract with Surf Lifesaving WA allows for variations to the extent of service provided. 

Any additions to the service requested by Council can be taken into consideration. 

3. Beach Signage (conflicting or out-of-date) 

At its meeting on 12 November 2001, the Council considered and adopted the 

recommendations contained in a Beach Safety Audit that was undertaken by Surf Life 

Saving WA. In particular, that audit report identified and recommended the installation of a 

range of public safety and information signs for the Town's beaches. 

Attendees at the Beach User Forum pointed out that:- 

• existing signs relating to the seasonal usage of the ocean adjacent to the Town's two 

groynes were not adequately meeting the needs of all users, 

• some signs had conflicting information or requirements, whilst others were simply 

confusing, 

• that the appropriateness and presentation of the signage displaying the risks for 

swimmers and beach users was inadequate, 

• that some sections of the community were abusing the restrictions to the detriment 

and/or annoyance of other users (i.e. swimmers, fisherman and board riders). 




As the beach signage has not been reviewed or assessed for 11 years, it is recommended 

that the Local Government Insurance Services (LGIS) be engaged to undertake a review of 

beach signage. 

The audit would involve a specialist LGIS Risk Management Consultant conducting the 

following:- 

• onsite inspection of the Towns coastal areas to identify risks, and hazards, 

• meeting with relevant Town personnel to further identify and discuss existing controls, 

• development of a draft and final report noting potential risks, hazards and liability issues 

as well as providing direction for risk treatment options including signage, 

• presentation and discussion of the report with Administration officers. 

The Town currently has funds available in its LGIS Members Experience Account that may 

be utilised for payment of this proposed beach signage review. 

4. Conflict between fishermen and aquatic users at Floreat and City Beach 

Groynes 

Forum attendees expressed concern over the hours and times when anglers could fish from 

the Floreat and City Beach groynes. Attendees reported that anglers were coming into 

conflict with other beach users who use the aquatic and beach environments all year round. 

Fishing off either groyne throughout the year poses a threat of injury to swimmers and board 

riders during daylight hours from fishing hooks, either in the water or disposed of on the 

groynes. 

As mentioned above, City Beach groyne is used by board riders in the winter periods and in 

early mornings in summers. Swimmers use the north side of this groyne in summers. 

The Floreat groyne area is not a flagged swimming area and is not utilised by board riders 

as the surf break is unreliable. However, the area is used by a small minority of swimmers 

during the summer and winter months to swim parallel to the coast line. One forum attendee 

stated that he had been hooked off the Floreat groyne during an early morning swim. 

The area to the north of this groyne is used by the local surf life saving club for club aquatic 

activities. This area is also the approved launch zone for kite surfing. 

The beaches do not have no fishing restrictions and it is not proposed to apply any 

restrictions, however, clause 5.10 of the Local Government and Public Property Local Law 

expressly prohibits fishing in designated swimming areas. 

The current restrictions and proposed changes are as follows: 

City Beach Groyne. 

Current restrictions: "No fishing - 1 April to 30 September All Times" and "No fishing - 1 

October to 31 March, 7:00pm to 6:00am". 

Proposed restriction: "No Fishing, including 50m north to 50m south of City Beach groyne, 

All times". 




Floreat Groyne 

Current restrictions: "No fishing - 1 October to 31 March, 6:00am to 7:00pm". . 

Proposed restriction: "No fishing - 1 November to 30 April, 6am to 7pm". 

5. Inadequate beach cleaning and no rocks/rubble on beach 

Two Forum attendees reported that the beach required cleaning more regularly to reduce 

rocks and rubbish. 

At present, City and Floreat beaches are cleaned using a mechanical sand rake that rakes 

the sand up to a depth of approximately 300mm. 

Enquiries with neighbouring local governments of (Fremantle, Cottesloe and Nedlands) 

revealed that they use contractors to clean their beaches. The City of Stirling uses a 

machine that is similar to the Town’s machine. The frequency of beach cleaning by these 

Councils varies with the use of the beach which peaks in summer. Most of the cleaning 

occurs adjacent their main swimming areas. 

Parks and Landscaping Services generally assess beach conditions and uses the beach 

cleaner as required. When identified or reported, rocks are removed by either a front end 

loader or a bobcat. The beach cleaning machine is not capable of removing large rocks or 

bricks. Rubbish on the beach is also monitored and removed by hand as this can be the 

most efficient way of removing individual items such as cans or plastic drink bottles. 

There have been very few reports of dangerous items (such as needles or broken glass) on 

the beach over the years. Action is taken immediately to remove these hazardous items. 

With the likely increase in the future use of City Beach, the beach cleaning program will be 

reviewed to ensure the Town's beaches can be safely enjoyed by the public. Parks and 

Landscaping have recently conducted rock removal in City Beach after a complaint was 

lodged with administration. 

6. Boardwalk access and signage 

Attendees at the Forum asked about the current use of the Floreat board walk as they 

believed:- 

• the boardwalk was under utilised by the general public, 

• the boardwalk was not adequately meeting the needs of all users, 

• the location of the signage at the boardwalk was inadequate. 

The Administration has investigated these claims and found that the passive recreational 

nature of the boardwalk's design does not make it compatible with some active recreational 

activities such as bicycle riding, or rollerblading/skateboarding. 

Forum attendees agreed that jogging on the board walk should be permitted, as the 

boardwalk forms a link between established jogging and walking paths along the foreshore. 

It was agreed that jogging should not be prohibited. 




Restrictions on the use of the boardwalk have never been formally adopted by Council in 

accordance with the procedure required for making determinations. Accordingly, it proposed 

that the following restrictions be applied to the use of the boardwalk:- 

• "Dogs permitted on leash only", 

• "Bicycles, Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted". 

7. Review of Local Law 

Over the last summer period, the Town received numerous complaints regarding the use of 

"Surfing Appliances" within the designated swimming area at City Beach. Surf appliances 

are prohibited between the patrolled swimming areas between the months of October to 

March each year. 

Clause 1.6 of the Town's Local Government and Public Property Local Law states:- 

“Surfing appliance” means a flotation device of any material used for riding or surfing waves, 

including hand planes, surf boards, surf skis, kick boards, paddle boards, body boards or 

any other device used or capable of being used for that purpose." 

Forum attendees and Surf Life Saving WA identified this definition as being too ambiguous 

and restrictive, particularly as "Flotation devices" are used by adults with disabilities or by 

poor swimmers. Forum attendees also pointed out that it was unfair and unsafe for a person 

who requires a flotation device to be directed to vacate a patrolled swimming area. 

During last summer, lifeguards were directing young children on flotation devices who 

appeared to be over 8 years' old away from the patrolled area, thus exposing them to 

greater risks. On some occasions, it was safer for a child to be on a soft flotation device 

between the flags, than not at all. 

It is proposed to review the Town's local law requirements in this regard. Consideration of 

minor amendments to the definition of "Surf appliances" and other clauses contained within 

the local law may be appropriate to provide greater clarity. 

In the meantime, the application of this restriction will be relaxed to cater for these 

circumstances. 


Division 1 of the Local Government and Public Property Local Law applies when making 

determinations (ie local law restrictions that are then bought to the public's attention by 

signs). 

The process of making local government determinations that are enforceable by the issue of 

infringements or notices requires the following steps: 

1. The local government is to give local public notice of its intention to make a 

determination. The public notice must state the purpose and effect of the 

determination; 

2. A consultation period of 21 days applies after the publication of the public notice; 

3. A further report is presented to Council. The report must address any submissions 

and if the proposed determination is amended as a result of considering submissions, 

further public consultation and public notice is required; 




4. Where the local government decides not to amend the proposed determination, and 

adopts the determination as originally proposed, local public notice must be given that 

the proposed determination has effect as a determination on and from the date of 

publication. 

After the above process, the Council can then erect signs on local government property to 

give notice of the effect of a determination. 


$317,000 has been allocated in the 2012-2013 budget - Beach Lifeguard Services. The 

contract costs are reviewed and adjusted annually based on Consumer Price Index. The 

contract with Surf Lifesaving WA allows for variations to the extent of service provided. Any 

additions to the service requested by Council can be taken into consideration and can cover 

all services proposed. 

The cost of the beach signage review will be a single fee of $5,544. The Town currently has 

funds available within its LGIS Members Experience Account that may be utilised to fund this 

proposed review. 


The provision of beach surveillance and lifeguard service falls within the Town's priority area 

of Planning for our Community with the goal to provide a wide range of quality, accessible 

recreational facilities by developing and improving the Town's main beaches and reserves. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. 

Community engagement and consultation took place in the Beach User Forum, as part of 

the process in identifying issues and user options on matters related to beach usage or the 

aquatic environment. 

SUMMARY: 

The consultation at the Beach User Forum provided valuable information and comments on 

the Town's beaches and their current use. 

As a result, it is proposed to:- 

• amend the Beach Life Guard contract by adding additional services on summer 

weekends and public holidays; 

• alter the commencement of summer swimming season from October to November; 

and the end of the swimming season from March to April; 

• adjust the lifeguard contract to reflect the later start and later end of the summer 

swimming season; 

• engage Local Government Insurance Services to audit and review beach signage; 

• follow the local law process to make determinations regarding restrictions for board 

riding at City Beach groyne; fishing from City Beach and Floreat groynes; and use of 

the Floreat boardwalk. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Minutes of Beach User Forum - 6 June 2012; 

2. Schedule - Proposed changes to the Beach Services Contract. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the Minutes of the Beach User Forum held on 6 June 2012 be received; 

the Beach Lifeguard Services Contact be amended to add a "Roving Lifeguard" 

from 6am to 12noon Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays from 1 November to 

31 March; 

the Beach Lifeguard Service Contract for the month of October be amended to 

"Roving Lifeguard from 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday (including public 

holidays)" and "an additional Lifeguard at City Beach during School Holidays"; 

the Beach Lifeguard Service Contract for the month of April be amended to "Two 

Lifeguards 10am to 5pm Monday to Friday (excl Public Holidays)"; 

the Local Government Insurance Services (LGIS) be engaged to undertake a 

beach signage review with the costs borne by the Town's LGIS Experience 

Account; 

in accordance with Division 1 of the Town of Cambridge Local Government and 

Public Property Local Law, local public notice be given seeking submissions 

within 21 days on the proposal to make the following determinations:- 

(a) 

(b) 

the restrictions on the north side of the City Beach groyne be amended to 

“No surfing or surf appliances – 1 November to 30 April”; 

the fishing restriction at City Beach groyne be amended to "No Fishing, 

including 50 metres north to 50 metres south of City Beach groyne, at 

anytime"; 

(c) the fishing restrictions at Floreat Groyne be amended to "No fishing - 1 

November to 30 April, 6am to 7pm"; 

(d) 

the restrictions on the boardwalk be "Dogs permitted on leash only' and 

"Bicycles, Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted". 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.103 SUSTAINABILITY INFORMATION REPORT 

SUMMARY: 

This report highlights some of the range of sustainability initiatives undertaken by the Town 

through the Sustainability Services team. It is proposed to present a report to Council 

approximately every four months to keep elected members and the community up to date 

with ongoing and achievements by the Town. 

Initiatives reported here address the pressing issues facing us today of:- 

• Ecological biodiversity 

• Climate Change 

• Air Quality 

• Energy production/consumption 

• Water quality/consumption 

• Waste generation/disposal 

These issues are all inter-connected and, collectively, demand our attention in ensuring a 

liveable environment for future generations. 

In many respects, local government leads the way in embracing sustainable practice and as 

the tier of government closest to the community, can influence critical behaviour change at 

an individual level that is necessary to overcome threats to a sustainable future. 

DETAILS: 

Initiatives listed below provide a summary and overview of activities undertaken in the past 

year: 

1. TravelSmart 

TravelSmart was introduced by the State Government in response to the Metropolitan 

Transport Strategy's (1995) finding that growing car use in Perth was not sustainable and 

that demand for car use would have to be managed to maintain a liveable city. It is also 

identified as a key initiative in the Government's Transport Plan, 2010. 

Sustainable travel options and practices are promoted by developing and implementing 

programs and strategies together with community groups, schools and government bodies. 

A considerable increase in the number of students cycling, scooting and walking to school 

was achieved at Wembley Primary School. In a Survey conducted at the school 40% of 

students regularly participate in active transport days which has helped to alleviate 

congestion around the school and reduce pressure on limited parking 

The TravelSmart Officer has also developed a Town of Cambridge Workplace Travel Plan to 

encourage and support administration staff to choose sustainable transport options. In 

addition to the Town's Plan the TravelSmart Officer assisted St John of God hospital 

(Subiaco) in developing and implementing a Workplace Travel Plan. 




The community is encouraged to make sustainable transport choices. Regular women's 

cycling workshops, bike maintenance workshops and senior's bus trip are coordinated by the 

TravelSmart Officer. The TravelSmart Officer has assisted with the development and 

implementation of the Town's Bike Plan as well as providing ongoing support. 

The Town of Cambridge, in partnership with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 

recently updated the Town of Cambridge Local TravelSmart Guide. The guide helps people 

determine ways to get around their local area and to find the quickest way to a major 

destination without needing a car. Additional trips were also added to Route 84 during the 

morning and afternoon peak periods. 

2. Biodiversity Management 

2.1. Town of Cambridge Biodiversity Action Plan 

Biodiversity refers to the variety of all life forms including the range of plants, animals and 

fungi, the genes they contain and the ecosystems of which they form a part. 

A Biodiversity Action Plan was endorsed by Council in February 2011. The plan builds on 

the aim of the Bushland Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2006 to "…integrate the 

conservation of biodiversity into everyday Council operations and in leading by example 

encouraging the community to appreciate the value and the diversity of life in our Town." 

The Town's Biodiversity Action Plan furthers the work of the strategy by incorporating 

management recommendations into a biodiversity management program across the Town's 

natural areas. 

Actions included in the implementation program of the Biodiversity Action Plan are:- 

• weed mapping - to determine the location and density of weed infestations 

• weed control and monitoring - to reduce weed infestations and prevent further weed 

invasion 

• re-vegetation - to restore local native species to degraded areas and to prevent weed 

invasion 

• control of access using bollards - to define natural area boundaries and to reduce 

uncontrolled access to bushland areas which leads to degradation 

• installation of bins and removal of rubbish - to improve the appearance of natural 

areas and to reduce potential weed infestation that accompanies the dumping of 

garden waste 

• educational signage/activities - to educate the public about the conservation value of 

natural areas and appropriate use or access to these areas 

In July 1200 seedlings were planted in a bushland area at the Wembley Golf Course. The 

planting program was arranged as part of the Town’s Wembley Sports Park Development in 

Jolimont where 65 Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo habitat trees will be removed. Plant species 

including Tuarts, Banksias and Hakeas, which are favoured by cockatoos for feeding and 

roosting, were planted. 

2.2. Arbor Day 

The annual Arbor Day planting and nature appreciation activity is very popular with local 

schools. The Town partners with Cambridge Rotary and Birdlife Western Australia to provide 

an educational experience for students at Roscommon Park while improving the biodiversity 

value of the reserve. 




Schools are keen to participate each year and regard the day as a valuable and enjoyable 

educational experience. In 2011, 240 students from eight schools participated in the day, 

planting 240 seedlings on the southern side of Roscommon Park. In 2012, 168 students 

from five schools planted 170 seedlings to complete re-vegetation of the southern side of the 

reserve. Due to conflicting commitments the number of students who participated in 2012 

was fewer. 

The schools were welcomed by Minister for Environment and Water, the Hon Bill Marmion 

who officially launched the day before planting the first tree. 

2.3 Native Plant subsidy Scheme 

The Native Plant Subsidy Scheme is an annual event that takes place during May. The 

project is coordinated through WESROC (Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of 

Councils) with the Town of Cambridge participating and being the lead Council. Residents 

can purchase subsidised local native plants at a $1.50 each, 80 per household. 

In 2010 39% of the Cambridge allocation was sold, in 2011 60% was sold and in 2012 a 

100% sales figure was achieved. Workshops were held a month prior to the start of the 

scheme to promote the event and to help residents prepare their gardens for successful 

planting. 

In September 2012 a Workshop will be held to promote the planting of local natives on 

verges and to encourage the correct implementation of the new Town of Cambridge Verge 

policy. Three local verges will receive makeovers and will be used as examples. 

3. Climate Change 

Climate Change initiatives in 2011 and 2012 include the implementation of Carbon Neutral 

Cambridge projects, active participation in the Switch Your Thinking Program and the 

installation of the Greensense View Real-Time Building Monitoring at the Administration 

Centre, Library and the Boulevard Centre. 

3.1. Investment by the Town in Energy Effiency and Water Conservation 

The two main projects implemented for 2011 were the installation of a solar photovoltaic 

(PV) system on the library roof, the installation of LED lights and replacing all fluorescent 

tubes in the Town's Administration building. 

The 10kW PV system installed on the Library-Boulevard building has been monitored since 

its installation in July 2011 and has saved the Town around 17000kWh of electricity and 

approximately $6500 off its annual electricity bill. The payback was originally estimated at 15 

years, but in reality will be around 9 years. New solar panel systems have become rapidly 

more competitive in price and a similar system today will have a payback period of only 5 

years. 

At the Administration building 390 x 15W LED tubes were installed replacing traditional 36W 

fluorescent tubes. An energy use reduction of 9.75kW (or $3.33) per hour has been 

achieved thus reducing the Admin building electricity bill by approximately $26/day or around 

$7000/year. The LED tubes are longer lasting, reducing replacement and maintenance 

costs. 

In 2012 Federal funds were offered through the CEEP (Community Energy Efficiency 

Program) and an application was made by the Town for the implementation of a LED 

replacement project at the Administration Centre, Library, Wembley Golf Course and 

Community Centre. Unfortunately, we were not successful, but are planning to apply for 

funds in the next round that will take place in quarter 4 of 2012. 




3.2. Switch Your Thinking 

The Town of Cambridge is a member of the Switch Your Thinking (Syt!) Program. The 

program is supported by seven other WA Metropolitan Local Governments and assists 

Councils to work with their communities in the implementation of measures that saves 

energy and water consumption consequently reducing operating costs and greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Residents and businesses are eligible for discounts on a wide variety of products including 

Solar Panels, Energy Meters, Rainwater Tanks, Pool Covers and Insulation Paint. The 

Switch Your Thinking rebates are in addition to any state or federal government rebates for 

which residents may also be eligible. 

Floreat SLSC made use of the rebates scheme by installing energy efficient heat pumps 

instead of electric hot water systems in their club change rooms through Solahart. 

An additional component of the Switch Your Thinking Program is the establishment of a 

Switched on Staff Team. The Cambridge team was established in 2011 and consist of 

various staff members from out centres and the administration building. The Team has been 

engaged to examine ways of reducing green house gas emissions at Council facilities and 

has been engaged in staff behaviour changes. 

3.3. Greensense View Real-time Building Monitoring 

The Town has recently installed a Greensense View Portal at the Town's Administration 

Building and the Library-Boulevard Centre. 

The portal (http://www.greensenseview.com/Home/Profile/Cambridge) provides an online 

dashboard viewing service for electricity and water usage. Reports are generated for 

electricity and water usage as well as solar power generation. Water leaks and unexpected 

electricity usage can be detected. Information obtained from the system can be used for the 

compilation of electricity and water efficiency programs. It also allows for the monitoring of 

these programs once installed. 

The community can access dashboards on the "Sustainability Station" in the Town 

Administration building foyer and the Library-Boulevard Centre, via this portal or by visiting 

http://www.greensenseview.com/. 

The Greensense View Portal has recently been used by the Library-Boulevard to track an 

anomaly in overnight water consumption. Peaks of up to 1200L/min were detected when the 

building was not occupied and the reticulation system was turned off. As a result of active 

monitoring by Library staff members the Water Corporation's Water Efficiency branch is 

currently assisting the Town to identify the cause of the unexpected water consumption. 

4. Other School Projects 

Sustainability Services provides in kind and financial assistance to local schools. The 

following schools received support:- 

• In 2011 funds were provided to Lake Monger Primary School for a sustainable garden. 

• Later in the year an additional project was initiated between the Primary School, the 

West Leederville Community Garden and the Council to establish a food garden. 

• In 2011 Floreat Park Primary School obtained funds to establish a Frog Habitat. 

• A Frog Habitat Workshop by Johnny Profumo, the Frog Doctor, was arranged at 

Floreat Park Primary School. 

• In 2012 follow up funding were provided for placing information signs in the garden. 




• Kapinara Primary School received funds for a Screen Printing Workshop in 2012. 

Images were printed on old pillow cases and T Shirts to help the students to 

understand the principle of reusing and reducing household products. 

• City Beach received funds for a Recycled Wire Worksop and a Community 

Involvement project where skills are transferred from senior residents to students, such 

as knitting and crochet, during 2012. 

• A Bush Food in your Backyard Workshop was held at Floreat Park Primary School. 

The future aim of Sustainable Services is to provide more in kind assistance, to connect 

more schools with sustainable community activities and to encourage an array of schools to 

apply for Council funding. 

5. Sustainable September 

The Business and Community Sustainability Expos are a highlight of the Sustainable 

September calendar. The Expo is held annually at the Boulevard Centre. The theme for the 

2011 Expo was "Connecting Community with Technology". Various exhibitors were invited to 

promote sustainable technology and practices. 

Community and staff calendars were compiled where Sustainability Services coordinated 

and hosted numerous events. 

In 2012 the Expo will be held during the weekend of 14 and 15 September and the theme 

will be "Building Greener Communities". There will be a stronger focus on community and 

schools involvement. 

6. Other Community Activities 

6.1. Community Workshops 

Garden Workshops and Energy Efficiency Workshops are held during Spring and Autumn by 

the Great Gardens and Beyond Gardens teams. These workshops are extremely popular 

and generally fully booked. 

6.2. Community Groups 

Sustainability Services actively support the following Community Groups: 

• Cambridge Coastcare 

• Friends of Bold Park Bushland 

• West Leederville Community Garden 

• Friends of Roscommon Park 

6.3. Sustainable Living Guide 

The Town provides a Sustainable Living Guide for residents available at 

www.sustainable.cambridge.wa.gov.au or from a link on the Town of Cambridge homepage. 

The Guide is designed to help Cambridge residents take action to live more sustainably at 

home and in the community. The Guide contains information on how small and easy 

changes can have positive impacts on the environment, health and well being as well as 

saving money. 

7. Waste Minimisation 

Sustainability Services has coordinated programs such as the Planet Ark Office Friday File 

Fling. Fifty reams of paper were recycled in the Administration Office during 2011 File Fling. 

Staff will be encouraged to take part in the 2012 File Fling. 




8. Water Conservation 

Water quality and efficiency initiatives in 2011 and 2012 included Waterwise Councils reendorsement, 

achieving Milestone 4, Corporate, of the ICLEI Water Campaign and 

becoming a signatory to Mounts Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) Memorandum 

of Understanding. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



That the sustainability information report be received. 

During discussion, Members agreed that it would be a benefit for the Council to consider in 

greater detail the sustainability programmes undertaken by the Town. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Bradley 

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

(ii) 

the Administration undertake a reassessment of the Town's Sustainability and 

Travel activities and present the results to the Council Forum. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the sustainability information report be received; 

the Administration undertake a reassessment of the Town's Sustainability and 

Travel activities and present the results to the Council Forum. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.104 AUTHORISATION OF OFFICERS - DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 


To authorise recently employed Officers under various statutes, and to appoint designated 

persons for the purposes of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge is responsible for the enforcement of various Acts, Regulations and 

Local Laws. These include Planning and Development, Building, Health, Food, Local 

Government, Environmental Protection and subsidiary legislation. 

It is essential that Officers employed by the Town be authorised to enable them to perform 

their duties. Authorisations in terms of other Acts provides the Administration with the 

flexibility of using multi-skilled Officers capable to deal with various enforcement matters 

when they arise. 

The Planning and Development Regulations 2009 came into operation on 1 July 2009, and 

includes the provision for infringement notices to be issued by designated persons for 

prescribed offences under Section 227(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 

DETAILS: 

The following Environmental Health Officers have commenced employment with the Town: 

• Ms Cliodhna McKillop commenced duty on 12 December 2011. 

• Miss Kate Lapham commenced duty on 11 June 2012. 

The prime objective of the abovementioned Environmental Health positions is to ensure 

compliance with the Health and Food Acts, numerous Health Regulations, the Environmental 

Protection Act in relation to noise issues, the Local Government Act; and all local laws of the 


The following Planning Officers have commenced employment with the Town: 

• Mr Sam Moss commenced duty on 19 September 2011. 

• Ms Christine Catchpole commenced duty on 16 July 2012. 

The prime objective of the above mentioned Planning positions is to assess applications 

submitted under the Town Planning Scheme and related Planning legislation; the Building 

Regulations, the Local Government Act; and all local laws of the Town and compliance 

enforcement under the above statutes. 

The following officers have commenced employment as Compliance Officers with the Town: 

• Ms Sharon Ovens commenced duty as Coordinator Compliance on 10 October 2011. 

• Mr Riaz Shahani commenced duty as a Compliance Officer on 23 April 2012. 

• Ms Lisa Squiers commenced duty as a Compliance Officer on 2 July 2012. 




The prime objective of the abovementioned Compliance positions is to administer 

compliance and conformity with appropriate Acts, Regulations and Local Laws administered 

by the Town, and to ensure that the Town’s regulatory responsibilities are properly observed 

in the community, particularly in relation to town planning and building matters. 

The following Building Surveyor commenced employment with the Town: 

• Mr Sebastian Ravi commenced duty on 14 November 2011. 

The prime objective of the above mentioned position is to assess building applications to 

ensure compliance with the Building Act and Regulations, the Building Code, relevant 

Australian Standards and Codes of Practice, relevant local laws and the Town Planning 

Scheme, and to process building permits for signature by the delegated Building Surveyor. 

AUTHORISED OFFICERS - THE BUILDING ACT 2011 

Following Council's decision at its meeting on 24 April 2012, all of the above mentioned 

officers have been delegated as "Authorised Officers" pursuant to section 96 of the Building 

Act 2011 for the purpose/s of S100 Entry Powers, S101 Powers after entry for compliance, 

S102 Obtaining information and documents, S103 Use of force and assistance, S104 

Directions generally and S105 Obstruction of authorised persons. 


Authorisations in terms of various regulations and the Town’s local laws permit Officers to 

take enforcement action and issue infringement notices, as well as process various 

applications for approval. 

The Planning and Development Regulations 2009 which came into operation on 1 July 2009, 

includes the provision for a 'designated person' appointed under S234 (1) of the Planning 

and Development Act 2005 to issue infringement notices for modified penalties (on the spot 

fines) for $500 for prescribed offences. 

The Act also states that a person who is authorised to issue infringement notices is not 

eligible to be a designated person for the purposes of any other sections. As a result, it is 

also necessary to designate the Chief Executive Officer, the Director Development and 

Sustainability and the Manager Compliance (under Section 234(2) of the Act) to extend the 

period within which a modified penalty may be paid and to withdraw an Infringement Notice 

under the Act. 


The adoption of the provisions to issue infringement notices in accordance with the Planning 

and Development Act and Regulations may result in a nominal increase of revenue. 

. 


Authorisation of Officers satisfies the Strategic Direction of capable and committed staff and 

services that meet resident and ratepayer needs by improving delivery and quality of 

services. 




The proposed infringement penalties are consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan objective 

of ensuring that strategies are in place for providing services that meet the needs of 

ratepayers, residents and visitors. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as “Not required” 

as the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That:- 

(i) 

Ms Cliodhna Mc Killop and Miss Kate Lapham, Environmental Health Officers, 

whilst employed by the Town, be appointed as authorised officers with effect 

from 12 December 2011 and 11 June 2012 respectively in terms of: 

(a) Health Act 1911 and all subsidiary legislation; 

(b) Environmental Protection Act 1986 and all subsidiary legislation; 

(c) for the purposes Section 122(1)(b) of the Food Act 2008; 

(d) be designated as 'Designated Officers' under provisions of Section 126(13) 

of the Food Act 2008 for the express purpose of issuing Infringement 

Notices; 

(e) Litter Act 1979 and all subsidiary legislation; 

(f) Local Government Act 1995, Sections 9.10, 9.15 and 9.16 for the purposes 

of enforcing any provisions of the Act and all Local Laws made under the 

Act, the issue of Notices and the issue of Infringement Notices; 

(g) the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 and local laws made under that 

Act; and 

(h) all of the Town of Cambridge Local Laws; 

(ii) 

Mr Sam Moss and Ms Christine Catchpole, Planning Officers, whilst employed 

by the Town, be appointed as authorised officers with effect from 19 September 

2011 and 16 July 2012 respectively , in terms of: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme, Clause 54 for the purpose 

of entering, at any reasonable time, any building or land to determine 

whether the provisions of the Scheme have been or are being observed; 

the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 and local laws made under that 

Act; 

the Local Government Act 1995, Sections 3.24, 3.34, 9.10, 9.11 and 9.13, for 

the purposes of entering private land and enforcing any provisions of the 

Act and Local Laws made under the Act; 

all of the Town of Cambridge Local Laws. 




(iii) 

Ms Sharon Ovens, Coordinator Compliance, Mr Riaz Shahani and Ms Lisa 

Squiers, Compliance Officers, whilst employed by the Town, be appointed as 

authorised officers from 10 October 2011, 23 April 2012 and 2 July 2012 

respectively in terms of: 

(a) 

(b) 

the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme, Clause 54 for the purpose 

of entering, at any reasonable time, any building or land to determine 

whether the provisions of the Scheme have been or are being observed; 

the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 and local laws made under that 

Act; 

(c) the Local Government Act 1995, Sections 3.32, 3.33, 3.34, 3.39, 9.11, 9.13, 

9.16 and 9.29 for the purposes of entering private land, enforcing any 

provisions of the Act and Local Laws made under the Act, and the issue of 

Notices and Infringement Notices; 

(d) 

(e) 

the Planning and Development Act 2005, Section 234 for the for the 

express purpose of issuing Infringement Notices. 


(iv) 

Mr Sebastian Ravi, Building Surveyor, whilst employed by the Town, be 

appointed as an authorised officer from 14 November 2011 in terms of: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the Building Act 2011, Sections 19, 20, 21, 58, 65 and 32(3)(f); 

the Local Government Act 1995, Sections 3.24, 3.34, 9.10, 9.11 and 9.13, for 

the purposes of entering private land and enforcing any provisions of the 

Act and Local Laws made under the Act; 


(v) 

the Chief Executive Officer, the Director Development and Sustainability and the 

Manager Compliance to be appointed as designated persons under Section 

234(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to extend the period within 

which a modified penalty may be paid following the issue of an Infringement 

Notice, and to withdraw an Infringement Notice. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.105 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR JULY 2012 


To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the 

Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters. 

DETAILS: 

The following items (for the month of July 2012) have been dealt with under delegated 

authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects 

with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- 

• 13/10 Perina Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 7 Callington Avenue, City Beach - Patio 

• 29 Pindari Road, City Beach - Patio and Storeroom 

• 4 Meelah Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 313 The Boulevard, City Beach - Front Fence 

• 9a/133 Drabble Road, City Beach - Patio 

• 90 Chipping Road, City Beach - Amended Plan - Two storey dwelling 

• 32 Evandale Street, Floreat - Single storey dwelling 

• 66 Newry Street, Floreat - Amended Plan - Two storey dwelling 

• 6 Lichendale Street, Floreat - Second storey additions and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

• 6 Linden Gardens, Floreat - Patio 

• 29 The Boulevard, Floreat - Patio 

• 49 Donegal Road, Floreat - Front fence and driveway 

• Shop 81/5 Howtree Place, Floreat - Change of Use (Office to Café/Restaurant) 

• 101 Grantham Street, Floreat - Front Fence 

• 101 Grovedale Road, Floreat - Amended Plans - Two storey dwelling 

• 7 Katrine Street, Floreat - Garage and boundary fence 

• 90 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 118 Grantham Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 9 Kilkenny Road, Floreat - Carport 

• 2 Cork Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

• 45a Alexander Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

• 115 Nanson Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling 

• 247a Jersey Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling 

• 1 Johnson Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

• 44 Essex Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 1/2 Essex Street, Wembley - Patio 

• 122 Harborne Street, Wembley - Retaining Walls 

• 57 Marlow Street, Wembley - Carport 

• 118 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 21 Johnson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 41a Alexander Street, Wembley - Landscaping and dividing fence 

• 7/357 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of Use (Office (bank) to Take away food 

outlet) 




• 77 Gregory Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 175a Jersey Street, Wembley - Carport 

• 11 Barrett Street, Wembley - Front fence 

• 68 Essex Street, Wembley - Amended Plans - Additions and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

• 18 Barrett Street, Wembley (Mercy Care Retirement Village) - Shade sail to BBQ area 

• 95 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling 

• 10 Southport Street, West Leederville - Mixed Use (consulting rooms - group) 

• 64 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Patio 

• 45 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Shed 

• 421 Vincent Street West, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

• 161 Tower Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 40 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - 10 carports 

No items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval. 

The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s 

information:- 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - received 

One application for review was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against 

decisions of the Council during July 2012. 

• Lot 4 (No. 8) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Second storey addition and 

alterations to existing dwelling. See separate report within agenda. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during July 

2012. 




That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period ending 31 July 2012 be received. 

Carried 9/0 




COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 20 August 

2012 was submitted as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.02 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.50 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 7.50 pm 

Cr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 7.50 pm 

Cr Sonia Ginceri 6.02 pm 7.50 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley (Deputy) 6.05 pm 7.50 pm 

Observers: 

Nil 

Officers: 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 

Ross Bowman, Acting Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

7.50 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Leave of Absence - Cr Walker 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\AUGUST 2012\C CR.DOCX 108




Mr Sam Birmingham, President West Coast Football Association 

Re: Item CR12.125 - City Beach Oval Pavilion 

Question 1 

Would the Town consider allowing the Club to pay its contribution of $83,000 at the 

end of the project 

Question 2 

Would the Town consider appointing EMCO on the basis that they were a long time 

supporter of the Club and it appeared to the Club that the additional $55,000 was 

warranted 

Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. 

Ms Margaret Smith, 203 Selby Street. Floreat 

Re: Item CR12.128 - State Netball Centre - Design Approval 

Question 

In regard to item CR12.128 State Netball Centre Design Approval, given that the 

affected residents have not been given the opportunity to have any input into the 

location and design of the State Netball Centre, and that due to its poor architectural 

quality and immediate proximity to houses on Selby Street, will the Committee 

consider amending the Administration's recommendation to incorporate an amended 

condition e) and a new condition f) and g) as follows:- (e) the final detailed design of 

the landscaping within the State Netball Centre lease area incorporating the following 

additional landscape treatments:- i) suitable screening tree species being planted 

along the extent of the western boundary of the lease area to soften the building’s 

appearance and to improve its presentation in its suburban context; ii) tree planting in 

the central median of the east/west entry road (with the exception of the controlled 

pedestrian crossing points) (f) the final detailed design of the roof and western façade 

of the State Netball Centre building being modified to improve its presentation to Selby 

Street, with the remaining façade designs being consistent with the application 

submitted by the State and attached to this report; (g) the Department of Sport and 

Recreation consulting with the surrounding residents in regard to the final building 

design and landscaping, prior to an application for Approval to Commence 

Development being submitted to the Town of Cambridge for determination by the 

North West Metropolitan Development Assessment Panel. 

Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. The questions and Administration 

comment would be circulated to Elected Members prior to Council considering this 

report. 




4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item CR 12.127 

1. Suzanne Sawyer, 36 Halesworth Road, Jolimont sought clarification on whether 

the car park fronting Halesworth Road intended to be turf in Stages 1 and 2. The 

Administration advised that it is intended to be a turf car park in both stages. 

2. Margaret Smith, 203 Selby Street, Floreat claimed a further submission from 

Barbara Peterson had not been included. She also sought Council's decision on 

2:1 replacement of trees. 

3. Clive Miller, 24 Halesworth Road, Jolimont asked if the June 2011 Council 

decision had been sent to the landscape architect. The Administration confirmed 

it had. 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 16 July 2012 as contained in the July 2012 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Items CR12.126, 127 and 128- Mr C Colyer, Director Infrastructure - Proximity Interest 

Item CR12.129 - Mayor Withers and Cr Langer - Impartiality Interest 

7. REPORTS 




CR12.114 GREGORY STREET (RUISLIP TO LAKE MONGER DRIVE) KERBSIDE 

PARKING 


To obtain approval to implement kerbside parking restrictions in sections of Gregory Street 

from Ruislip Street to Lake Monger Drive following request from adjacent residents. 

BACKGROUND: 

Kerbside parking restrictions have progressively been implemented in many streets within 

the Town, in accordance with Policy No. 5.2.22. In general, this has been done to improve 

the safety and amenity of residents. 

Requests are regularly received from directly affected residents to implement parking 

restrictions to address safety or amenity problems caused by long term parking of nonresidential 

vehicles in the street adjacent to their premises. 

The present parking situation in Gregory Street is one of "No Parking Road or Verge - 

Residential Permit Parking Excepted" from Cambridge Street to Ruislip Street. The section 

from Ruislip Street to Lake Monger Drive has no parking restrictions. 

Requests have been received from residents to impose some form of parking restriction to 

prevent all day or long term parking in this section of Gregory Street by commuters and 

nearby workers. This has affected adjacent residents and their visitors' ability to park 

adjacent or in close proximity to their premises. 

Council Policy No. 5.2.22 (i) (b) indicates that:- 

"Parking restrictions shall be reviewed when: 

- Requested by adjacent property owners or occupiers in writing. 

- Considered necessary by the Town. 

- Requested by other person in writing." 

In assessing the requests, it was considered that a survey of all residents/owners of the 

section of Gregory Street from Ruislip Street to Lake Monger Drive should be conducted to 

ascertain support for kerbside parking restrictions. 

DETAILS: 

All properties in Gregory Street from Ruislip Street to Lake Monger Drive (34 residents) had 

letters delivered, with reply paid envelopes enclosed, on 25 July 2012 advising of parking 

issues, the current situation and alternative proposals with a request that an enclosed 

survey form be returned by 8 August 2012. 




The questions presented in the survey were: 

Q1. Do you support "No change to current parking restrictions" 

Q2. Do you support "No Parking Road or Verge - Residential 

Permit Parking Excepted" 

Q3. Do you support "2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm 

- Residential Permit Parking Excepted" 

Q4. Any other Comments or Suggestions: 

A copy of the letter and survey form is attached to this report. 

Yes 

No 

Responses 

A total of 20 responses were received, representing 59% of the residences. 

Ten (10) respondents supported "No change to the current restrictions"; 

Four (4) supported "No Parking Road or Verge - Residential Permit Parking Excepted"; and 

Six (6) supported "2 Hour Parking 8am to 5.30pm - Residential Permit Parking Excepted". 

Of those that supported "No change to current restrictions", nine (9) reside to the north of 

number 63 Gregory Street. 

Support for "No parking road or verge" came from residences to the south of 47 Gregory 

Street. 

The balance of respondent residents from 49 to 63 Gregory Street supported 2 hour parking 

8am to 5.30pm. 

Comment 

The majority support would indicate no change to the current unrestricted parking situation. 

It is considered, however, that since those residents south of house number 63 Gregory 

Street support parking restrictions of some manner, cognisance of their request should be 

given 

On this basis, it is recommended that kerbside parking restrictions indicating "2 Hour Parking 

8am to 5.30pm - Residential Permit Parking Excepted" be implemented on the west side of 

Gregory Street from Ruislip Street to a location level with the northern boundary of house 

number 61 and on the east side of Gregory Street from Ruislip Street to the southern 

boundary of house number 44. 


The recommended changes are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy 

No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions" 

The Policy allows for kerbside parking restrictions to be imposed to:- 

(a) 

protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of businesses, commercial, medical, 

recreational and commuter parking on local roads; 




(b) 

introduce a "No Parking Road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Exempt" in local 

residential precincts adjacent to residential properties. 


The estimated cost for the erection of signage is $600. This amount can be accommodated 

under Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs". 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- 

Community 

- Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations; 

- A safe community. 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as 

"inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective 

information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 

The proposed parking restrictions amendments are as a result of requests from adjoining 

property owners and residents and have been investigated and endorsed by the Town's 

Infrastructure and Ranger Services officers. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Letter and survey form for Gregory Street - Ruislip Street to Lake Monger Drive 

Parking proposals. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Cr King, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local 

Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 

7.04 pm. 



Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Walker 

That:- 

(i) 

kerbside parking restrictions be implemented to indicate "2 hour parking 8am to 

5.30pm - Residential permit Parking Excepted" on the west side of Gregory 

Street from Ruislip Street to a location level with the northern boundary of house 

number 61; 




(ii) 

kerbside parking restrictions be implemented to indicate "2 hour parking 8am to 

5.30pm - Residential permit Parking Excepted" on the east side of Gregory 

Street from Ruislip Street to a location level with the southern boundary of 

house number 44. 

Carried 8/0 

Cr King returned to the meeting at 7.05 pm. 




CR12.115 KERBSIDE PARKING AMENDMENTS - DAGLISH STREET 


To review kerbside parking restrictions in Daglish Street between Kidson Lane/Levitt Lane 

(Cambridge Street end) and Ruislip Street recognising the results of the resident's survey 

conducted in July 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

In December 2008, following community consultation, Council resolved to introduce parking 

restrictions in Daglish Street, north of Cambridge Street, between Kidson Lane/Levitt Lane 

and Ruislip Street indicating:- 

"No Parking Road or Verge, 6pm - 11pm Monday to Friday, 11am -11pm Saturday, Sunday 

and Public Holidays - Residential Permit Parking Excepted". 

This was implemented to control parking from non residents attending football and other 

events at Subiaco Oval. Parking during weekday hours remained unrestricted. Requests 

have recently been received from residents for the Town to review this situation in view of 

the large number of non-resident owned vehicles being parked for extended periods during 

weekdays, thereby restricting the availability of on-street parking for residents and their 

visitors. 

DETAILS: 

All properties (38 residences) in the section of Daglish Street between Kidson Lane/Levitt 

Lane and Ruislip Street had letters delivered with reply paid envelopes enclosed, on 25 July 

2012 advising of parking issues, current parking restrictions and a request that an enclosed 

survey form be returned by Wednesday, 8 August 2012. The questions presented in the 

survey were:- 

Q1. Do you support "No change to current parking restrictions" 

Q2. Do you support "No Parking Road or Verge - Residential 

Permit Parking Excepted" 

Q3. Do you support "2 Hour Parking 8.00am to 5.30pm 

- Residential Permit Parking Excepted" 

Q4. Any other Comments or Suggestions. 

A copy of the letter and survey form is attached to this report. 

Yes 

No 




Responses 

From the 38 properties surveyed, there were 18 responses representing 47% of the 

residences. 

Of these:- 

One (1) supported - "no change to the current restrictions"; 

Seven (7) supported - "no parking road or verge - residential permit parking 

excepted"; 

and 

Comment 

Seven (7) supported - "2 hour parking - residential permit parking excepted"; 

Three (3) supported both proposals (Q2 and Q3). 

The results of the survey indicate that the majority of respondents preferred a time restricted 

parking situation and the residents in the sections from house number 3 to number 17 

preferred a total ban on non-residential vehicle parking. 

It is considered that a total ban on parking by non-residential vehicles will not be supported 

by those residents who did not respond to the survey, as this action could be interpreted as 

support for the current parking restrictions which allows for unrestricted parking at most 

weekday times. 

It is therefore recommended that parking restrictions indicating "2 Hour Parking - Residential 

Permit Parking Excepted" be implemented in the section of Daglish Street, north of 

Cambridge Street between Kidson Lane/Levitt Lane and Ruislip Street. This will have the 

effect of deterring all day commuter parking and parking by motorists attending functions at 

Subiaco Oval while maintaining the amenity for residents and their visitors. This proposal 

has been supported by the Town's Ranger Services. 


The recommended changes are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy 

No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions" 

The Policy allows for kerbside parking restrictions to be imposed to:- 

(a) 

(b) 

protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of businesses, commercial, medical, 

recreational and commuter parking on local roads; 

introduce a "No Parking Road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Exempt" in local 

residential precincts adjacent to residential properties. 


The estimated cost for the erection of signage is $800. This amount can be accommodated 

under Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs" 






Community 





"inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective 

information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions" 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Letter and survey form for Daglish Street parking proposals. 




That Parking restrictions in Daglish Street, north of Cambridge Street between Kidson 

lane/Levitt Lane and Ruislip Street be amended to "2 Hour Parking - Residential 

Parking Permit Excepted". 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.116 ALDERBURY STREET - KERBSIDE PARKING AMENDMENTS ADJACENT 

ALDERBURY RESERVE 


To review kerbside parking restrictions in Alderbury Street adjacent to Alderbury Street 

Reserve from Lichendale Street/Meagher Drive to Oceanic Drive. 

BACKGROUND: 

In conjunction with the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site, a number of traffic 

management initiatives have been implemented to the adjoining streets of the new 

subdivision on Alderbury Street. 

The section of Alderbury Street from Lichendale Street/Meagher Drive to Oceanic Drive will 

modified by the introduction of speed reducing plateaus and road width narrowing to create 

both active and passive reduced speed environment. The road narrowing has offered the 

opportunity to create a series of parking embayments opposite the residential properties 

adjacent to Alderbury Street Reserve. The construction plan was approved by Council in 

report CR11.126 October 2011. A copy of Plan E170 10 08 is included in the report 

attachment. 

DETAILS: 

When the construction works were approved in October 2011, no revised parking restrictions 

were addressed for Alderbury Street. 

The existing parking restrictions are:- 

1. North and East side - "No Parking" with "No Stopping" at each road intersection for the 

full section between Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive. 

2. South and West side - "No Parking" restriction between Meagher Drive and Oceanic 

Drive adjacent to the Perry Lakes Reserve for the total length except 160 meters 

between house number 140/142 and the south side of Oakdale Street intersection 

opposite house number 146. 

Proposed Restrictions 

It is not proposed to amend existing parking restrictions on the North and East side of 

Alderbury Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive. 

On the South and Western sides of Alderbury Street between Meagher Drive and Oceanic 

Drive, it is proposed to remove all parking restrictions to the new embayed parking zones. 

These zones are detailed on plan E170 10 08 and highlighted in yellow in the report 

attachment. 

This proposal was endorsed at a public meeting of adjacent residents on 27 July 2011 and 

confirmed by a multi signature letter from adjacent residents on 28 July 2011. 





The recommended changes are in accordance with Road Traffic Code 2000 and Council 

Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". 


The estimated cost of removal of signage is $200. This amount can be accommodated 

under budget item "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs". 



Community 





"Inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective 

information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Location Plan - Alderbury Street, Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive. 

2. Plan E170 10 08 as approved in CR11.126 October 2011. 




That existing parking restrictions in Alderbury Street adjacent to Alderbury Reserve, 

from Meagher Drive to Oceanic Drive, indicating "No Parking" be amended to 

incorporate parking in dedicated embayments as highlighted in yellow on attached 

Plan E170 10 08. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.117 445 CAMBRIDGE STREET - VERGE PAVING REQUEST 


To consider a request from the owner of 445 Cambridge Street for the Town of Cambridge to 

pave the existing Birkdale Street grass verge and share the cost of the works equally. This 

property is located on south-west corner of Cambridge Street/Birkdale Street intersection. 

The cost to the Town is estimated at $2,800 for 70 square metres of brick paving. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council has received a letter dated 30 July 2012 from Realmark Commercial, representing 

the owner of 445 Cambridge Street, requested that the grass verge on Birkdale Street, 

adjacent to 445 Cambridge Street, be brick paved by the Town and the costs shared equally. 

The property at 445 Cambridge Street is occupied by three businesses - Creative 

Advertising, Design and Marketing, Cambridge Laundry and Dry Cleaning and Jariya's Thai 

restaurant. A copy of the letter is provided in an attachment to this report. 

The area of verge between the existing concrete path and the kerb is 70 square metres. 

The current cost for the Town to replace a grass verge with heavy duty brick paving is 

approximately $80 per square metre. The total cost of the project would be $5,600 and the 

Town's contribution would be $2,800. 

DETAILS: 

The verge on the west side of Birkdale Street, south of Cambridge Street is grassed and is in 

good condition. The footpath is concrete, in good condition and was constructed in 2004. 

The grass verge slopes relatively steeply towards the road. It could be slippery when wet 

with rain or dew. 

Most of the footpaths and verges in front of the other businesses at this intersection of 

Cambridge Street and Birkdale Street were brick paved by the Town in the 2003/04 Budget 

as part of a streetscaping and traffic management project in Cambridge Street between 

Selby Street and Lissadell Street. This project included replacing the slab paved footpaths 

and verges in front of most commercial premises with brick paving. One section of verge 

that was not brick paved was the frontage on the west side of Birkdale Street, south of 

Cambridge Street. At the time of construction, this verge was reticulated and well 

maintained as grass. 

With funding carried forward from the 2011/12 Budget, the Town will be extending the street 

scaping further into Birkdale Street on the north side of Cambridge Street. It includes brick 

paving the verge in front of the new child care business on the corner of Birkdale Street and 

Newry Street. The design plans for this project indicate that 3 trees are to be planted in the 

verge next to 445 Cambridge Street. The existing tree is to be retained. 

The proposal for brick paving the remaining grass verge on the west side of Birkdale Street, 

south of Cambridge Street is supported for the following reasons:- 

• It is adjacent to commercial property frontages; 




• The owner is prepared to pay 50% of the cost in accordance with Policy No. 5.2.4 

"Verges - Paving in Commercial Areas"; 

• It is adjacent to marked parking bays that are used frequently and will have 

pedestrians crossing the verge; 

• The other verges at this intersection are brick-paved; 

• The Town's work crew will be on-site to carry out the scheduled works in Birkdale 

Street and can carry out this work at the same time; and 

• The cost to the Town is estimated at $2,800 and not significant. 


This recommendation is in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.4 Verges - Paving in 

Commercial Areas - "Where an owner of a commercial property applies to have a verge 

fronting to that property paved to the full width, the Council will initially request a 50% 

contribution towards the paving if the project works are not included within the current years 

adopted capital works program. On acceptance of the 50% contribution, the Council at the 

next available meeting date will consider allocation of its 50% contribution". 


Funding for this work is not specifically included in the adopted 2012/13 Budget. 

At the beginning of August 2012, no capital works projects have been fully completed and 

costs finalised. It is expected that funding may be obtained later in the financial year from 

the various footpath construction projects that are completed under-budget by more than 

$2,800. On this basis the works can be approved for implementation along with the 

budgeted Birkdale project. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 includes goals of providing:- 

- services to meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with 

personal and community safety; and 

- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the 

improvement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.). 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 and 

considered to be "Not Required" based on the Consultation Assessment criteria. This is at 

present considered an administrative matter with no external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Letter from Realmark Commerial. 

2 Aerial photograph showing extent of brick paving and grass verges at the intersection 

of Cambridge Street and Birkdale Street. 





That the request for the Town to brick-pave the grass verge adjacent to 445 Cambridge 

Street be approved and the offer to pay 50% of the project cost be accepted from the 

property owner. 


During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the request to brick pave the 

grass verge. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 


That the request for the Town to brick-pave the grass verge adjacent to 445 

Cambridge Street not be approved and the offer to pay 50% of the project cost not be 

accepted from the property owner. 

During discussion, Members noted that the Town will be extending the street scaping, 

including brick paving, further into Birkdale Street on the north side of Cambridge Street. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Langer 


(ii) 

consideration be given to funding in the 2013/2014 Budget for improvements to 

the south side of Birkdale Street, similar to those on the north side. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Pelczar 

Crs Bradley and Walker 


That:- 

(i) the request for the Town to brick-pave the grass verge adjacent to 445 

Cambridge Street not be approved and the offer to pay 50% of the project cost 

not be accepted from the property owner; 

(ii) 

consideration be given to funding in the 2013/2014 Budget for improvements to 

the south side of Birkdale Street, similar to those on the north side. 

Carried 7/2 

For: 

Against: 






CR12.118 BUS SHELTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 


To review the maintenance, replacement and improvement program for bus shelters 

associated with the bus routes in the Town of Cambridge. This program will assist with the 

future budgeting for maintenance and capital improvement of bus shelters and seats. 

BACKGROUND: 

The asset management of bus shelters and stops in the Town was last considered by 

Council on 24 February 2004 (Item TS04.07) when it decided that: 

"(i) the standard colour scheme for bus shelters be green and blue; 

(ii) a tender be advertised for the supply and installation of new bus shelters without 

advertising; 

(ii) new bus shelters be installed in locations where there is adequate demand for a bus 

shelter; 

(iv) bus shelters be only removed if they conflict with sight distance or traffic safety; 

(v) the funding of maintenance of bus shelters be based on the desirable standard of 

service; 

(vi) the annual funding budget for renewal of bus shelters to be based on the installation of 

2 or 3 bus shelters each year; and 

(vi) applications for proposed new shelters be submitted for the Bus Shelter Grants 

Scheme that is managed by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure." 

A copy of this report is provided as an attachment to this report for reference. 

In reference to clause (vi), in 2009, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure was split 

up and the Bus Shelter Grants Scheme was transferred to the Public Transport Authority of 

WA. Later in July 2010, the Bus Shelter Grants Scheme was replaced by their Bus Stop 

Accessibility Works Program. In this program, the Public Transport Authority of WA is 

replacing 600 non-compliant hardstands per year with concrete hardstands to comply with 

current disability access standards. Within the Town, the Public Transport Authority of WA 

installed 10 hardstands during 2011/12 at locations where the Town was carrying out roadworks 

or footpath replacement works. Further details are provided as an attachment to this 

report. 

WALGA is assisting with responsibility of, and funding of bus stop infrastructure. It is 

currently discussing a partnership agreement between the Public Transport Authority and 

Local Governments. 

DETAILS: 

Bus Routes 

The current locations of bus routes and bus stops within the Town of Cambridge are shown 

on a map provided in an attachment to this report. In general, the Town has a uniform 

distribution of bus routes and shelters over all suburbs. 




In addition, there are two school bus routes that pick up local students and exit from the 

Town either by West Coast Highway north or West Coast Highway south. The stops are 

marked by blue bus posts and usually have 1 or 2 students waiting in the morning for around 

10 minutes each school day. 

Funding in 2012/13 Budget 

Two areas of funding are provided as follows:- 

Maintenance - $18,000 for repairs and cleaning of bus shelters. 

Capital - $28,000 for replacement of two shelters, concrete hardstands and new seats to 

replace old timber seats or where there is no seat. A standard bus shelter costs 

around $10,000 each. 

Important Statistics 

All bus stops were inspected and photographed in 2008. The current inventory, including 

works carried out between 2009 and 2012 is:- 

• Number of bus stops 230. 

• Number of bus stops with shelters - 106 (mainly on the route towards City of Perth). 

• Number of bus stops with no shelter, seat only - 28. 

• Number of stops with no hardstand (grassed or sand verge) - 50. 

• Number of stops with a rubbish bin - 55 (mainly a 120 litre wheeled MGB). 

Types of Shelter Available 

Reference Type Supplier, Construction 

and Approximate Price 

1. Adshel Perth Sign Company. 

Advertising Steel tube and glass 

panels. Illuminated and 

advertising panel on right 

side - No charge. 

2. Concrete 

Panel 

Dalwalinu Concrete. 

Precast concrete panels - 

$5,000. depending on size. 

3. Glass Shelter Sign Supplies. Steel tube 

and 5 large glass panels - 

$15,000. 

4. City of Perth 

Shelter 

City of Perth. Steel tube. 

Aluminium roof. Glass 

windows. Panels of 

various materials. 

Number 

Comment 

In Town 

20 Owned and maintained by 

Adshel under agreement in 

2001. Town may purchase 

shelters at end of agreement 

in November 2016. These 

provide an annual income of 

$12,000. 

3 Vandal and graffiti resistant. 

Possibility of collapsing on 

occupants if hit by a vehicle. 

Not used for this reason. 

3 Glass panels attract frequent 

graffiti and breakage. Glass 

panels cost $600 each to 

replace. Existing shelters 

have broken panels replaced 

with stainless steel security 

mesh. 

62 Traditional shelter in the Town 

as provided by City of Perth. 

Approximately 40-50 years old 

and has almost zero residual 

value in asset register. 




5. Landmark 

Brooklyn 

Shelter 

6. Jason Steel 

Mesh 

7. Adshel Steel 

Tube and 

Mesh 

8. Concrete and 

Timber Slat 

Seats 

9. Free-Standing 

Aluminium 

Seats 

10. Recycled 

Plastic Seats 

11. Other types of 

shelter are 

available - 

Metroshel and 

Claude 

Outdoor, City 

of Subiaco 

style heritage 

shelter. 

Landmark Engineering 

and Design. Steel tube 

and aluminium panels - 

$10,000. 

Jason Signs. Steel tube 

and steel mesh -$10,000. 

Adshel Infrastructure - 

$10,000. 

15 Compared to the City of Perth 

Shelter, it is graffiti and vandal 

resistant. A curvy shelter that 

blends into the streetscape. 

Similar narrow profile that 

leaves plenty of verge for 

pedestrians. 

1 Compared to City of Perth 

Shelter, it is graffiti and vandal 

resistant. Wider shelter and 

leaving less footpath space. 

Less weather protection. 

Makes a bolder statement in 

the streetscape. Not installed 

near residents. 

2 Graffiti and vandal resistant. 

Wider than Landmark shelter 

and leaves less footpath 

space. Less weather 

protection. Makes a bolder 

statement in the street scape. 

Not installed near residents. 

City of Perth 13 Being replaced with new 

seats. Old design is too low 

for old people and old timber 

looks worn out and is near 

end of life. 

Landmark Engineering 

and Design, Street 

Furniture Australia, and 

others - $700. 

5 Vandals can bend the seats 

by jumping on them. 

Replas - $500. 46 Robust, utilitarian seat. A 

useful market for recycled 

waste plastic. 

Combination of timber, 

glass, aluminium and 

stainless steel. 

0 Not used in the Town 

because of either high cost, 

glass panels or high 

maintenance cost. 

Photographs of various bus stop hardstands, shelters and seats are provided in an 

attachment to this report. 

Recommended and current general strategy 

The current strategy is based on the strategy approved by Council in Item TS04.07 February 

2004. 

1. Colour scheme for new and re-painted shelter to be green, blue and grey. These are 

the colours used in the corporate logo. 

2. Replace shelters at a rate of 2 or 3 per year so that all shelters are replaced between 

40 and 50 years age. Shelters are replaced if unserviceable. If all shelters are 




serviceable, then it is possible to install new shelters in locations with no shelter on the 

departure route to Perth exists. 

3. New shelters in residential areas to be similar to the Brooklyn style shelter (Landmark 

Engineering). New shelters to be chosen based on criteria of - no glass windows, 

good weather protection, low whole of life costs, small footprint on the verge, blend 

into streetscape and meet design criteria of Perth Transport Authority and Main Roads 

WA. 

4. New shelters in street-scaping projects to be determined as part of that project. 

5. New shelters may be purchased using the WALGA preferred supplier contracts. 

Currently, this includes Landmark Engineering and Design and Adshel Infrastructure. 

6. Old timber seats are to be replaced with seats using recycled materials, such as 

plastic. 

7. New seats shall be installed at school bus stops. 

2012/13 Budget Capital Works 

The new bus bays constructed in 2010 on Challenger Parade opposite City Beach surf club 

attract approximately 30 students each morning. It is proposed that the $28,000 funds in the 

2012/13 Budget are used to construct an appropriate shelter at this site. This is not part of 

the City Beach Redevelopment Plan. It is proposed that specific designs are invited for this 

shelter from shelter suppliers and if within budget, a purpose made bus stop shelter be 

constructed. 


The Town does not currently have a policy relating to provision of bus shelters. 

The Perth Transport Authority of WA has guidelines for the layout and construction of the 

hardstand, seats and shelters at bus stops. Specific attention is given to disability 

requirements. 


There are no financial requirements associated with this report. Adequate funding for the 

proposed works is provided in the 2012/13 Budget. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 includes goals of providing:- 

- services to meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with 

personal and community safety; and 

- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the 

improvement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.). 





This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 and 

considered to be "Not Required" based on the Consultation Assessment criteria. This is at 

present considered an administrative matter with no external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Item TS04.07 Bus Shelter Management Program. 

2. PTA Website information. 

3. Map of locations of bus routes and shelters within Town of Cambridge (Local Travel 

Smart Guide 2009). 

4. Photographs of various shelters and seats. 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the current strategy for maintaining and replacing bus shelters be continued; 

a purpose made bus shelter be constructed on Challenger Parade at the new bus stop 

adjacent to the City of Perth Surf Club using the available budget funds of $28,000 in 

2012/13. 


During discussion, Members agreed that more bus shelters should be provided in the Town. 

Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Bradley 


(iii) 

a report be prepared on options for expanding the number of bus shelters in the Town. 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the current strategy for maintaining and replacing bus shelters be continued; 

a purpose made bus shelter be constructed on Challenger Parade at the new 

bus stop adjacent to the City of Perth Surf Club using the available budget funds 

of $28,000 in 2012/13; 




(iii) 

a report be prepared on options for expanding the number of bus shelters in the 


Carried 9/0 




CR12.119 PROVISION OF HORTICULTURAL SERVICES RFT 17-12 


To select a preferred tenderer to award a contract for the Provision of Horticultural Services 

for a period of 3 years commencing 1 September 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town engages the services of two organisations to supplement its day to day 

infrastructure parks operations for the provision of garden maintenance and lawn mowing 

services throughout the Town of Cambridge. 

To improve this service, a new tender "Provision of Horticultural Services" has been 

developed to replace the two existing contracts, RFQ 03-11 Provision of Garden 

Maintenance Services and RFQ 04-11 Provision of Lawn Mowing Services, which are due to 

expire 31 August 2012. 

This new tender is for the provision of horticultural services including turf maintenance, 

upkeep of established garden beds and pruning of plants and restoration of established 

garden beds as required. 

The value of the works completed, under the current contracts, in the last three financial 

years from 2009/2010 to 2011/2012 was approximately $250,000 which averages 

approximately $83,000 per year. 

DETAILS: 

Tender Development/Advertising 

The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday, 26 May 2012. 

Tender Closure/Tenders Received 

The tender closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 with tenders received from the 

following organisations:- 

• South City Lawns; 

• Martin Cuthbert Landscapes; 

• Total Eden Pty Ltd trading as Elegant Landscapes; 

• Manicured Lawns; 

• Landscape Systems; 

• Active Foundation Inc trading as Active Property Care; 

• LD Total; and 

• Plantech Ground Maintenance. 




Tender Evaluation Criteria 

• All tenders were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide 2012. 

• The evaluation considers weighted and non-weighted criteria which identify a preferred 

organisation to award the tender to. The confidential attachment to this report details 

the assessment applied to the tenders received, together with a summarised copy of 

prices submitted. 

• The Town sought offers from respondents for the provision of Horticultural Services, 

inclusive and exclusive of mulching. 

• The result of the evaluation, against the tender selection criteria, identified Total Eden 

Pty Ltd trading as Elegant Landscapes (conforming tender), exclusive of mulching as 

the preferred organisation for the following reasons:- 

1. The tender satisfies the Compliance Criteria and is a conforming tender; 

2. The tender is ranked equal highest on the weighted criteria; and 

3. Represents the best value outcome for the Town. 

Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the conforming tender submitted by Total 

Eden Pty Ltd trading as Elegant Landscapes, exclusive of mulching be accepted. 


There are no Policy Implications related to this report. 

Public tenders are required where the provision of goods and services exceeds $100,000 

(excl. GST). 


The value of works, exclusive of GST, required under this contract is estimated at:- 

• Year 1 - 2012/2013 Budget $ 80,300 

• Year 2 - 2013/2014 Budget $ 84,600 

• Year 3 - 2014/2015 Budget $ 89,100 

$254,000 over three years 

These lump sum prices under this contract are fixed for each year of the three year contract 

and are not subject to variation. Funding for the tendered services in the first year of the 

contract, commencing 1 September 2012, have been included and can be managed in the 

various Infrastructure Parks operating and capital programs. 

Funding for the tendered services for years two and three of the contract will be included in 

the various Infrastructure Parks operating and capital programs. The Wembley Golf Course 

is excluded from this contract. 





This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

• Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; 

• Continuously adapt and improve our services; 

• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to 

ensure their sustainability for future generations; and 

• Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. 

Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the 

policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with 

no external impacts envisaged. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender is 

considered sufficient. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Evaluation Matrix/Consolidated Score (Confidential). 




That the tender, exclusive of mulching, submitted by Total Eden Pty Ltd trading as 

Elegant Landscapes, as detailed on Tender No. RFT 17-12, be accepted for a three 

year term commencing 1 September 2012 and expiring 31 August 2015. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.120 2012 COMMUNITY AWARDS AND RECOGNITION PROGRAM 


To select recipients for the 2012 Club Volunteer Award and the new Community Volunteer 

Award. 

BACKGROUND: 

Volunteer of the Year 

At its meeting held on 27 July 2004, Council endorsed the introduction of an annual 

Volunteer of the Year award, an Event of the Year award and Youth of the Year award. The 

awards would be held in conjunction with the Town’s successful annual volunteers function. 

In November 2004, the Town undertook its inaugural Volunteer, Youth and Event of the Year 

awards. After piloting the award program from 2004 to 2005 and undertaking a thorough 

advertising campaign of the three award categories, it was evident that the community was 

indifferent to the latter two categories within this award program. 

At its meeting held on 23 August 2005, Council decided that the awards program be reduced 

to one category "Volunteer of the Year". As this award has grown over the years an 

additional award was needed to cater for individuals who are not affiliated with one specific 

organisation. 

At its meeting on 24 April 2012, Council endorsed two categories in its community awards 

and recognition program being 'Club Volunteer Award' and 'Community Volunteer Award'. 

Access and Inclusion Award 

On 19 May 2011, the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) held a meeting 

discussing the introduction of an award to recognise and acknowledge initiatives by a local 

businesses or community group in making the Town an accessible and inclusive place for 

people with a disability. 

At its meeting held on 28 June 2011, Council endorsed the introduction of an annual Access 

and Inclusion 'Caring in our Community' award. The award will be announced at the Town’s 

annual volunteers function. 

DETAILS: 

In order to provide the opportunity for recognition and acknowledgement of individuals for 

their voluntary service within the community, the 2012 Community Awards were advertised 

by correspondence delivered to all of the Town’s sporting groups, community groups, local 

schools and service clubs on 12 June 2012. In addition, an article was placed in the June 

edition of the Cambridge News in the Post Newspaper. Applications closed on Monday, 9 

July 2012. Nomination categories and selection criteria are as follows: 




Club Volunteer Award 

A community recognition award that acknowledges an inspiring local community member 

who fosters community pride and spirit. The nominee is categorised as being affiliated with a 

club, group, organisation or school, based within the Town. The criteria for the award include 

the following: 

1 the nominee must be either: 

1.1 a resident of the Town, affiliated with a club, group or organisation who has 

significantly contributed to the Cambridge community through their volunteering 

efforts; or 

1.2 an individual who has made a significant contribution to benefit a community 

group/organisation operating within the Town; 

2 the individual must have served more than five years with their affiliated organisation; 

3 the volunteer's time and effort is above the standard expected of any citizen (hours of 

time volunteered, range of tasks undertaken and length of service) and sets an 

example for others; 

4 the nominee has shown innovation or creativity in their volunteering; 

5 the nominee has used their energy, commitment and enthusiasm to raise awareness of 

volunteering, whilst encouraging others to volunteer and achieve their potential. 

Community Volunteer Award 

A community recognition award that acknowledges an inspiring local community member 

who fosters community pride and spirit. The nominee is categorised as having no affiliation 

with any one specific organisation. The criteria for the award include the following: 

1 the nominee must be either: 

1.1 a resident of the Town, volunteering within the Town; or 

1.2 a resident of the Town, volunteering outside the Town; or 

1.3 a non-resident volunteering within the Town; 

2 the volunteer's time and effort is above the standard expected of any citizen (hours of 

time volunteered and range of tasks undertaken) and sets an example for others; 

3 the nominee has shown innovation or creativity in their volunteering; 

4 the nominee has used their energy, commitment and enthusiasm to raise awareness of 

volunteering, whilst encouraging others to volunteer and achieve their potential. 

The announcement of the award winners will be made on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, at 

the annual volunteers function held at The Boulevard Centre, and as such, the recipients 

should remain confidential until this date. The recipients of each of the awards will be 

presented with $500 in recognition of their contribution. 

A total of three nominations were received for the 2012 club volunteer award, and two 

nominations for the 2012 community volunteer award. Specific details of these nominations 

are outlined in the confidential attachments. 




Access and Inclusion Award 

The 2012 Access and Inclusion 'Caring in our Community' award was widely advertised with 

an invitation to nominate an inspiring local business or community group. Correspondence 

was delivered to all of the Town’s sporting groups, community groups, local schools, service 

clubs and churches on 20 June 2012. In addition, correspondence was delivered to 

disability service providers and advertised in the June edition of the Cambridge News which 

appeared in the Post Newspaper. 

Applications, which closed on Monday, 16 July 2012, were invited for a local business or 

community group who has made a difference to an individual living with a disability. 

The Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) received one nomination for the 

award, however, as it did not fit the criteria, they are unable to recommend a recipient for 

2012. The list of criteria states that only initiatives or projects undertaken and completed 

within the Town of Cambridge and those recommended by a third party are eligible to be 

considered. The nomination received by the Town did not fit into either of these criteria and 

therefore was not able to be considered for the award. 

The Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) have discussed the need to review 

the award to ensure its relevance to local business and community groups and increase the 

profile of the awards within the community, to boost the number of eligible nominations 

received. 


The 'Club Volunteer', 'Community Volunteer' and 'Caring in our Community' awards are 

administered through Policy No. 2.1.30 - 'Community Awards and Recognition Program'. 


An amount of $4,000 (GST exclusive) has been allocated in the 2012/13 Budget for the 

purpose of both these programs. 


The Town’s vision as stated in the Town’s Strategic Plan 2009 – 2020 is creating 

communities of choice. Our plan is to improve the features of the community that reflect why 

people choose to live, work, shop, socialise and recreate in their neighbourhood. 

The Town aims to promote a sense of community and a key business philosophy that the 

Volunteer of the Year award supports and is striving to meet the needs of our communities 

through strong community consultation, engagement and collaboration. 

It further supports one of the Town’s priority areas “delivering our services” by: 

• connecting community and bringing people together; 

• promotion of personal development; 

• promoting healthy lifestyle choices developing partnerships with other service 

providers, aiming to improve delivery and quality of services. 





The Community Awards and Recognition Program has been assessed under Policy No. 

1.2.11 and no community consultation is required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. 2012 Club Volunteer award nominee report (Confidential) 

2. 2012 Community Volunteer award nominee report (Confidential) 

3. 2012 Access and Inclusion 'Caring in our community' award nominee report 

(Confidential) 




That:- 

(i) the 2012 Club Volunteer Award be awarded to Nominee 1 and an amount of $500 

be presented at the Town's volunteer function on Tuesday, 25 September 2012; 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the 2012 Community Volunteer Award be awarded to Nominee 2 and an amount 

of $500 be presented at the Town's volunteer function on Tuesday, 25 

September 2012; 

the Access and Inclusion 'Caring in our Community' award be reviewed due to 

receiving only one nomination that did not fit the criteria. The aim of the review 

will be to increase the profile of the awards in the community and ensure its 

relevance to local community groups and businesses. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.121 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND COMMONWEALTH 

GAMES - EVENT CELEBRATIONS 


To update Council in relation to the 50 th anniversary celebration event of the British Empire 

and Commonwealth Games, including a community event. 

BACKGROUND: 

A report was presented to Council in May 2012 (CR12.61) pertaining to an opportunity 

existing for the Town to undertake a number of activities to celebrate the 50 th Anniversary of 

the British Empire and Commonwealth Games which took place in Perth in 1962. It was 

identified that the activities could be joint ventures between relevant stakeholders. Council 

decided that "an amount of up to $25,000 be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget subject 

to matching funds being provided by the relevant State Government agencies". 

DETAILS: 

Since June 2012, the Town has met with key stakeholders including the Western Australia 

Olympic and Commonwealth Games Council, Athletics WA and the Department of Sport and 

Recreation WA all of whom have indicated their support for the event. The Town has also 

liaised with the WA Sports Federation, Cities of Vincent and Perth and the West Australian 

Institute of Sport. 

In relation to funding, the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) and Landcorp have 

committed $10,000 each towards the event. 

The Town, Athletics WA, the Western Australian Olympic Committee and DSR have formed 

a working group and propose a number of activities to celebrate the 50 th anniversary. These 

activities will be joint ventures and will culminate in a major community event on Friday, 

23 November 2012 at the West Australian Athletics Stadium. 

The original date was proposed for Saturday, 24 November, however, the evening of Friday, 

23 November has been decided as the most appropriate date as it coincides with an 

Athletics WA meet so a captive audience will already be in attendance. 

Proposed activities will include the following: 

• Display of 1962 Commonwealth Games memorabilia including CHOGM display panels - 

to be displayed in October/November at the Library and at Floreat Forum and at the WA 

Athletics Stadium on the evening of the event; 

• Living Treasures/Local Heroes - oral histories of athletes, host families, volunteers, 

businesses or any groups/individuals who were involved in the 1962 British Empire and 

Commonwealth Games. To feature in pre event media, at the Cambridge Library and at 

the Community event; 

• Local Schools project - schools to be invited to colour in flags in October 2012 which 

would be displayed at the community event; 

• A community event - to take place at the new Athletics Stadium and to include some 

athletic events, 'come and try' activities for non-athletes, old fashioned games, guest 




speakers (retired athletic stars), displays, appearance of sports stars, and a Vespa 

scooter display. This event will coincide with the running of Athletics WA's normal Friday 

night program of events and; 

• A VIP dinner / cocktail party (marquee event) at the community event - hosted by WA 

Olympic and Commonwealth Games Council. This event will be a corporate event which 

will focus on acknowledging the athletes who have competed in the Commonwealth 

Games. 

The Town, in partnership with the other stakeholders, is planning to approach Landcorp to 

seek sponsorship for the VIP dinner. 


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. 


An amount of $25,000 has been included in the 2012/2013 Budget for the event celebrations 

provided that dollar for dollar funding can be sourced from other funding opportunities. 

The total cost of the event, inclusive of in-kind contributions from Athletics WA and WAOC, is 

estimated to be $43,480. Funding of $20,000 has been sourced from the State Government 

(DSR and Landcorp). Therefore, a total of $23,480 will be required from the 2012/2013 

budget allocation. 


The 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games event supports a 

number of the key priority areas in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, including: 

• Planning for our Community; and 

• Delivering Our Services 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is 

required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Nil 







That a series of activities to celebrate the 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and 

Commonwealth Games be supported, including a community event and VIP dinner at 

the WA Athletics Stadium on Friday, 23 November 2012. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.122 2013/2014 COMMUNITY SPORTING RECREATION FACILITIES FUND 

(CSRFF) SMALL GRANT APPLICATIONS 


To make recommendations for the prioritisation of the Community Sporting and Recreation 

Facilities Fund (CSRFF) applications for the Department of Sport and Recreations (DSR) 

2013/2014 Small Grants category. 

BACKGROUND: 

Priority Rating of Applications 

The DSR recently called for the first round of small grant applications for the 2013/2014 

CSRFF Small Grants category. The small grants were introduced in July 2009 by DSR. The 

closing date for the first round of 2013/2014 applications was Friday, 10 August 2012. 

Applications need to be forwarded to the DSR by Friday, 31 August 2012 for consideration. 

The outcome of the grants will be known by October 2012. If any grants are successful, an 

unbudgeted amount will need to be allocated in the 2012/2013 Budget. 

Small Grants 

$5,000 - $150,000 for projects involving a basic level of planning. The total project cost for 

Small Grants must not exceed $150,000. Grants given in this category must be claimed by 

15 June in the relevant financial year. 

Examples of Small Grant projects are: 

• Cricket pitch and practice wickets 

• Safety fences for sport and recreation facilities, i.e. motor sports 

• Minor upgrade to swimming pool 

• Small floodlighting project 

• Court resurfacing or upgrade 

• Construction of or upgrade to shade shelters 

• Large scale dams, water collection systems and pipelines for distribution 

• Various planning studies to a maximum grant amount of $15,000 

The maximum CSRFF grant approved will be no greater than one-third of the total estimated 

cost of the applicant’s project. Furthermore, the Western Australian State Government’s 

contribution must be at least matched by the applicant's own cash contribution, with the 

balance of funds required being sourced by the applicant. Variations will occur for Special 

Assistance Grants. 

There is no obligation on the local government authority to make any contribution to a 

community group project. 




Application for Financial Assistance 

In addition to CSRFF assistance, organisations often apply to Council for financial 

assistance towards the project. Council has a Community Grant Program (Policy No. 

2.1.15) which declares Council’s willingness to consider funding allocations for facilities and 

services to sporting, welfare, cultural, musical, and educational or other community 

organisations. The purpose of one of the specific categories within this program - Financial 

Assistance for Community Facilities - is to provide financial assistance to organisations to 

enhance the provisions of facilities within the Town (such as new facilities, building 

extensions, provision or replacement of sporting/community facilities). 

The policy also specifies the terms and conditions on which such assistance may be 

forthcoming. 

The Town has received one application under the first round of the 2013/2014 CSRFF Small 

Grant category, released in July 2012. Reabold Tennis Club has resubmitted its application 

for the upgrade of fencing, which was originally submitted to the DSR in their last Small 

Grants round. Although the original application was supported by the Town the project did 

not receive a high priority rating from the DSR, so were therefore unsuccessful. 

After discussions with the Department of Sport and Recreation, Reabold Tennis Club was 

advised to resubmit its application for the first round of the 2013/2014 Small Grants, with the 

Town receiving their application on 8 August 2012. 

DETAILS: 

Application 1: Reabold Tennis Club - Fencing Upgrade 

Project Details 

The Reabold Tennis Board has, as part of its annual strategic review, reviewed all capital 

works programs. In the past, the upgrade of fences has always been deferred due to other 

priorities. The fences are now 56 years old and need to be upgraded for a number of safety 

reasons. There are broken, rusted wires protruding from the fence in several areas, causing 

a hazard for players that may be injured on the fencing whilst retrieving balls. Rust on the 

gate prevents it from being shut all the way which allows balls to go through the fence and 

out of the courts, which is a potential danger to players and spectators that may trip on the 

balls or get hit by a flying ball. 

An effective and safe fence is important for Reabold Tennis Club. The fence has reached 

the end of its life and requires replacing. Having adequate and safe fencing will maximise 

the enjoyment of playing the game of tennis and possibly attract new members to the Club. 

Project Cost 

The breakdown of the project cost is outlined below: 

Funding Sources 

Cost GST 

(excl GST) applicable 

Cost 

(incl GST) 

Notes 

Local Government 

(LGA) contribution 

$9,767 $977 $10,744 Council minutes 

Applicant cash $9,767 $977 $10,744 Investment Certificate 

Voluntary labour 

Maximum of 1/3 total project cost up to 




Funding Sources 

Donated materials 

Other State 

Government 

contributions 

Other - Bank Loan 

(Town to be 

guarantor) 

CSRFF Grant 

Requested 

Cost GST 

(excl GST) applicable 

Cost 

(incl GST) 

$9,767 $977 $10,744 

Total Project Cost $29,301 $2931 $32,232 

Notes 

$50,000. No GST is applicable to voluntary 

labour. 

No limit but cannot exceed the sum of 

applicant cash and LGA contribution. No 

GST is applicable to donated materials. 

e.g. Lotteries Commission, Office of Youth 

Affair etc. (please provide details) 

e.g. Sponsorship, Commonwealth funding 

(please provide details) 

Cannot exceed 1/3 of the total Project Cost 

exclusive of GST. Refer to Guidelines. 

Reabold Tennis Club has requested financial assistance of $9,767 (GST exclusive) from the 

Town’s Community Organisations Facilities Assistance program. The relevant application 

form has been submitted and completed satisfactorily with all the questions answered. The 

Town's contribution of $9,767 is based on the Reabold Tennis Club also contributing $9,767 

which is in accordance of the Town's dollar for dollar Community Grant (Policy No. 2.1.15). 

Summary 

It is recommended that this project be given a B rating (Well planned and needed by 

applicant) as per the DSR rating chart. An effective and safe fence is important for Reabold 

Tennis Club. Having adequate and safe fencing will maximise the enjoyment of playing the 

game of tennis and possibly attract new members to the Club. Subject to funding, works will 

commence in November 2012. 




The Town's funding conditions for Policy 2.1.15 and specifically Category 1 - Financial 

Assistance for Community Facilities (b) states that “Financial Assistance will be on a dollar 

for dollar basis after deducting any other grants from the total project costs.” If the funding 

application is successful an amount of approximately $9,767 (GST exclusive) will be 

required to be allocated as an unbudgeted amount in the 2012/2013 Budget. 


The CSRFF program strongly supports a number of the Business Philosophies of the Town's 

2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely: 

• Community Centred 

• Sustainability and enhanced services 




It further supports a number of the Town's priority areas: 

• Planning for our community 

• Delivering our services 

• Financially sustainable 


The CSRFF application report has been assessed under the Community Consultation 

Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no 

community consultation is required other than the investigative and assessment process 

undertaken by Council staff. 

SUMMARY: 

A summary of the project's information and recommendations is illustrated below: 

Priority Applicant Project Priority 

Rating 

1 Reabold 

Tennis Club 

Upgrade 

fencing 

of 

Project 

Cost 

(excl 

GST) 

CSRFF 

Contribution 

(excl GST) 

Council 

Contribution 

(excl GST) 

B $29,301 $9,767 $9,767 

The prioritisation of applications has been based on the following criteria: 

• The planning and need for the project; 

• The benefits to the community; 

• The number of participants the project will benefit; 

• The benefit to the Council; 

• Recent funding is being provided. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Nil 




That:- 

(i) 

the Department of Sport and Recreation be advised of the following priorities, 

together with the ratings awarded to the CSRFF application:- 

Priority Applicant Project Priority 

Rating 

1 Reabold 

Tennis Club 

Project 

Cost 

(excl GST) 

CSRFF 

Contribution 

(excl GST) 

Council 

Contribution 

(excl GST) 

Upgrade of fencing B $29,301 $9,767 $9,767 




(ii) 

(iii) 

(v) 

all supporting documentation, including the completed application forms, be 

forwarded to the Department of Sport and Recreation; 

the applicant be advised of the priorities together with the ratings awarded by 

Council; 

subject to the CSRFF application submitted by Reabold Tennis Club being 

successful, a contribution of $9,767 (ex GST) be allocated as an unbudgeted 

amount in the 2012/2013 Budget. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.123 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - 31 JULY 

2012 


To present the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) meeting 

held on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 

BACKGROUND: 

The Terms of Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) state that 

the minutes of meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public 

record of Council business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a Council Committee 

with an Elected Member as Chairperson 

DETAILS: 

The Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Tuesday, 31 July 

2012 are attached. 


• Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their 

families and carers. 

• Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. 

• Disability Services Act (1993). 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number of the business 

philosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

• Community Centred; 

• Sustainability, and; 

• Enhanced Services. 

It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:- 

• Planning for your Community; 

• Delivering our Services, and; 

• Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Minutes of Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 31 July 2012. 




That the Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on 

Tuesday, 31 July 2012 be received. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.124 CAMBRIDGE "HIGH" STREET - OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY 

CONSULTATION 


To report on the outcomes of the community feedback received on the concept design for 

Cambridge "High" Street. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 28 February 2012 (CR12.1 refers), Council endorsed the Cambridge 

High Street concept plans as suitable for community consultation. 

Further artist's impressions were developed on the concepts, as well as some drafting 

improvements, and the design was presented for community consultation, of which 

submissions closed on 10 August 2012. 

A summary outline of the concept design is included as an attachment for reference. 

DETAILS: 

Community Consultation 

The community was invited to provide feedback on the concept design. This invitation 

comprised: 

• Advertisement in "The Post" newspaper; 

• Meeting with Public Transport Authority and Department of Transport during concept 

development; 

• Direct mail and email to respondents to the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study (WLPUDS); and 

• Public Open Day held at Leederville Town Hall on Saturday, 30 June 2012. 

Feedback was sought on the concept from mid June to 10 August 2012 taking school 

holidays into consideration. 

214 submissions were received. A report detailing these submissions is attached for 

reference. 

Discussion 

1. Streetscape 

A large proportion of the submissions (71 %) were in support of the proposed landscape 

architecture for the streetscape. 

2. Lesser Street Intersection 




The concept design proposed that the median in Cambridge Street (to facilitate the right 

turn pocket entry into West Leederville (Coles) shopping centre would cause Lesser 

Street to become a left in left out only street. 

18% of submissions specifically objected to this concept primarily from a loss of amenity 

perspective for full flow into and out of Lesser Street (whereas 44% of submissions had 

no opinion on the matter) 

The traffic consultants have produced two further options to allow full flow into and out of 

Lesser Street whilst still providing a right turn pocket into Coles. 

This issue is discussed as an attachment to this report. It is recommended to take 

resident concerns into account and that the concept design be amended to include a 

section of painted median to allow turns into and out of Lesser Street with monitoring of 

the situation after construction to ascertain impacts. 

3. Shopping Centre Access and Egress 

A significant number of community submissions (71%) supported the proposed 

concepts for the shopping centre. Some concerns were raised that the only eastbound 

exit from the Shopping Centre would be from the upper level car park and that this may 

be a movement leading directly to the signalised pedestrian crossing. This could be 

monitored after implementation to determine if further actions are necessary. 

4. Traffic Flow By Reducing Cambridge Street to one lane 

Approximately 15% of submissions were concerned as to the rationale and impacts of 

changing Cambridge Street to one lane in this area. Whilst this was a decision made by 

Council in adopting the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study (WLPUDS) 

in 2010, it may be useful to discuss that matter in this report for the benefit of the 

community. 

This matter was the subject of some considerable attention at the time Council adopted 

the WLPUDS. The study was widely advertised to the community and 179 submissions 

received. 36% of submissions raised concerns on various aspects of the study, with the 

majority of these relating to traffic. 

Submissions from the Department of Planning (DoP) and Department of Transport 

(DoT) supported the embayed parking proposal. The DoT's support is conditional on 

various measures being included in the design (primarily the bus lane) to accommodate 

the ~6 bus routes through this section of Cambridge Street. Main Roads, however, did 

not support the proposal and suggested that a Strategic Traffic Impact Assessment be 

undertaken requiring a wider regional traffic modelling exercise. The traffic consultants 

engaged for the WLPUDS did not agree with Main Roads' opinion on this matter. They 

argued that existing capacity of external major roads already determined travel patterns 

and that the (costly) assessment suggested by Main Roads would be little benefit. 

In contrast, the DoP submission stated that the short length of Cambridge Street at 

single lane would be unlikely to cause significant redistribution of traffic such that 

impacts would be manageable in the macroscopic view of inner city traffic congestion. 

They believed that no major traffic impacts would be foreseen, vehicle speeds would 

reduce thus reducing the impacts upon pedestrians. 

In considering the impact on traffic of embayed parking, a comparison was made with 

Cambridge Street through the Wembley Town Centre. The mid week peak periods (7 to 




9 am and 4 to 6 pm) traffic volumes in this section of Cambridge St are similar to those 

of this project area. A single lane roundabout at Simper Street intersection has been in 

place for over 10 years without any evidence of undue congestion or impacts on 

surrounding streets. 

It is also relevant to note an extract from the technical notes accompanying the Town's 

Access and Parking Strategy (Part One) adopted in 2011 which suggests a reduction in 

traffic volumes over time will occur. The notes reflect that the through traffic projections 

in commercial centres are based on a reduction of existing traffic by 20% over a 30 to 

40 year period to 2050. The rationale for this is that car driver mode share is predicted 

to reduce over time. The DoT's long term public transport plan is estimating that overall 

car driver mode share for trips to Perth CBD will drop from 35% to 15% with public 

transport mode share increasing from 50% to 70% of all trips. Given that a significant 

percentage of traffic on Cambridge St and Railway Parade will have Perth CBD 

destinations, a reduction in traffic volumes on these streets by 20% by 2040/2050 is a 

reasonable assumption (as detailed in the Town's Access and Parking Strategy (Part 

One)). 

A suggestion has been put forward that a trial of the single lane each way is undertaken 

and results produced before works are commenced. This is not recommended for the 

following reasons: 

• Cambridge Street in the Stage 1 area operates at present effectively as a one 

lane in each direction due to on street parking in all but peak hour clearway 

times. Hence, any major changes in overall traffic flow in the area would be 

assumed to occur during the peak hours and not at other times; 

• The traffic modelling in 2010 took into consideration what drivers may do as an 

alternative to the clearway. It modelled a reduction of 100 vehicles per hour in the 

peaks in Cambridge Street with an increase in the parallel section of Railway 

Parade by 130 vehicles per hour. Increases in movements between Cambridge 

Street and Railway Parade for connecting streets were modelled at +20 vehicles 

per hour in the peak were predicted for Kerr Street and +50 vehicles per hour for 

Blencowe Street and +10 vehicles per hour for Northwood Street (again all in the 

peak hours only). Thus, there is a reasonable expectation and understanding that 

exists regarding altered traffic flow; 

• Implementation of any trial without implementing the full outcomes of the plan 

(including the road markings for embayed parking and single lane tapers) would 

be a misrepresentation of the actual impacts and prone to error in analysis; 

• A minimum six month trial would need to occur, both to monitor impacts before 

and after the trial; 

• The cost of implementation, monitoring and analysis of results would be 

considerable; 

• Careful consideration was given by Council in adopting the WLPUDS in 2010 to 

achieve a pedestrian friendly, low speed environment in the area. This was seen 

as a fundamental outcome of the study; 

• Cambridge Street at Wembley Town Centre operates effectively as a single lane 

each way precinct without unacceptable impacts on surrounding streets. Thus the 

concept is proven within Town of Cambridge. 




5. Detail design modification needed for staging 

The concept design developed was on the basis of a continual section of single lane in 

each direction from Northwood St to Southport St as this was the original intent of the 

project. During development of the 2012/2103 Budget, it was determined that the first 

part of the works, from Northwood Street to Holyrood / Kerr Streets would be 

undertaken and a decision made at a later date to undertake further works from 

Holyrood / Kerr Streets to Southport Street. 

This will necessitate during detail design of the necessary tapers and kerb treatments 

where two lanes in each direction revert to one lane in each direction near the Holyrood 

/ Kerr Streets intersection. 

6. Bus Stop Details 

The concept design identified two bus stop locations, the first generally at the West 

Leederville Shopping Centre and the second generally aligned with Leederville Town 

Hall. This is consistent with existing arrangements. During design discussions with PTA, 

the Leederville Town Hall bus stops were to be used by PTA as 'timed' stops where the 

buses may be standing for some time to catch up to their timetable. This led to the 

design of indented bus stops for this area to better manage traffic flow. 

The West Leederville Shopping Centre bus stops, on the other hand, were not proposed 

to be indented but rather on road. 

Some comments received were concerned as to the impacts on traffic flow when buses 

are standing at these bus stops for passenger alighting/disembarking. Whilst the 

average frequency over a full day of bus movements hardly warrants this concern (less 

than 1.5 bus movements per hour); it is relevant that in peak hour there are as many as 

four buses in a 15 minute period and as time progresses it is certain that bus 

frequencies would increase. 

On the City Bound lane, installation of an indented bay would require removal of all of 

the footpath and verge. Alternatively, Cambridge Street could be realigned further south 

to allow an indented bus bay to be built, albeit with a very narrow footpath. This would 

have a knock on effect of reducing the southern verge as well as requiring further 

removal of car bays on the west bound side of the road. 

On the west bound lane, an indented bay could be built at the cost of the removal of four 

on street parking bays. 

As an option, the bus stops near the West Leederville Shopping Centre could be 

relocated immediately west of Northwood Street, where Cambridge Street remains two 

lanes in each direction. This extends the walking distance from bus stop to shopping 

centre by 80 metres. 

The PTA has been canvassed on this matter. Their view is that bus movements are 

more efficient if 'on lane' standing is utilised for bus stops, as buses do not have to enter 

a traffic lane if indented bays were used. They also believe that the bus stops opposite 

the shopping centre are located to serve a demand for that location, and relocation 

further away appears counter intuitive. Finally, it is their view that the improvements 

made in use of boarding technology (Smartrider) reduce standing times at bus stops. It 

is their view that relocation would be a poor outcome. 




7. Other Issues 

Many submissions raised comments regarding street and intersection matters not 

related to the Cambridge High Street Streetscape project. These matters are included 

for information within the attached report. 




The approved 2012/2013 Budget includes $1.425m to undertake detail design and 

construction of Cambridge "High" Street between Northwood and Holyrood/Kerr Streets. 


This project supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan vision of Planning for our 

Community through the actions providing facilities for communities of choice. 


As detailed above, community consultation was initiated by: 

• Advertisement in "The Post" newspaper; 

• Meeting with Public Transport Authority & Department of Transport during concept 

development; 

• Direct mail and email to respondents to the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study; and 

• Public Open Day held on 30 June 2012. 

The feedback from the community on this study is detailed in the attachment. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of concept layout. 

2. Report on submissions. 

3. Lesser Street Intersection options. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the location of the bus stops near 

the West Leederville Shopping Centre. 

The Administration was requested to investigate with PTA and the traffic engineer, prior to 

the next meeting of Council, if the bus stops can be removed or relocated. 





Prior to consideration of this item, Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri, in accordance with Section 

5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter to the 

extent that they own properties or were related to a person who owned properties on 

Cambridge Street. 

Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri subsequently left the meeting at 7.20 pm. 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That in accordance with Section 5.68 of the Local Government Act 1995, Crs Bradley, 

Carr and Grinceri be allowed to participate in the discussion and vote upon the matter 

due to their interest being so trivial or insignificant as to be unlikely to influence the 

Members conduct in relation to this matter. 

Carried 6/0 

Crs Bradley, Carr and Grinceri returned to the meeting at 7.22 pm. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the report relating to the community feedback on the concept designs for 

Cambridge "High" Street Streetscape be received; 

the detail design of Stage 1 of Cambridge “High” Street commences; 

the detail design to include a broken painted median instead of the raised 

median in the concept design at Lesser Street to facilitate movements into and 

out of Lesser Street; 

bus stops near West Leederville Shopping Centre are detailed to be shown as 

standing on the road and the situation monitored post construction; 

suitable taper designs be included on Cambridge Street east of Holyrood/Kerr 

Streets; and 

once detail design is completed, tenders be called for construction. 

During discussion, Members were advised that the PTA is not in favour of removing or 

relocating the bus stops. 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King 

That the motion be amended by adding a further clause (vii) and amending clause (iv) 

as follows:- 

(iv) 


standing on the road and the situation monitored post construction and 

negotiations continue with Perth Transport Authority to seek their removal 

(north and south); 

(vii) the relevant median be adjusted so that vehicles will be able to turn right into 

Cambridge Street from the upper level of the Shopping Centre and that the 

owner of the Shopping Centre be advised accordingly. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and 

Walker 

Cr Bradley 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Grinceri 


(viii) a detailed landscape design be presented to Council for consideration. 


For: 

Against: 


Walker 

Cr Bradley 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the report relating to the community feedback on the concept designs for 

Cambridge "High" Street Streetscape be received; 

the detail design of Stage 1 of Cambridge “High” Street commences; 

the detail design to include a broken painted median instead of the raised 

median in the concept design at Lesser Street to facilitate movements into and 

out of Lesser Street; 


standing on the road and the situation monitored post construction and 

negotiations continue with Perth Transport Authority to seek their removal 

(north and south); 




(v) 

(vi) 

suitable taper designs be included on Cambridge Street east of Holyrood/Kerr 

Streets; and 

once detail design is completed, tenders be called for construction. 

(vii) the relevant median be adjusted so that vehicles will be able to turn right into 

Cambridge Street from the upper level of the Shopping Centre and that the 

owner of the Shopping Centre be advised accordingly. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.125 CITY BEACH OVAL PAVILION - APPROVAL TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION 

TENDER RFT01-12 


To seek approval to award tender RFT01-12 to Robinson Build Tech for the refurbishment 

and expansion at City Beach Oval Pavilion at a cost of $1,070,230 plus GST. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 20 September 2011 (CR11.118), Council decided that:- 

"The concept design of the City Beach Oval Pavilion (Scenario 5) be taken to finalisation of 

design and tenders advertised for the works, subject to:- 

(i) the West Coast Sporting Association executing the standard Town of Cambridge lease 

prior to calling for tenders; 

(ii) the Town being satisfied that suitable sub leasing arrangements have been made 

between West Coast Sporting Association and Coastal Playgroup; 

(iii) the West Coast Sporting Association agreeing to contribute $83,000 towards the 

project; 

(iv) an additional $177,000 of Endowment Lands funding, which includes an additional 

$50,000 in recognition of the shared nature of the additional space, being approved by 

an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in the 2011/2012 financial year; 

(v) an amount of $160,000 being authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted 

expenditure and funded from the 2011/2012 Asset Maintenance Reserve Account." 

Tenders for construction have been called and assessed for this project. 

DETAILS: 

Tenders were called in accordance with Local Government (Functions and General) 

Regulations relating to tenders. Tenders closed on 19 June 2012. Nine firms submitted 

tenders for assessment. One firm subsequently withdrew their offer as they had omitted a 

major trade component from their bid. 

Tenders were required to provide an option price to utilise LED lighting (for energy and 

greenhouse gas savings) in lieu of conventional lighting. In tender analysis, this option 

became preferred as there were tender cost savings. 

Robinson Build Tech was assessed as providing the best value for money tender for this 

work. 

The executive summary of the tender report is included as a confidential attachment. 

The pre tender estimate for construction was $800,000 based on a Quantity Surveyor’s 

review of the tender drawings and specifications. 

All tenders were significantly above the pre tender estimate. The Quantity Surveyor's pre 

tender estimate for the project was broken down into various components of the building 




works. Analysis showed that the pre tender estimate was consistently below every tender 

price for preliminaries, electrical works and structural works. These are major components of 

the project. In essence, insufficient allowance was made for these aspects of the project. 

The Administration has reviewed the project scope and tenders to determine what, if any, 

savings can be made. Approximately $20,000 of the tender price includes temporary 

facilities to be used (primarily as temporary toilets and change rooms) during the 

construction period for the cricket club needs. Approximately $ 20,000 has been tendered for 

external paving including car park. Any further savings would require significant reduction in 

scope by scaling back the size of the building extension. These costs have not been 

removed from the revised budget at this stage. 

The original project budget was $920,000 inclusive of construction, rise and fall, fees and 

contingencies. The revised project budget is now: 

Construction budget $1,070,230 

Fees $47,125 

Sub Total $1,117,355 

Contingency (approx 5% of construction) $52,645 

Total Budget $1,170,000 

West Coast Sporting Association agreed to contribute $83,000 towards the initial project 

budget of $920,000 (ie 9% of budget). During tender analysis, discussions were held with 

West Coast Sporting Association as to the matter of budget shortfall. They have considered 

this matter, and offered to increase their total contribution to the project to $99,000 in 

recognition of increased building costs to maintain scope. This equates to 8.5% of budget. It 

is recommended that West Coast Sporting Association be required to fund 9% of the 

construction and fees budget which would be $ 100,000, with the Town retaining the 

Contingency budget. 

The Club has asked for consideration of a suitable payment schedule recognising the 

limitations of sporting clubs to raise large one off payments. It is proposed that West Coast 

Sporting Association agree to fund $40,000 once site works commence; $43,000 prior to 

practical completion of the works and the remaining $17,000 as two equal annual payments 

in subsequent financial years. 

The project still holds a contingency. This will be used if necessary for issues arising during 

construction against the current scope. If West Coast Sporting Association request additional 

works to be undertaken during the construction these will need to be fully funded by West 

Coast Sporting Association. Once the project is complete, any remaining contingency will be 

retained by the Town as project savings as this amount is being fully funded by the Town. 


In line with Council Policy, Council approval is necessary for the award of tenders greater 

than $100,000 unless the decision is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. 


The forecast cost for this project will require an increase in budget funding by $250,000. It is 

proposed that Council approve by an absolute majority, an increase of funding of $233,000 

to be sourced from the Endowment Lands Account and that $17,000 be sought from West 

Coast Sporting Association. 





The eventual development of this land for sporting purposes is consistent with the Town's 

strategic plan of creating communities of choice. 


Award of these contracts has been assessed in terms of the Town's Community 

Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely 

administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Executive Summary - Tender Recommendation Report (Confidential) 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

Tender T01-12 be awarded to Robinson Build Tech at a contract cost of 

$1,070,230 for the refurbishment and redevelopment of City Beach Oval 

Pavilion; 

approval be given to increasing the project budget $250,000 with funding as 

detailed in (iii) and (iv) below; 

an amount of $233,000 for the refurbishment and expansion of City Beach Oval 

Pavilion be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted 

expenditure in accordance with s6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 (to be 

funded from the Endowment Lands Account); 

an additional $17,000 of funding from West Coast Sporting Association be 

sought as an increase from their existing commitment of $83,000 to bring their 

contribution to a total of $100,000; 

West Coast Sporting Association to provide an initial payment of $40,000 once 

site works commence, $43,000 once the project has reached practical 

completion; and $8,500 in each subsequent financial year; and 

any saving in the contingency funds be retained by the Town. 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0 




CR12.126 FORMER NURSERY SITE JOLIMONT - ADVERTISING BUSINESS PLAN 


To seek Council approval to advertise the Business Plan regarding the disposition of land 

known as the Former Nursery Site on Salvado Road, Jolimont. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council considered, in a Confidential Report (CR 13.1 of Meeting 27 March 2012), principles 

that would be acceptable to enter into an agreement with Landcorp for the disposition and 

development of the site commonly known as the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, 

Jolimont. 

These principles formed the basis of a submission to State Cabinet by the Minister for 

Regional Development and Lands. This submission has been approved by Cabinet and will 

result in Landcorp undertaking the development of the site for residential purposes, with the 

Town and Landcorp sharing in the net project returns. 

Fundamental to this arrangement will be the action of the Town of Cambridge transferring 

the title for the land to Landcorp to allow the development to proceed. This is subject to 

receiving advice that the taxation implications of this action place the Town in a no worse 

financial position as if it undertook the development itself. If not, the Town may retain the 

land during the project with Landcorp acting as its agent to manage the development and 

sell the land. To undertake the proposed land transaction, the Town must prepare, advertise 

and consider responses to a Business Plan for this matter in accordance with s3.59 of the 

Local Government Act 1995 prior to entering into a development agreement with Landcorp. 

DETAILS: 

S3.59 of the Local Government Act details the requirements regarding commercial 

undertakings including the disposal of land. A business plan must be prepared in 

accordance with the Act and Regulations, advertised and then considered by Council prior to 

entering into the commercial transaction. 

A summary of the project plan is as follows: 

• A development agreement will be created which outlines the conditions precedent 

and terms under which the project will be developed; 

• The Nursery Site will be subdivided from Lot 520, which encompasses Henderson 

Park, the Nursery Site and Wembley Sports Park, to allow creation of a stand alone 

title; 

• Potentially the titled land will be transferred for a nominal sum to Landcorp, including 

the existing trust covenant; 

• The trust will be removed, facilitating planning and development of the site by 

Landcorp; 

• Net proceeds from this development will be shared 60/40 in favour of Town of 

Cambridge; 




• Landcorp will advance the Town of Cambridge $5 million (interest free) of its 

anticipated share of the proceeds soon after the development agreement is 

executed; 

• Once the structure planning is complete, a revised project value will be determined. 

The Town will be given the option to receive full payment of its 60% project share at 

that stage, based on the forecast project value. Landcorp would then take on full 

project risk for returns after that point; 

• If the Town does not elect to take its share at that time, it will remain as a party to the 

development agreement and share in the risks of financial return over the full project 

timeline; 

• If certain circumstances arise that frustrate the development agreement, the title for 

the land will revert back to the Town of Cambridge, the Trust will be re-established 

over the site and the Town would need to refund the initial $5 million advance 

payment. If this occurs funding can be provided by a loan or come from the proceeds 

of the Perry Lakes Stadium Land Development due to the Town within the next 5 

years ($50m proceeds). 

At this stage of the development, it is not practical to forecast with certainty project returns; 

especially with the current volatility of the land market. However it is not unreasonable to 

anticipate that, based on a target yield of 200 dwellings, the net project return could be in the 

order of $30 million; with the Town's share being around $18 million of this return (ie its 60% 

share). 

It is important to note that the development agreement with Landcorp for the site cannot be 

executed until this Business Plan is adopted by Council. 


The Business Plan is a requirement of s3.59 of the Local Government Act. 


There are no financial implications concerning the preparation and advertising of this 

Business Plan. The outcomes and adoption of the Business Plan will have financial 

implications which will be contained in a subsequent report to Council. 


Development of this land is within the Town's objectives of creating communities of choice. 


This Business Plan needs to be advertised by way of state wide public notice for a period of 

not less than 6 weeks. The Business Plan will be made available on the Towns website with 

hard copies available at the Council office and library. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Nil 





Prior to consideration of this item, Mr Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure, in accordance 

with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this 

matter. 




matter. 




That a Business Plan for the Land Transaction for the former Nursery Site at Jolimont, 

including the details outlined in this report, be advertised in accordance with s3.59 of 

the Local Government Act 1995 and any submissions received be considered by 

Council. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.127 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK LANDSCAPING STRATEGY - OUTCOMES OF 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 


To report on the outcomes of the community feedback received regarding the Landscaping 

Strategy for Wembley Sports Park. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 24 April 2012, (CR12.51), Council endorsed a report on the 

landscaping strategy for Wembley Sports Park and the recommendation to seek community 

feedback on this matter. 

Submissions were invited from the community during the period 29 June to 3 August 2012. 

DETAILS: 

Submissions Received 

Nine (9) submissions were received. Most objected to the overall intent of the Master Plan, 

which has already been determined by Council and, as such, the landscaping strategy 

responses provided in these submissions made it difficult to relate to the landscaping 

proposal that was the subject of this consultation. In the interests of transparency for the 

respondents, a copy of each submission is attached to this report. Personal details have 

been removed from submissions received from private residences. 

Master Plan Implications 

The following recommendations are proposed in relation to Wembley Sports Park as a result 

of further landscaping design: 

1. Road Layouts 

It is recommended that the internal North - South Access Road that joins Salvado Road 

is aligned 20 metres further east than shown in the June 2011 Master Plan. This would 

preserve a stand of trees between the access road and car parks. Suitable plantings on 

the eastern verge of this realigned road (which are part of the overall drainage system) 

would provide a landscape buffer to the eventual development within the Nursery site. 

This realignment is generally consistent with the draft landscape plan considered by 

Council in April 2012, with the exception of where the North - South Access Road joins 

the central roundabout. 

It is considered that this alteration does not have significant impacts on the functionality 

of Wembley Sports Park, improves the environmental outcome and would not be 

significant in terms of the Nursery development. 




2. Tree Replacement 

It is to be noted that the State has yet to resolve its landscaping strategy for the State 

Netball Centre and other works within Wembley Sports Park that they are undertaking. 

The landscaping strategy identified that, of the 288 trees to be removed by the Town, 65 

were of Carnaby's Cockatoo habitat species with the remainder non Carnaby's habitat 

species. The landscaping strategy recommended that 937 new trees be planted, with 

710 of these off set plantings be undertaken in largely bushland areas rather than areas 

of high activity such as Wembley Sports Park and 227 trees within Wembley Sports 

Park. Thus the ratio of trees replaced to trees removed exceeds 3 to 1. 

The Town has made a commitment to plant 1,200 Carnaby's friendly tube stock inside 

bushland at Wembley Golf Course. This work was largely completed on the National 

Tree Planting day on 29 July 2012 through the efforts of volunteers allied with Wembley 

Sports Park, Friends of Roscommon Reserve, The Great Cocky Count and Town staff. 

This planting significantly exceeds guidelines set by the Federal Government in this 

regard. 

The landscaping strategy also identified further semi-mature and tube stock planting that 

would be appropriate to Wembley Sports Park and this has been included in the project 

scope. 

It is also important to note, that of the 288 trees proposed to be removed, 51 are dead, in 

danger of collapse or hazardous to park users (limb dropping) and a further 80 are very 

small trees of less than 150mm trunk diameter, thus worthy of consideration in overall 

context. Thus, 157 'healthy' mature trees will be required to be removed during the 

development of Wembley Sports Park. 

Whilst the landscaping strategy proposes 227 new trees within Wembley Sports Park, as 

detail design progresses on each stage, it is proposed that further effort will be made to 

reduce the number of trees to be removed, further increase the number of new trees to 

be planted (as space permits) and further increase the ratio of semi-mature and mature 

trees to seedlings (as budget permits). 

Some submissions raised concerns that the overall tree replacement strategy should 

have been more specific in that some plantings were to be conducted off site as well as 

on site, especially noting the Council decision to achieve at least a 2 for 1 replacement 

strategy. The proposed plantings off set are better suited to the Carnaby's Cockatoo than 

replacement in Wembley Sports Park given its highly activated use as a sports park. 

Currently, it is planned to plant 227 new trees. With regards to the 157 healthy trees 

proposed to be removed, the on site replanting ratio is 1.4 to 1. Further additional 

plantings will be undertaken as detail design progresses to increase tree density closer 

to the 2:1 target. 

3. Selby Street Right Turn into Wembley Sports Park 

The Integrated Access, Parking and Traffic Study proposed that a right turn pocket on 

Selby Street be created extending south from the main entry to opposite Kirwan Street. 

This would have resulted in four larger trees and one smaller tree needing to be 

removed. The intent of this pocket was to provide reasonable storage for right turn 

vehicles entering Wembley Sports Park without unduly compromising the two 

northbound through lanes on Selby Street. 




It is recommended that the right turn pocket is reduced in length to retain the four larger 

trees. The likely traffic impacts are, at peak times on PNA competition days, some right 

turning vehicles will be standing in the inner through lane in a queue awaiting the right 

turn arrow to enter Wembley Sports Park. The outer through lane will still allow through 

traffic. It is viewed that the minor traffic issues are far less important than preserving 

these four trees. 

Retaining these trees will further reduce the overall number of 288 trees proposed to be 

removed. 

4. Future Pat Goodridge Pavilion 

The landscape strategy assumed a future building footprint for the Pat Goodridge 

Pavilion based on previous concepts developed in consultation with Wembley Athletic 

Club. 

It detailed removal of six trees, two which were of questionable health and one which 

was a Carnaby's Cockatoo habitat tree. 

As no decision has been reached at this stage regarding the future building works, it is 

proposed that once design works commence on this building, effort is made to preserve 

as many healthy trees as possible. 

Retaining these trees will further reduce the overall number of 288 trees proposed to be 

removed 

5. Detail layout of Playgrounds, Temporary Parking and the like 

The landscaping strategists are working closely with the other consultants on this project, 

notably the Civil Engineer. At this stage of design the access ramps to the proposed 

temporary overflow car park on the south west cricket oval have not been resolved. It 

may result in the relocation of the proposed new playground to another location more 

central in Wembley Sports Park. It will, in any event, focus on not removing any further 

trees unless absolutely necessary. 

In the detail design stage, the Town will resolve the location of all baseball facilities to 

minimise risk of errant fly balls entering Halesworth Road properties, as well as better 

location of batting cages. This matter is ongoing. 

6. State Works 

The State is responsible for the design and construction of the State Netball Centre, 300 

sealed car parking bays, the internal east - west access road and the internal 

roundabout. In discussions with the State, they have recognised the need for a 

consistent approach to landscaping outcomes. As part of Town approval processes for 

their works, this matter will be given due consideration. 

7. Further improvements 

An increase to the density of tree planting in the median and western verge of Selby 

Street has been suggested to provide additional offset tree planting as well as better 

visual screening of the State Netball Centre. The Town will investigate this and if 

possible undertake further improvements in this regard. 




It is noted that once the works in Wembley Sports Park are complete, the park will be 

more attractive for both active and passive recreation users. The value of creating new 

access from Salvado Road through to Hay Street within stands of trees retained and new 

plantings should not be underestimated. 

The vegetation to the Hay Street boundary will also be further intensified adding to the 

visual amenity of the park. 

It is proposed to also set the fence for Matthews Netball Centre on Salvado Road as far 

off the kerb as possible to allow verge street trees and plantings to be undertaken. This 

will also provide some screening of the fence from public view which is seen as a benefit. 

Our design for shrub and ground cover planting at present proposes to provide in excess 

of 17,000 m 2 of planting, which would also contribute to habitat and fauna refuge on site. 


To undertake clearing of native vegetation of this nature, approval is required from the 

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The landscaping strategy and 

supporting documentation has been referred to DEC who are dealing with this matter in 

accordance with the Environmental Protection Act. Advice to date from DEC is that the 

project has been referred by them to "relevant authorities" as well as public submissions 

requested on this application. DEC officers have inspected the site and are in the process of 

undertaking their report on the application. 

DEC officers have discussed with the Town the issue of referral to the Federal Government 

under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It appears that the 

proposed works would not be sufficiently significant to require mandatory referral and as 

discussed above, the Town has planned to exceed the Carnaby's offset planting 

requirements set out by the Federal Government's (draft) guidelines under the Act. Our 

landscape architect concurs with this assessment. 

The Town would not be in a position to undertake clearing until regulatory approval is 

granted. 


There are minor Financial Implications related to this report relating to adjustments to the 

project budget for landscaping works. They are not significant. 


This project supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan vision of Planning for our 

Community through the actions of a wide range of quality, accessible recreational facilities. 


The community was invited to provide feedback on the landscaping strategy. This invitation 

comprised: 

• Direct mail to individuals and stakeholder groups (including Cities of Nedlands and 

Subiaco, Hackett Civic Association, Wembley Athletic Club, Wembley Baseball Club and 




Perth Netball Association) who provided submissions during the Master Plan 

development in 2011; and 

• An advertisement in "The Post" newspaper. 

Feedback was sought on the strategy during the period 29 June 2012 to 3 August 2012. 

It was originally proposed to hold a public forum on the landscaping strategy, however, it 

became impractical to undertake this within a reasonable timeframe, mindful of the overall 

project program. 

Meetings have been held with the Western Region Environmental Network and some private 

individuals who have been in contact with the Town. 

Whilst the positive improvements suggested in community feedback have been detailed 

above, some of the negative matters raised are more in relation to the overall master plan 

and the process to date and include: 

• Overall site density is inappropriate to include football and baseball within the Park, 

which leads to further loss of trees; 

• Rejection of outcomes from traffic and parking study; 

• Ratepayer concerns being rejected in favour of Wembley Athletic Club and State needs; 

• Baseball arrangements in south end of Park; and 

• Arrangements for the use of the Nursery Site 

As has been stated previously, all Elected Members have been furnished with each 

submission and can consider this matter with regard to the submissions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Master Plan (Adopted June 2011) 

2. Landscaping Master Plan (April 2012) approved by Council for consultation 

3. Landscaping Master Plan (June 2012), basis of this report 

4. Landscaping Strategy 

5. Submissions received 




matter. 




matter. 






That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report relating to community feedback on the Landscaping Strategy for 

Wembley Sports Park be noted; 

the Master Plan for Wembley Sports Park be updated to reflect significant 

changes from the June 2011 plan as follows:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

proposed intersection works at Alderbury and Selby Streets, including 

right turn pocket into Wembley Sports Park being reduced to retain the 

four large trees; 

proposed offset of North-South Access road and its connection to the 

internal roundabout to preserve the stand of trees between the access road 

and car parks; 

proposed layout of football, baseball and cricket ovals; 

retention of trees as noted in this report; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the proposed landscaping, tree management and road works detailed in this 

landscaping strategy are used for the basis of detail design; and 

the submissions provided by the community are noted and respondents advised 

of the outcome of this report. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 


(iv) 

as detailed design progresses, two tree replacements for every living tree 

removed be aimed for and it be noted that this target will be limited by physical 

space. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report relating to community feedback on the Landscaping Strategy for 

Wembley Sports Park be noted; 

the Master Plan for Wembley Sports Park be updated to reflect significant 

changes from the June 2011 plan as follows:- 

(a) 

proposed intersection works at Alderbury and Selby Streets, including 

right turn pocket into Wembley Sports Park being reduced to retain the 

four large trees; 




(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

proposed offset of North-South Access road and its connection to the 

internal roundabout to preserve the stand of trees between the access road 

and car parks; 

proposed layout of football, baseball and cricket ovals; 

retention of trees as noted in this report; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

the proposed landscaping, tree management and road works detailed in this 

landscaping strategy are used for the basis of detail design; 

as detailed design progresses, two tree replacements for every living tree 

removed be aimed for and it be noted that this target will be limited by physical 

space; 

the submissions provided by the community are noted and respondents advised 

of the outcome of this report. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.128 STATE NETBALL CENTRE - DESIGN APPROVAL 


To seek the endorsement of Council as Landlord to the proposed design of the State Netball 

Centre. Approval of the design is an essential term of the lease between the Town and the 

State. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town and State executed a lease for the State Netball Centre to be located at Wembley 

Sports Park. An essential term of the lease requires that: 

"The Lessee must obtain the Lessor's consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or 

delayed) before the Lessee: 

(a) 

(b) 

constructs any material building or other structural improvement on the Land; or 

carries out any structural alteration of any building or other structural improvement on 

the Land." 

The initial construction of the State Netball Centre falls into this definition. 

This consent stands independent of the Town's requirements as the Local Government 

Authority regarding development applications within its District. 

DETAILS: 

The State Netball Centre is located on approximately 1.2 Ha of land within Wembley Sports 

Park. It contains four indoor netball courts, stadium seating for ~ 1,000 spectators and 

facilities for management of the high performance aspects of Netball. Netball WA would be a 

major subtenant with Venues West operating the facility on behalf of the State. 

In considering whether or not Lessor approval to the construction should be granted, the 

following matters would need to be considered: 

1. Is the proposed construction activity within the lease boundary 

2. Is the proposed building design in keeping with Town's expectations 

3. Are the proposed arrangements for integration and access for Matthews Netball Centre 

consistent with understandings reached 

4. Is the proposed landscaping design consistent with the Town's landscaping strategy for 

Wembley Sports Park 

Item 1 

Confirmation has been made that the proposed construction is within the lease site. Item 1 is 

satisfied. 

The design has been consistently improved from initial concepts to take into account 

concerns regarding the bulk and façade of the facility. It is viewed at present as being a good 

outcome given the fact that by its very nature it is a large building. 




Item 2 

The building design and external façade had been presented by the Department of Sport 

and Recreation to Elected Members at a meeting held on 10 July 2012. Further 

improvements were made to better integrate Matthews Netball Centre and the State Netball 

Centre. The recommendation now is that the external design is suitable and in keeping with 

Town's expectations and that Item 2 is satisfied. 

Item 3 

It is a basic need of Matthews Netball Centre that its perimeter is secured by way of a fence 

that mitigates the risk of unauthorised persons entering Matthews Netball Centre and 

damaging the court surfaces (skateboarders and bike riders are perceived as a major risk). 

Given the substantial investment in these facilities, and the risk that unsecured access can 

occur (especially in summer where there is no activity), this need is not unreasonable. 

It was always the Town's intent, that on PNA competition Saturdays, access to the two 

indoor courts (guaranteed under the lease) would be from within the Matthews Netball 

Centre boundary. This allows Perth Netball Association to effectively manage their site 

without having the need to 'pass in pass out' spectators and players as they move from State 

Netball Centre to Matthews Netball Centre and vice versa. 

It is also been the Town's view from the inception of this project that Matthews Netball 

Centre and State Netball Centre would be part of an integrated netball precinct to provide 

the netballers playing association netball exposure to the elite and professional netballers 

using the State Netball Centre. 

This was discussed with the State, and the conceptual planning understood by the Town, 

was for a gate and fence arrangement such that most of the State Netball Centre forecourt 

would be 'inside' Matthews Netball Centre on PNA competition days, allowing Matthews 

Netball Centre users to enter the State Netball Centre via a side door. This fence was shown 

in a site plan attached to the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA), the basis of which 

formed the agreement to proceed with this project. This fence was also shown on all 

conceptual drawings and schematic drawings up until May 2012. 

The State in July 2012 developed a conceptual landscaping design for the forecourt which 

included, in their view, public open space that should be accessible at all times. This 

conflicted with the original premise for the fence area and use of the forecourt. If the area 

was left open to the public without supervision, unacceptable risks of damage to Matthews 

Netball Centre courts would be apparent. 

After some negotiations with the Department of Sport and Recreation and Venues West, 

representing the State, it has been agreed that the fence and gate arrangements will be 

installed in line with original expectations and that a protocol developed for when the area is 

open to the public. The recommendation within this report takes this into consideration. 

It is noted that whilst the Town is financially responsible for this fence's installation (in 

accordance with the FAA), the State may wish to 'up spec' the fence and gate for aesthetic 

reasons. This should be provided at State cost. It is recommended that we continue working 

with the State in this regard to get an equitable outcome for all. 

Item 4 

The State is developing the design of the landscape plan for the State Netball Centre on the 

basis that it is consistent with the strategy adopted by the Town for Wembley Sports Park. 

The State is utilising the same landscape architect as the Town for its works, and thus the 

selection of paving materials and plantings are consistent through the park. There will be 




obvious 'points of differences' between each area which is necessary to better identify each 

part of Wembley Sports Park, however, it comes together well in an overall aspect. 

Item 4 is satisfied. 

It is noted that outside of the State Netball Centre lease, the State is undertaking roads and 

car parks within the park. The landscaping for these areas will be consistent with our 

approach as this is a fundamental design requirement. 

It is noted that the State will need to seek separate approvals for any clearing of native 

vegetation within Wembley Sports Park. 

The State will need to seek planning approval for this building. This will require consideration 

by the North West Metropolitan Development Assessment Panel, of which the Town has two 

Elected Members sitting on this panel. The Western Australian Planning Commission is 

required to provide the relevant planning report as the lease area is within the MRS Reserve. 

The Planning Commission will seek a planning comment report from the Town. 

It is understood that the State proposes holding a public information event to showcase the 

State Netball Centre. 


There are no significant Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. 


There are no significant Financial Implications related to this report. 


The eventual development of this land for sporting purposes is consistent with the Town's 

strategic plan of creating communities of choice. 


The views of the community regarding the proposal of locating the State Netball Centre 

within Wembley Sports Park are well known and have come to light during previous 

consultation processes for the Master Plan. 

The Town supports any initiative by the State to undertake a public information process on 

the 'look' of the State Netball Centre given that this was largely uncertain during earlier 

consultation periods. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Department of Sport and Recreation Application for lessor approval of the State 

Netball Centre design. 





That:- 

(i) 

lessor approval of the design of the State Netball Centre, in accordance with the 

attached Design Development Report dated August 2012 Version 1.2, be granted 

subject to the following conditions: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

a permanent fence being constructed in accordance with the Forecourt 

Landscape Plan (MP-02 Rev H) dated July 2012 shown on Page 28 of the 

attached State Netball Centre Design Development Report; 

the operator (VenuesWest) of the State Netball Centre being permitted to open 

the fence on the forecourt at times that they are operating the State Netball 

Centre and being responsible for the security and safety of people entering the 

Matthews Netball Centre premises and any subsequent damage (and repair of) 

to these premises caused by persons under the operator of the State Netball 

Centre's supervision; 

the final design of the fence and gate within the State Netball Centre lease 

being agreed by the State and Town and any costs above the provision of the 

standard of the fence proposed by the Town are borne by the State; 

no temporary obstructions being placed within the forecourt area preventing 

access from the Matthews Netball Centre premises to the forecourt area without 

prior approval of the Town; and 

the final detail design of landscaping within the State Netball Centre lease area 

and the building façade for the State Netball Centre being consistent with the 

application submitted by the State and attached to this report; 

(ii) 

it be noted that other works undertaken by the State within Wembley Sports Park will 

require design approval by the Town prior to approval being given to commence work. 




matter. 

During discussion, Members discussed various opportunities to increase the number of trees 

in the landscaping design. It was agreed that there was a need to explore the opportunity to 

increase the number of trees in areas that the State Government is involved in. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr 


(f) 

the Department of Sport and Recreation to provide a buffer of suitable trees along the 

western side of the building to provide suitable screening to the Town's satisfaction. 








matter. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 


That:- 

(i) 




(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 


Landscape Plan (MP-02 Rev H) dated July 2012 shown on Page 28 of the 

attached State Netball Centre Design Development Report; 

the operator (VenuesWest) of the State Netball Centre being permitted to 

open the fence on the forecourt at times that they are operating the State 

Netball Centre and being responsible for the security and safety of people 

entering the Matthews Netball Centre premises and any subsequent 

damage (and repair of) to these premises caused by persons under the 

operator of the State Netball Centre's supervision; 


being agreed by the State and Town and any costs above the provision of 

the standard of the fence proposed by the Town are borne by the State; 

no temporary obstructions being placed within the forecourt area 

preventing access from the Matthews Netball Centre premises to the 

forecourt area without prior approval of the Town; 

the final detail design of landscaping within the State Netball Centre lease 

area and the building façade for the State Netball Centre being consistent 

with the application submitted by the State and attached to this report; 

the Department of Sport and Recreation to provide a buffer of suitable 

trees along the western side of the building to provide suitable screening 

to the Town's satisfaction; 

(ii) 

it be noted that other works undertaken by the State within Wembley Sports 

Park will require design approval by the Town prior to approval being given to 

commence work. 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr 

That clause (i)(a) of the motion be amended by adding the words "in red" following 

the word "shown" and further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

a tree replacement strategy of replacing two trees for every living tree removed 

from within the State Netball Centre lease being undertaken by the applicant; 

a signage plan, to be approved by the Town, be developed in consultation with 

the Town consistent with and overall strategy for Wembley Sports Park; 

the State undertake a community consultation forum regarding the State Netball 

Centre design to be undertaken prior to, or during the statutory notice period for 

planning application; 

a separate application for landowner consent being provided to the Town for 

works outside of the State Netball Centre lease area which the State will be 

undertaking. 



That:- 

(i) 




(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 


Landscape Plan (MP-02 Rev H) dated July 2012 shown in red on Page 28 of 

the attached State Netball Centre Design Development Report; 

the operator (VenuesWest) of the State Netball Centre being permitted to 

open the fence on the forecourt at times that they are operating the State 

Netball Centre and being responsible for the security and safety of people 

entering the Matthews Netball Centre premises and any subsequent 

damage (and repair of) to these premises caused by persons under the 

operator of the State Netball Centre's supervision; 


being agreed by the State and Town and any costs above the provision of 

the standard of the fence proposed by the Town are borne by the State; 

no temporary obstructions being placed within the forecourt area 

preventing access from the Matthews Netball Centre premises to the 

forecourt area without prior approval of the Town; 

the final detail design of landscaping within the State Netball Centre lease 

area and the building façade for the State Netball Centre being consistent 

with the application submitted by the State and attached to this report; 




(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

the Department of Sport and Recreation to provide a buffer of suitable 

trees along the western side of the building to provide suitable screening 

to the Town's satisfaction; 

a tree replacement strategy of replacing two trees for every living tree 

removed from within the State Netball Centre lease being undertaken by 

the applicant; 

a signage plan, to be approved by the Town, be developed in consultation 

with the Town consistent with and overall strategy for Wembley Sports 

Park; 

the State undertake a community consultation forum regarding the State 

Netball Centre design to be undertaken prior to, or during the statutory 

notice period for planning application; 

a separate application for landowner consent being provided to the Town 

for works outside of the State Netball Centre lease area which the State will 

be undertaking. 

(ii) 

it be noted that other works undertaken by the State within Wembley Sports 

Park will require design approval by the Town prior to approval being given to 

commence work. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.129 OCEAN GARDENS RETIREMENT VILLAGE - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR 


To approve a nomination for Director submitted by the Board of Ocean Gardens (Inc). 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 28 June 2011, the Council approved a suite of Director eligibility 

requirements and competencies identified and adopted by the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board. 

In accordance with the provisions of clause 11 of the Ocean Gardens constitution, the Board 

has now nominated a candidate for Council approval. 

DETAILS: 

Clause 11 of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) constitution provides (inter alia) that:- 

(3)(a) The Directors shall be nominated by the Board and appointed by the Town in 

accordance with this clause. 

(b) The Board shall determine the eligibility requirements for the selection of those 

persons to be nominated by the Board as Directors and notify the Town of those 

requirements from time to time. 

(c) The Town must, within 60 days of the date of receipt of the nomination from the 

Board, in its absolute discretion appoint or reject any person nominated by the Board 

by notice to the Board in writing. 

(d) If the Town does not within 60 days appoint or reject any person nominated under 

this clause, the Town will be deemed to have appointed that person as a Director. 

(4)(a) Subject to clause 11(4)(b), the term of appointment for each Director is up to three (3) 

years. If no term is specified at the time of appointment, a Director’s appointment 

shall expire on the third anniversary of their appointment. 

(b) A Director is eligible for reappointment but a person may not be a Director for more 

than nine (9) years in aggregate. 

(c) A Director seeking reappointment may be nominated and reappointed under clause 

11(3) at any time within 3 months before the expiry of their current term in which case 

the reappointed Director’s new term of office commences on the first day after the 

expiry of their current term. 




When considering this matter in June 2011, the Council agreed that future Ocean Gardens 

(Inc) Board Member nominations be assessed by the Council in accordance with the 

following eligibility requirements:- 

"Board Composition and Director Competencies 

What shared knowledge and competencies should the Board have across its members 

• Strategic expertise - the ability to review and develop strategy; 

• Accounting and finance - the ability to understand the economics of the village (at 

ownership and operational levels), the financial consequences of decisions, financial 

material presented to the Board, financial reporting requirements and some 

understanding of corporate finance; 

• Legal - the Board's responsibility involves overseeing compliance with numerous 

laws as well as understanding an individual Director's legal duties and 

responsibilities; 

• Managing risk - experience in managing areas of major risk to the organisation; 

• Managing people and achieving change; 

• CEO/Senior management/Business experience; 

• Industry knowledge - experience in similar organisations or industries including:- 

- house building 

- construction 

- aged care 

- retirement villages 

Directors may and are expected to acquire knowledge and competency in these areas 

through their work on the Board. 

The composition of the Board will take into account the need for Board continuity and 

retention of corporate knowledge. 

What personal qualities should Board members have 

While different directors can bring different technical skills and knowledge to a Board, there 

are personal qualities that are desirable in all Directors:- 

• Integrity - fulfilling a Director's duties and responsibilities, putting the organisation's 

interests before personal interests, acting ethically; 

• Curiosity and courage - a Director must have the curiosity to ask questions and the 

courage to persist in asking or to challenge management and fellow Board members 

where necessary; 

• Interpersonal skills - a Director must work well in a group, listen well, be tactful but 

able to communicate their point of view frankly; 

• Genuine interest in the organisation and its business; 

• Instinct - good business instincts and acumen, ability to get to the crux of the issue 

quickly; 

• Commercial common sense - a Director must be able to make decisions on a 

sensible and commercial basis; 

• An active contributor - there is no room on Boards today for those who do not 

contribute; 

• Time - Directors must ensure that they have adequate time to devote to the 

organisation's affairs." 




Under Clause 11(1) of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Constitution, the Board comprises six 

Directors. At the present time the Board is operating with five Directors and now seeks to 

appoint the sixth Director. 

In accordance with the Constitution, a person may not be a Director for more than nine years 

in aggregate. The table below details the terms of the current Directors and their maximum 

nine year term. 

Director Expiry of Current Maximum 9 Years 

Term 

1. Simon Withers October 2012 October 2016 

2. Alan Langer October 2012 March 2014 

3. Hilary Pinerua October 2012 July 2014 

4. Dean Mudford March 2013 March 2019 

5. Eric Hooper August 2014 August 2017 

The Board have indicated that they have identified a need to appoint a director with a legal 

background and have nominated Yasmin Broughton. In support of the nomination, the 

Board has submitted a confidential assessment of Ms Broughton's skills, knowledge and 

competencies. Details have been circulated to Elected Members as a confidential 

attachment. 

The nomination request was received on 9 August 2012 and in accordance with the recent 

changes to the OGRV constitution the Town now has 60 days to make its decision to accept 

or reject the nomination. Should a decision not be made within the specified time, the Town 

will be deemed to have appointed that person as a Director. 

The Administration has reviewed the nomination of Ms Broughton against the eligibility 

criteria submitted and has formed the opinion that Ms Broughton satisfies those 

requirements and is therefore recommended for appointment as a Director of Ocean 

Gardens (Inc) for a three year term in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 11(3) and 

(4) of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Constitution. 


Clause 11(3) of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) constitution requires that Directors shall be 

nominated by the Board and appointed by the Town. 




Not applicable. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. 

Consultation is not required due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external 

impacts envisaged. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Confidential eligibility assessment. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer disclosed an interest 

affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to the appointment of a Director to 

the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board, I declare that I am currently serving Director of the Ocean 

Gardens (Inc) Board and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality 

may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer disclosed an interest 

affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to the appointment of a Director to 

the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board, I declare that I am currently serving Director of the Ocean 

Gardens (Inc) Board and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality 

may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. 

Also, Cr Pelczar disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with 

regard to the appointment of a Director to the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board, I declare that I 

am a resident of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board and as a consequence there may be a 

perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on 

its merits and vote accordingly." 




That Ms Yasmin Broughton be appointed as a Director of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) 

Board for a three year period commencing from 29 August 2012 in accordance with 

the provisions of clause 11(3) of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Constitution. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.130 DOCUMENTS SEALED - AUGUST 2012 


To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Town of Cambridge 

Common Seal. 

DETAILS: 

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the 

Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of 

documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to 

Council. 

A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears 

below: 

Date 

Sealed Document Details Purpose 

No. 

Copies 

17/06/2012 

8 Gali Lane (Lot 517 on Deposited Plan 

57858) Withdrawal of Caveat 1 

Community Facilities 

25/06/2012 Floreat Tennis Club Inc 

Lease 3 

Tamala Park Regional Council - Transfer of Land on 

10/07/2012 Catalina Subdivision 

Deposited Plan 73462 

Lot 140 - ED & KM Scrooby 3 

30/07/2012 

Tamala Park Regional Council - Lots 

9001; 9510; 9511 on Certificate of Title 

2790 Power of Attorney 2 

9/08/2012 

Mindarie Regional Council - Constitution 

Agreement Deed of Variation 1 

. 






Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 priority 

area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of open and transparent governance. 







required. 




That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to 

the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.131 ENVIRO 2012 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION 


To provide details of the Enviro 2012 Conference and Exhibition attended by Mayor Withers. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Mayor recently attended the Enviro 2012 Conference and Exhibition in Adelaide from 25 

to 27 July 2012 in his capacity as a Councillor of the Mindarie Regional Council. 

DETAILS: 

In accordance with Council Policy No. 1.1.3, Elected Members and Staff are required to 

circulate a report containing any information or material of interest or relevance to Elected 

Members within a period of six weeks following attendance at the conference. Although the 

Mayor was not attending the conference as a Town of Cambridge representative, he has 

nevertheless decided to prepare a report for Council. 

A report submitted by the Mayor is attached for Elected Members' information. 


Policy No. 1.1.3 - Conference Attendance - Representation and Expenses. 




Attendance at the Enviro 2012 Conference was in accordance with the Town's goals to 

provide:- 

• Environmentally sustainable practices for the Town's operations; and 

• Informed decision making. 




required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Enviro 2012 Conference Report. 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report by the Mayor relating to his attendance at the Enviro 2012 Conference 

and Exhibition be received; and 

the following recommendations contained in the Mayor's report be submitted to 

the appropriate Committee for consideration: 

(a) 

(b) 

supply of low cost kitchen recycling bins to properties; 

review of Green Waste Bin collections to include kitchen organics. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.132 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - JULY 2012 


To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. 

DETAILS: 

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires 

a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques 

raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal 

Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a 

listing of all payments issued for the past month. 


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. 


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. 


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan key 

outcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation 

Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them 

in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Account Payment Listing 







That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and 

attached, be confirmed: 

(i) 

CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Municipal Fund 01-July-2012 02-July-2012 044229 - 044234 $1,491.85 





Golf Course 01-July-2012 31-July-2012 000176 -000181 $1,501.41 

Total Cheque Payments $1,079,551.14 

(ii) 

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 01-July-2012 31-July-2012 INV00414 - INV00418 $2,500,000.00 

Direct Bank Charges 01-July-2012 31-July-2012 Sup 154 - Sup 156 $83,231.28 

Accounts Payable 01-July-2012 05-July-2012 E 7315 - E7413 $349,271.28 

Accounts Payable 06-July-2012 11-July-2012 E 7414 - E 7488 $321,278.86 



Accounts Payable 30-July-2012 30-July-2012 E 7617 - E7618 $227,616.42 

Golf Course 01-July-2012 19-July-2012 E00136 - E00137 $52,855.38 



Payroll 01-July-2012 31-July-2012 Pay 440 - Pay 451 $1,616,066.64 

Total EFT Payments $5,767,415.15 

Carried 9/0 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $6,846,966.29 




CR12.133 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - JULY 2012 


To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds 

and the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment 

products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to 

maturity guidelines as set out in the policy. 

DETAILS: 

Investment Portfolio Performance 

At its August 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to maintain the cash rate 

at 3.50% for a second month. 

The Reserve Bank observed that global growth has weakened after having picked up in 

early 2012. The European economy continues to remain weak although on a brighter note 

China's slow down in economic growth appears to have stopped. 

On the domestic front, the Australian economy's growth is close to trend, the labour market 

experienced moderate growth and the unemployment rate remains low. Retail sales over 

the past few months have surged and business credit growth has been strong since early 

2012. Given these positive economic trends, the Reserve Bank has decided to keep interest 

rates on hold although some of the major Australian banks economists believe that further 

interest rate cuts will be made in the coming months 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term 

of three months are around 4.8% with the major banks. Interest rates for securities for 

periods six months are around 4.85%. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 

day period) was 3.50% for July 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure 

of future interest rates) was 3.58% at 31 July 2012. As the Council’s investment portfolio is 

predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 3.50% for July 2012 is the more 

appropriate performance measure. 

Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash 

rate with a weighted average interest rate of 5.38%. The weighted average investment 

period of 142 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates 

(with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 4.8%. 




Investment Portfolio Performance for July 2012 

The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for 

the 12 month period July 2011 to July 2012. 

Interest Rates 

7.00 

Investment Performance 

For July 2011 to July 2012 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate 

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of 

the Town's investment portfolio, since July 2009. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For July 2009 to July 2012 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 




The total investment at the end of July 2012 is $18.7 million which consists of Municipal 

Funds of $5.8 million, Reserve Funds of $2.3 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $9.4 

million and Trust Funds of $1.2 million. The graph below represents the total investment 

portfolio of the Town from July 2011 to July 2012. 

30 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Millions 

Investment Portfolio 

Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 Jun 12 Jul 12 

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal 




The investment performance as at the end of July 2012 is as follows: 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

July 2012 

Income 

Total Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

Floating Rate Notes . 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 3.95% $3,114 $933,546 4.99% 

Sub-total $3,114 $933,546 4.99% 

Term Deposits and Bank Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 5.97% $2,799 $570,008 3.05% 

ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 5.98% $5,079 $1,034,078 5.53% 

ING - Term Deposit matured $825 0.00% 

ING - Term Deposit matured $825 0.00% 

ING - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 6.05% $8,735 $1,729,869 9.25% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit matured $749 0.00% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 92 "A1+" 5.10% $2,513 $584,805 3.13% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit matured $66 0.00% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.85% $411 $84,925 0.45% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.20% $2,250 $513,091 2.74% 

NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.19% $10,285 $2,356,142 12.60% 

NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.02% $3,618 $853,592 4.57% 





WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.00% $4,371 $1,037,226 5.55% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit matured $2,595 0.00% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.10% $6,010 $1,193,732 6.38% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.08% $2,714 $752,714 4.03% 


WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 5.20% $748 $250,748 1.34% 


StGeorge - Term Deposit matured $591 0.00% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit matured $3,378 0.00% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 120 "A1" 5.77% $3,765 $780,357 4.17% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 5.85% $9,937 $2,032,055 10.87% 

Sub-total $86,510 $17,764,040 95.01% 

79.97% 

Total Investments $89,624 $18,697,585 100.00% 

Weighted Average 142 5.38% 


The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the 

guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment. 





Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and 

it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. 

Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. 

The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each 

individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is 

provided below: 

Budget 

2011/2012 

Actual as at 

July 2011 % 

Budget 

2012/2013 

Actual as at 

July 2012 % 

General * $677,000 $44,954 6.6% $637,400 $39,455 6.2% 

Reserves $100,000 $10,429 10.4% $165,000 $9,758 5.9% 

Endowment Lands $659,900 $44,540 6.7% $550,000 $44,276 8.1% 

Total Investments $1,436,900 $99,923 7.0% $1,352,400 $93,489 6.9% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $3,865. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity 

to Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity 

to Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - July 2012 




That the Investment Schedule as at 31 July 2012 forming part of the Notice Paper be 

received. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.134 YEAR END REVIEW FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2011/2012 

PURPOSE: 

To report on the year end actual results as against revised budget for the 2011/2012 

financial year consistent with good governance principles and the requirements of the Local 

Government Act. 

BACKGROUND: 

The pre-audit financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2012 have been produced 

and a report centred around the rate setting statement produced, highlighting the major 

variations. 

Whilst the financial statements are nearing finalisation, depreciation adjustments for 

infrastructure assets are yet to be booked, some expenditures are to be reclassified from 

operating to capital and a small number of infrastructure assets need to be written off. 

However, these adjustments will not affect the surplus position which is currently $180K. 

DETAILS: 

The following commentary should be read in conjunction with the comparative Rate Setting 

Statement and End of Financial Year Report contained in attachment one. 

Operations 

The result from operations is $2 million compared to a revised budget of $2.8 million, giving 

a variance of $728k. The variance is a culmination of a mixture of favourable and 

unfavourable operational area results. A brief overview is a follows and more detail can be 

found in the attached schedule to this agenda: 

• The unfavourable variance of $425k in fees and charges is mainly attributable to a 

decline in fee revenue from the Wembley Golf Course; 

• The favourable variance of $637k for operating grants, subsidies and contributions is 

a result of having received $481k of the general purpose grant in advance. 

• The favourable variance of $102k from interest earnings is due to a combination of 

accessing higher interest rates and an increase in funds available for investment. 

• The unfavourable variance of $1.6 million on gains on disposal of assets is due to 

less than anticipated gains on disposal of residential land. 

• The favourable variance of $706k for materials and contracts is due to a number of 

programmes, non capital and capital projects having been carried forward to the 

2012/2013 financial year. It is also partially due to a number of services at the 

Wembley Golf Course and Quarry Amphitheatre having been brought in house as 

opposed to being contracted out. 




• The unfavourable variance of $515k for employee costs is mainly offset by the 

favourable variance in materials and contracts expenditure, resulting from a shift in 

the delivery of services from contracted services to in-house at the Wembley Golf 

Course and Quarry Amphitheatre. 

• The favourable variance of $63k for interest expense is due to lower variable interest 

rates on the $11 million commercial loan for the Wembley Golf Course. 

• The favourable variance of $309k on loss of disposal of assets is due to 

infrastructure assets replaced during the year not as yet having been written off or 

disposed of. 

Capital Revenue 

Capital revenue from non operating grants and contributions is $773k more than budget, 

predominantly due to a capital grant of $1 million received from State Government towards 

Wembley Sports Park (Stage1) not budgeted for. 

Capital Expenditure 

Capital expenditure as at 30 June 2012, excluding land purchases, is $9 million against 

revised budget of $13.5 million giving a variance of $4.5 million. The majority of this variance 

relates to capital projects not commenced or which are in progress, such as the City Beach 

Pavilion renewal. These projects have been re-budgeted in FYE 2013. 

Reserve and Endowment Lands Account Transfers 

The net draw down on reserves and Endowment Lands Account is $194k. 

The transfer to reserves is $522k less than budget due to proceeds from Harding Lane 

subdivision delayed to 2012/2013. 

Transfer to Endowment Lands Account is below budget by $941k due to one Ocean Mia lot 

remaining unsold at year end. Draw downs on the Endowment Lands Account are below 

budget by $1.2 million due to a number of major ELA funded projects in progress and being 

carried forward into 2012/2013 such as the City Beach Pavilion upgrade ($450k unspent) 

and Quarry Amphitheatre Upgrade ($384k unspent). 

Closing (Municipal) Funds Carried Forward 

Municipal-funded carried forward projects of $2.95 million have been identified for the 

2012/2013 financial year. The notes to and forming part of the 2011/2012 summarised 

statement of financial activity detail the main programs, non capital and capital projects 

being carried forward. Add to this the unspent grants received in advance of $1.42 million 

and the total carried forward municipal funds become $4.37 million. 

Surplus/(Deficit) 

The final surplus for the 2011/2012 year is $180k, which is transferred to the Plant Reserve. 





The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 

34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared 

identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this 

requirement. 


The projected budget for year end indicates a surplus position of $180k which has been 

transferred to the Plant Reserve. 


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring the Town's expenditure is matched by its revenue. 



with the assessment criteria, it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is 

required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. End of Financial Year Report 

2. FYE 2012 Financial Statements 




That the report on the review of 2011/2012 financial year be received and the 

variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.135 AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 2013 


To amend the Budget for the year ending 30 June 2013 as a result of finalising year end 

revenues and expenditures and carried forward funds. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council adopted the FYE 2013 budget at the July ordinary Council Meeting. The budget 

report noted that the comparative estimates for the FYE 2012 were still subject to a number 

of year end adjustments and that an update would be provided to Council. 

This report provides an update and suggests amending the budget as a result. 

DETAILS: 

In the 2013 Budget, the estimated closing funds to be carried forward from the FYE 2012 is 

$4,594,500, with a small budget surplus of $19,000 for the year. 

As a result of settling the year end revenues and expenditures, and reviewing carried 

forward works, the following has occurred: 

• closing funds to be carried forward are now $4,373,600 a $221,000 reduction from 

the previous estimate, which effectively adds to the surplus. 

• A further accrual of $60,000 into FYE 2012 for capital expenditure on IT Equipment 

has been provisioned due to a late invoice being received. This reduces the surplus. 

This is a net change of $161,000, which when added to the previous surplus of $19,000 

produces a current surplus of $180,000. This has been transferred to the Plant Reserve, 

consistent with the decision of Council at the July Meeting. 

The table below details the carried forward works amended as a result of the review. Council 

is asked to endorse the amendments to the budget. 




CARRIED FORWARD WORKS 

C/Fwd 

(Change) 

Original 

Budget 

2013 

Amended 

Budget 

2013 

1. Corporate Style Guide -$1,400 $5,400 $4,000 

2. Organisational Training & Development -$13,200 $13,200 0 

3. Financial Services - Consultants -$5,000 $5,000 0 

4. Town Planning Scheme Review -$16,000 $116,000 $100,000 

5. Travel Smart Initiatives -$2,000 $48,000 $46,000 

6. Swimming Pool Inspection Expenses -$33,500 $140,500 $107,000 

7. Traffic Signals - Disability access -$23,400 $23,400 0 

8. Temporary Office Accommodation -$9,500 $27,500 $18,000 

9. Admin Computers - Replace -$10,500 $10,500 0 

10. Art Acquisition -$8,000 $8,000 0 

11. Wembley Golf Course Enhanced Walking Trail -$1,000 $18,000 $17,000 

12. Jersey Street (Cambridge - Grantham) -$1,000 $28,000 $27,000 

13. Drainage - Cambridge/Selby underground sump -$28,000 $170,000 $142,000 

14. West Coast Highway Footpaths -$10,000 $200,000 $190,000 

15. Grantham Street (Selby to Crosby) -$13,500 $13,500 0 

16. Southport Street (Tower to Lake Monger Dr) -$27,000 $27,000 0 

17. Holyrood Pavilion -$3,000 $108,000 $105,000 

18. UPS for print room -$15,000 $15,000 0 

-$221,000 

An amended rate setting statement and carried forward works schedule is shown in the 

attachments. 

A final request is made to amend the budget descriptions for bore and pump 

development/maintenance, which reflects the reprogramming of the bore maintenance 

program, as follows: 

Details Budget Adjustment Amended 

Budget 

Bent Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 31 $16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Winmarley Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 42 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

Holyrood Park - Service Pump 191 $9,000 ($9,000) $0 

Ocean Mia Park - Service Pump 3 $0 $9,000 $9,000 

Perry Lakes Reserve - Develop Bore/Service Pump 43 $16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Birkdale Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 14 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

The Boulevard Median - Develop Bore/Service Pump 

26 

$16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Lothian Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 33 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

Vincent St Median - Develop Bore/Service Pump 188 $16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Taworri Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 15 $0 $16,000 $16,000 





The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 

34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared 

identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this 

requirement. 


The budget outlines the financial plans for the Town over the next twelve months. The 

budget contains estimated revenue and expenditure and once adopted is monitored 

throughout the year. 


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation 

Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them 

in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Rate Setting Statement 

2. Carried Forward Works Schedule 




That:- 

(i) the closing funds carried forward from the financial year ending 30 June 2012, 

into the 2012/2013 budget, be amended from $4,594,500 to $4,373,600 and the 

carried forward works schedule, contained in the 2012/2013 budget be amended 

in accordance with the following table: 




CARRIED FORWARD WORKS 

C/Fwd 

(Change) 

Original 

Budget 

2013 

Amended 

Budget 

2013 

1. Corporate Style Guide -$1,400 $5,400 $4,000 

2. Organisational Training & Development -$13,200 $13,200 0 

3. Financial Services - Consultants -$5,000 $5,000 0 

4. Town Planning Scheme Review -$16,000 $116,000 $100,000 

5. Travel Smart Initiatives -$2,000 $48,000 $46,000 

6. Swimming Pool Inspection Expenses -$33,500 $140,500 $107,000 

7. Traffic Signals - Disability access -$23,400 $23,400 0 

8. Temporary Office Accommodation -$9,500 $27,500 $18,000 

9. Admin Computers - Replace -$10,500 $10,500 0 

10. Art Acquisition -$8,000 $8,000 0 

11. Wembley Golf Course Enhanced Walking Trail -$1,000 $18,000 $17,000 

12. Jersey Street (Cambridge - Grantham) -$1,000 $28,000 $27,000 

13. Drainage - Cambridge/Selby underground sump -$28,000 $170,000 $142,000 

14. West Coast Highway Footpaths -$10,000 $200,000 $190,000 

15. Grantham Street (Selby to Crosby) -$13,500 $13,500 0 

16. Southport Street (Tower to Lake Monger Dr) -$27,000 $27,000 0 

17. Holyrood Pavilion -$3,000 $108,000 $105,000 

18. UPS for print room -$15,000 $15,000 0 

TOTAL -$221,000 

(ii) the transfer of the resulting $180,000 surplus for the financial year ending 30 

June 2012 to the Plant Reserve be noted; 

(iii) 

the budget descriptions for bore and pump maintenance be amended for the 

following items:- 

Details Budget Adjustment Amended 

Budget 

Bent Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 31 $16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Winmarley Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 42 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

Holyrood Park - Service Pump 191 $9,000 ($9,000) $0 

Ocean Mia Park - Service Pump 3 $0 $9,000 $9,000 

Perry Lakes Reserve - Develop Bore/Service Pump 43 $16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Birkdale Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 14 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

The Boulevard Median - Develop Bore/Service Pump 

26 

$16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Lothian Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 33 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

Vincent St Median - Develop Bore/Service Pump 188 $16,000 ($16,000) $0 

Taworri Park - Develop Bore/Service Pump 15 $0 $16,000 $16,000 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.136 CITY OF PERTH SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - AGREEMENT FOR 

REDEVELOPMENT AND LEASE OF PREMISESS 


To seek a variation to the Agreement, endorsed by Council at its meeting in February 2012, 

between the Town and the Surf Club for the redevelopment and subsequent lease of the surf 

club premises. 

BACKGROUND: 

Previous reports to Council refer: 

Surf Club Redevelopment 

• 28 September 2010 Item CR 10.12, Surf Club Redevelopment - Integral and Pracsys 

Report 

• 20 December 2011 Item 10.2, Appointment of Architectural Services. 

• 26 June 2012, concept plan for the surf club and commercial premises 

Community Facilities Lease 

• 19 April 2011, Item CR 10.2, Adoption of Community Facilities (leasing) Policy and 

the standard lease. 

• 23 August 2011, Item 10.1, Community Grants to the Surf Clubs (incorporated in the 

lease) 

• 28 February 2012, Agreement for Redevelopment and Lease. 

At the February 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting, a report was submitted regarding a 

proposed Agreement for Redevelopment and Lease of the City Beach Surf Club to which the 

City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club (COPSLSC) sought a number of provisions. Some of the 

provisions were agreed, others were rejected. Council decided that: 

"the Agreement and Lease for the redevelopment of the City of Perth Surf Life Saving 

Club premises as attached be approved with the following amendments: 

(a) 

(b) 

the Agreement, Definitions, Temporary Premises - Add a Clause (c) 'to enable 

the Club to operate'; 

the Lease, Clause 10.1 Permitted Use, Add 'programs aimed at health, fitness, 

well being and personal development'; 

noting that the clauses specific to the fit out of the new premises will be subject to 

change and contingent on the outcomes of the business case; 

the City of Perth Surf Club's request to amend or include: 

• New Premises - 'like for like' external areas 

• Term - Option to renew 

• 5 Yearly Review of Maintenance Contributions - capped 

• Non-Compete Provision 

not be agreed." 




DETAILS: 

Subsequent to the February Council Meeting, the Town has been progressing the design 

concept for the project and has continued discussions with the COPSLSC. The Club have 

revised their own business plan and it is apparent that they view the gym as a major 

component that will not only service its life saving members, but also bring additional 

revenue from Associate Membership that can offset the costs of better fitness and training 

facilities. 

The Club has continued to seek a non-compete clause from the Town relating to the gym, 

and given that the Town has no plans to develop, operate or lease a gym in the vicinity, it is 

a request that may be conceded by the Town. If the Council were to agree, it would be 

drafted such that if the Club cease to provide a Gym at any point in time (to associate 

members and the public), then the non-compete clause would lapse. 

The Club has also sought an option to extend the lease at the end of the term, given that the 

COPSLSC is looking at a significant investment on its part. The Town has reiterated it would 

not provide an option exercisable by the Club, but would consider a term which signifies a 

commitment to negotiate an extension in good faith. 

Council's approval is sought to draft amended terms reflecting the above for inclusion in the 

Agreement to Redevelop and Lease and the Lease itself. 


The recommendations made in this report are considered an integral part of the community 

facilities leasing policy. 


The commitment by the Town to the Surf Club component of this project is $4.5 million. The 

leasing policy would see a $25,000 contribution from the Club and $50,000 from the Town 

annually based on a 1,480m² building. 


This is a key strategic initiative for the Town as outlined in the Strategic Plan. The Town is 

aiming to provide community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained. 

Its intent is to develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets 

to ensure their sustainability for future generations. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 







That the Agreement and Lease for the redevelopment and lease of the City of Perth 

Surf Life Saving Club premises be amended to incorporate: 

(i) 

(ii) 

a non compete clause relating to the Gym, such that the Town would agree not 

to permit the activity of a Gym on its land within 500 meters of the surf club 

premises, and if the Club ceases to provide a Gym at any point in time (to 

Associate Members and/or the public) that the non compete clause will lapse; 

and 

a clause to signify an intent to negotiate an extension or a new lease on expiry. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.137 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CLANCY'S FISH BAR 


To seek approval (as the Landlord) for building modifications at Clancy's Fish Bar, City 

Beach to incorporate a new cool room and freezer. 

BACKGROUND: 

Clancy's Fish Bar lease an area of 1763 m² from the Town at a base rent of $79,553 per 

annum, plus threshold rent based on turnover over the threshold. The lease expires March 

2031. 

Following completion of the fit out and alteration works for the café at Clancy's Fish Bar 

(northern section of the premises), which opened for business on 18 December 2011, it was 

noted that two portable temporary cool rooms remained on site. It was anticipated that the 

two portable cool rooms would be removed once the building fit out and alterations had been 

completed. 

The Town issued a notice to the Directors of Clancy's Fish Bar notifying them to remove the 

two temporary cool rooms and subsequently met with the Director's to discuss the issue, 

where it was proposed to construct a permanent cool room and freezer, the subject of this 

report. 

DETAILS: 

Since taking over operations, Clancy's have doubled the turnover and now require an 

additional cool room and freezer space for their operations. They propose to construct a cool 

room and freezer to seamlessly integrate into the existing structure, utilising the same 

building materials. 

The Town has been provided with drawings on 29 May 2012 (see attached) for approval by 

Council under the lease and also to seek approval from the Western Australian Planning 

Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. 

The modifications are to be constructed within the boundary of the existing lease area and in 

this regard will have no impact over the existing lease agreement. 

In addition, Clancy's have expressed a desire to undertake modifications to the car park, 

footpath and landscaped areas forming the service area of the building to provide improved 

amenity. However, the Town has suggested deferring any planning until a master plan for 

the area is completed. This will be undertaken in conjunction with the Surf Club and 

commercial facilities redevelopment project. 

The application is supported as it would not detract from the amenity, is contained within the 

lease area and will assist the operator to maintain a satisfactory level of service. 





Approvals are required from the West Australian Planning Commission, and from the Town 

Building Regulator and Landlord. Specifically, the lease provides that: 

"The Tenant will not make or allow any alterations or additions to be made to the 

Premises or the Improvements including fire sprinklers, air conditioning or plumbing 

and electrical installations unless the alterations or additions are carried out in 

accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by the Landlord… The 

approval and supervision will be at the cost of the Tenant." 


Since taking over the business, Clancy's have significantly increased its turnover and the 

Town is benefiting from an increase in threshold rent over and above the base rent of 

approximately $70,000 - $80,000. 


The proposed modifications to Clancy's Fish bar will continue to provide services that bring 

people together and improve the amenity of the Town's main beaches and reserves. 


The proposal has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is 

required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Detailed Working Drawings 

2. Lease and Licence Plan 




That the Chief Executive Officer, subject to his satisfaction, be authorised to approve 

the modifications to the leased premises (otherwise know as Clancy's Fish Bar) in 

accordance with Clause 7.1 of the lease and subject to the relevant statutory 

approvals being obtained. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.138 CAMBRIDGE COASTCARE PROPOSAL - CITY BEACH BIOLINC PROJECT 


To consider a proposal submitted by Cambridge Coastcare for a BioLINC project 

(Landscape Integration for Natural Connections) for City Beach based on funding provided 

by the federal government's Biodiversity Fund and Lotterywest. 

BACKGROUND: 

Cambridge Coastcare is a community group established by Council in 1999 to assist in 

managing, monitoring and protection of the environment and recreation values of the 

coastline in the Town. Councillor Walker is the Town's current representative on the 

Coastcare Committee. 

Coastcare have submitted a proposal to reconnect the north and south coastal dunes at City 

Beach to assist biodiversity links and develop more sustainable, community-friendly 

landscapes. The proposal is based on the BioLINC project (Landscape Integration for 

Natural Connections) "Connecting People with Nature". This project will seek funding from 

the federal government and Lotterywest. 

The BioLINC project proposes to link interpretive trails and restoration that includes building 

new dunes, restoring native vegetation in degraded areas and providing a world-class coast 

walking opportunity. Coastcare states that this will be one of the largest biodiversity 

programmes undertaken in an Australian capital city coastal area and will be a showcase for 

the community and visitors. 

Coastcare representatives gave a presentation of the BioLINC project at the Community and 

Resources Committee meeting held on 16 July 2012. 

DETAILS: 

A copy of the BioLINC project proposal submitted by Coastcare is attached. 

The proposal has been updated since being presented to the July 2012 Community and 

Resources Committee which proposed to "break" Challenger Parade from the southern City 

Beach car park south to Boscombe Avenue to allow for a dunal vegetated connection. The 

current proposal no longer shows a "break" in Challenger Parade but highlights the area as 

well as a section of Oceanic Drive to develop a solution to improve the biodiversity crossing 

of these roads. 

Coastcare also propose that all funding would be sourced through sponsorship and grants 

including approaches to Lotterywest and the federal government's Biodiversity Fund. 

Coastcare state that the project will be no cost to the Town with savings in water and 

maintenance costs. 

The proposal indicates the development costs are estimated to be $1.5m to $2m to be 

implemented over a three year period. However, Coastcare have advised that they propose 

to apply for funding in the November/December 2012 round of the federal government's 




Biodiversity Fund for $2.5m. Planning is proposed for 2013 with construction commencing in 

2014. 

The background to the Town's 5.2km costal zone and specifics concerning the values of the 

project are detailed in the attached Coastcare submission. Discussion in this report will 

focus on the key features of the plan and the impacts on the area from the Town's 

perspective. Consideration will also need to be given to the Town's City Beach 

Development Plan adopted by Council on 23 November 2004 and the current Surf Club and 

Commercial Facilities development project being undertaken by the Town. 

1. New Multi-Use Coastal Trail to the Northern Dune Boardwalk 

A trail is proposed through the dunes on the east side of the Challenger Parade from the 

north side of the car park to connect to the northern dune boardwalk on the west side of 

Challenger Parade The trail would provide pedestrian access through this area and may 

incorporate a cycleway. 

This feature of the plan is supported subject to the integration of the shared path on the 

east side of Challenger Parade proposed in the Town's City Beach Development Plan. 

The plan should also be cognisant of passive surveillance to the new coastal trails. 

2. Extension of Dunes Across Western Edge of Car Park 

The project proposes that the western edge of the large car park on the eastern side of 

Challenger Parade is removed and replaced with a dune to provide a biodiversity link 

between the dune systems on the north and south of this car park. It is understood the 

plan is to reconfigure the car park so there is no net loss in the number of car parking 

bays but this needs to be clarified. 

The accessibility and availability of this car park to the beach precinct is essential to 

cater for beach users. It is also important that there is direct pedestrian access and clear 

line of sight to the new surf club, café/restaurants and public park proposed for City 

Beach. In addition, a traffic and parking study will be undertaken for that development 

that may impact the parking requirements in this area. In order to ensure that there is 

adequate accessible parking for the beach precinct, it is proposed that the dune link be 

created in the middle of the car park on the eastern side of Challenger Paraded and that 

there be no net loss of car parking bays with replacement bays constructed taking into 

account the need for beach parking. 

3. New Multi-Use Coastal Trail through Existing Dune (Oceanic Drive to Car Park on 

East Side of Challenger Parade). 

Similar to Item 1, a network of trails is proposed through this dune area connecting the 

car park to Oceanic Drive, providing pedestrian and possibly cycle access through this 

area. 

This section of the plan is supported provided the parking arrangements as detailed in 

Item 2 above are accommodated. The plan shall be cognisant of passive surveillance to 

the new coastal trails. 




4. Public Bio-Sculpture Opportunity 

The BioLINC project proposes a Bio-Sculpture in the recently constructed roundabout on 

the corner of Oceanic Drive and Challenger Parade. 

The Town supports public art in this location and will incorporate significant public art on 

the roundabout as part of the Surf Club and commercial development at City Beach. 

Therefore the sculpture should not form part of the BioLINC project. 

5. Bold Park Biological Link 

It is proposed to revegetate the verges of Oceanic Drive from Challenger Parade (on the 

north side of Jubilee Park and south side of City Beach Oval) through to West Coast 

Highway. 

This proposal is supported. 

6. Revegetation of Median Strip (Oceanic Drive) 

The proposal to revegetate the median strip along Oceanic Drive between Branksome 

Gardens and West Coast Highway is supported. 

7. Biodiversity Crossing and Flow Across Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive 

The proposal indicates that a solution to this biodiversity crossing is to be planned. The 

initial proposal to the Community and Resources Committee in July 2012 proposed that 

sections of Challenger Parade and Jubilee Crescent be closed to provide for this 

crossing. This is no longer shown in the proposal, however, Coastcare have indicated 

that a solution is required that is yet to be determined. 

Ideally, options should be listed for the community to better understand what is likely to 

be considered. The road closures proposed in the initial plan are not supported and any 

options considered will need to be subject to the outcomes of the traffic and parking 

impact statement being prepared for the Surf Club and commercial development at City 

Beach. 

8. Jubilee Park through to Boscombe Avenue Dune Creation with Vegetation and 

Coastal Trail 

The proposal shows approximately 40% of the existing grassed area to be converted to 

a dune system with vegetation and a coastal trail. 

Jubilee Park is predominantly, if not exclusively, used for passive recreation and the 

existing grassed area may be too large for the current uses. The new dune system will 

reduce the grassed area to be watered and maintained and would be consistent with the 

Town's overall ecozoning strategy for its parklands to reduce its reliance on groundwater 

use. The proposed landscape strategy for Jubilee Park through to Boscombe Avenue 

can be supported in principle, however, community support through consultation will be 

essential for this part of the project to proceed. It is considered that community support 

would only be achieved if any planting and dune construction did not affect any existing 

beach and ocean views. 




Consideration will need to be given to how this area integrates with the Town's Surf Club 

and commercial facilities development with specific attention to the traffic and parking 

impacts. As part of the study into traffic and parking, consideration will need to be given 

to the forecast parking demand created by the new commercial facilities as will the 

greater use of the more functional open space that will be created as part of the 

development. It is likely that there will be a need for more parking spaces within a 200m 

to 250m radius of the new facilities. The landscaping proposal for Jubilee Park may 

provide an opportunity to reconfigure the existing car parks on Challenger Parade at this 

location. 

Comment 

The project, as proposed by Coastcare, would result in creating a much improved natural 

environment at City Beach that can achieve biodiversity outcomes, is accessible to the 

public and aesthetically pleasing. The challenges will be to ensure the final outcome is 

acceptable to the community and integrates with the current and future uses of the beach 

precinct. 

Coastcare plan to source the funding, seek approvals and manage the implementation of the 

project. By necessity, the Town will need to be involved in the approval of the project scope 

and oversee the co-ordination of the works, particularly as it affects the management of the 

Town's infrastructure eg. irrigation, car parks, paths etc. The Town does not have the 

resources at this time to manage this project due to its commitments to existing projects 

across the Town. 




Coastcare have proposed to source all the funding for this project through Lotterywest and 

the federal government's Biodiversity Fund. It is initially proposed to apply to the federal 

government as part of their November/December 2012 funding round for $2.5 million. The 

Town does not have any funds allocated for this project in its 2012/2013 Budget. 


The proposal is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 as follows: 

1. A wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities. 

• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

• Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; 

• Encourage a wide range of recreational pursuits. 

2. Services which meet the needs of our ratepayers, residents and visitors. 

• Develop partnerships with other service providers, aiming to improve delivery and 

quality of services. 

3. Environmentally sustainable practices for the Town's operations 

• Reducing our water consumption and improving the water quality; 

• Protecting and enhancing biodiversity. 





This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 which 

determines that the project would fit into the "Consult" category. There are elements of the 

BioLINC project that would generate significant public interest and it is expected that there 

would be general support for the environmental and recreational outcomes proposed. 

However, some of the initiatives may impact on the residents that live in close proximity to 

some of the project areas such as the Jubilee Park dune development through to Boscombe 

Avenue and any changes to traffic and parking arrangements. 

Coastcare have advised that they will manage this project therefore Coastcare should 

undertake the consultation process and demonstrate community support for the project. It is 

proposed that the following consultation mechanisms should occur: 

1. Information circulated about the project to all the households in South City Beach; 

2. A public information session be held; 

3. Advertised in the local media with links to relevant website information about the project; 

4. Feedback forms provided canvassing key parts of the project; 

5. Other stakeholders such as the users of City Beach Oval, City of Perth Surf Lifesaving 

Club and restaurant operators at City Beach be consulted; and 

6. Consultation undertaken over a four week period. 

SUMMARY: 

Cambridge Coastcare have submitted a proposal to implement a BioLINK project at City 

Beach that will result in enhancing the biodiversity of the area by creating a dune connection 

from north to south with coastal trails for access. It is proposed that the project of 

approximately $2.5m will be fully funded from grant sources and that Cambridge Coastcare 

will manage the implementation of the project. 

There are various aspects of the project that require further consideration and it is proposed 

to endorse the concept subject to modifications as outlined in the recommendation. Part of 

the modifications required relate to the integration of this project with the Town's Surf Club 

and commercial facilities development at City Beach and specifically related to traffic and 

parking. The Town will shortly be undertaking a traffic and parking study in relation to that 

project that will inform the Town's needs for the beach precinct in this regard. 

It is essential that the community and other stakeholders are informed of this project and 

their feedback obtained before finally approving the concept. It is recommended that 

Cambridge Coastcare undertake this consultation under the guidance of Council officers. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Coastcare BioLINC Project Proposal 

2. City Beach Development Plan adopted 23 November 2004. 







That:- 

(i) 

the proposal submitted by Cambridge Coastcare for the City Beach BioLINC 

project detailed in the attachment be endorsed as a concept subject to various 

modifications and conditions as follows: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

dune and coastal trail to the northern dune boardwalk being integrated 

with the proposed shared path on the east side of Challenger Parade as 

detailed in the Town's City Beach Development Plan; 

all new coastal trails to give adequate consideration to passive 

surveillance; 

clarification on which of these coastal trails incorporate a shared path for 

bicycle use; 

the extension of the dune system through the car park on the east side of 

Challenger Parade be relocated to cross in the centre of the car park and 

there be no net loss of car parking bays, with the reconfigured car park and 

replacement car bays being consistent with the parking requirements of 

the beach precinct to be determined in the traffic and parking study for the 

Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach; 

the sculpture in the roundabout at the corner of Oceanic Drive and 

Challenger Parade not forming part of the BioLINC project; 

the options being considered to provide a biodiversity crossing across 

Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive to be provided to the community 

during the consultation phase; 

any proposal to close Challenger Parade to traffic not be supported and 

will be subject to a traffic and parking study for the Surf Club and 

commercial facilities development at City Beach; 

the dune and landscape strategy for Jubilee Park through to Boscombe 

Avenue be subject to resident support and to ensure that any plantings 

and dune construction do not obstruct existing beach and ocean views for 

residents; 

consideration being given to the integration of the Jubilee Park dune and 

landscape strategy with the Surf Club and commercial facilities 

development at City Beach as it relates to traffic and parking; 

Cambridge Coastcare undertake the public consultation detailed in this 

report under the guidance of officers of the Town; 




(ii) it be noted that Cambridge Coastcare will apply in the November/December 2012 

round of the federal government's Biodiversity Fund for $2.5 million to 

undertake the City Beach BioLINC project over a three year period; and 

(iii) 

prior to the funding submission outlined in (ii) being made, the City Beach 

BioLINC project being modified to incorporate the items in (i) above. 

Carried 9/0 




10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

10.1 LOT 1107 (NO. 36) DODD STREET, WEMBLEY - TELETHON SPEECH AND 

HEARING CENTRE - PARKING AND LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL FOR DODD STREET 

SUMMARY: 

The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre (TSH) has submitted two options for the provision of 

car parking in Dodd street in response to Council's June decision on the matter. 

The preferred option of TSH is to maintain the pedestrian link and landscape feature to Lake 

Monger and provide 89 car bays. The second option allows for 97 car bays to be provided. It 

is considered that the second option could be supported subject to the number of bays being 

increased to 100. This can be achieved by providing 3 additional parallel bays in the north side 

(verge) of Dodd Street. 

In addition, the plan would need to be modified to include a continuous 1.8metre wide footpath 

on the north side of Dodd Street along the full width of the TSH site frontage. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Town of Cambridge 

Applicant: Denney Building Design 

Zoning: 

MRS: Parks and Recreation 

Use class: Educational Establishment 

Land area: 23,298 m² 

Council, at its meeting held on 26 June 2012, decided:- 

"That the proposal for landscaping and carparking submitted by the Telethon Speech and 

Hearing Centre be REFUSED because is it inconsistent with the original recommended 

approval to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and the applicant be 

requested to submit a new landscaping and parking plan compliant with the original approval of 

June 2011. 

The Town provides the following advice to TSH:- 

(i) 

condition (iii) of June 2011 approval is clarified thus: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the Town noted that Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre offered to fund the 

construction of 100 car parking bays on the Dodd Street road reserve as their 

“strongly preferred option”. This was in lieu of the parking shortfall generated by the 

proposed development that could not be accommodated on the Telethon Speech 

and Hearing site; 

the Town’s preliminary investigations showed that around 87 bays on Dodd Street 

could be provided, but more design work needed to be done; 

condition (iii) of the original approval was worded to indicate that TSH’s funding and 

construction commitment was capped at 100 bays but implicit in that, was that the 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\August 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 207



TSH would use its best endeavours to create 100 bays or as close to 100 bays as 

practicable. 

(ii) 

the new landscape and parking plan shall have the following:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

a vehicle carriageway of approximately 7 metres is required between Points A and 

B as shown on Plan 1. The Town will agree to move the bollards on the south side 

of Dodd Street further into the Lake Monger Reserve having due regard for the 

protection of existing trees, so that 90 o parking can be accommodated on both sides 

of Dodd Street; 

90 o parking be provided along the entire south side (verge) of Dodd Street between 

Points A and B; 

90 o parking be provided where possible on the north side (verge) of Dodd Street 

between Points A and B; 

after taking into account the moving of the bollards, should there be any sections of 

the north side verge that cannot accommodate 90 o parking due to the geometry of 

the Dodd Street reserve, then that section of verge shall accommodate parallel 

parking if practicable; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

any shortfall between the number of bays provided and 100 be made up by a cash-in-lieu 

contribution at the rate of $3,750 (excl GST) per bay; 

the Town will not agree to occupation until this matter has been resolved to its 

satisfaction; 

the Town will pay to the TSH $120,000 to meet the Town’s commitment to funding the 

road carriageway component of the construction. 

the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that a separate approval is required 

from the Town under clause 2(i) of the lease between the Town of Cambridge and the 

Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre for any works on the leased area and would be in 

accordance with the Town's recommended approval to the WAPC made at its meeting on 

28 June 2011 and the requirements detailed above." 

TSH has submitted two options for parking in Dodd Street in response to Council's decision for 

consideration. 

DETAILS: 

Applicant's Proposal 

Option 1 (their preferred) 

• 89 car bays provided 

• Parking provided on both sides of Dodd Street. 

• Pedestrian link - raised section of paving and landscape treatment in the centre of Dodd 

Street linking the Centre to Lake Monger Reserve. 

• 7.152 metre carriageway (note at one part the plan is dimensioned at 5.5 metres, 

however, this seems to be an error as it scales at 7.152 metres. This will need 

clarification. 

• No pedestrian footpath on northern side. 




• As part of this option, TSH will make available the on-site parking area (20 car parking 

bays) at the eastern end of the site for public use outside business hours and on 

weekends. This carpark would remain unfenced. 

Option 2 

• 97 car bays provided. 

• 90 degree parking provided along entire south side (verge) of Dodd Street. 

• Pedestrian link and landscape feature to Lake Monger removed. 

• No pedestrian footpath proposed on northern side. 

• 7.152 metre carriageway proposed. 

Cash In Lieu 

The applicant is of the opinion that there is no requirement to provide cash-in-lieu in relation to 

the number of bays as the condition states "….up to 100 car parking bays…..". Both options 

arguably provide up to 100 bays 

Cost Sharing 

TSH agrees to accept costs for design and construction of car bays in front of Telethon Speech 

and Hearing Centre, and Town of Cambridge funds the construction, upgrade or widening of 

the Dodd Street carriageway. 

Comment 

Both options have been assessed against Council's decision. 

Option 1 - 89 car bays 

This is the preferred option of TSH as it allows for the pedestrian link and landscape feature to 

Lake Monger to be retained. However, in respect of the decision of Council, the following 

points are made: 

• 89 bays are provided which is 11 bays short of Councils expectation of 100 bays being 

provided; 

• 90 degree parking has not been provided along the entire south side (verge) of Dodd 

Street between Points A and B; 

• Further parking could be provided on the north side (verge of Dodd Street between 

Points A and B; 

• No parallel parking has been provided on the noth side (verge) of Dodd Street 

This option is therefore not supported as it does not satisfy Council's decision. 




Option 2 - 97 car bays 

The main difference in this option is that it removes the pedestrian link and landscape feature to 

Lake Monger which was a significant feature of the landscaping proposal. In respect of the 

decision of Council, the following points are made: 

• 97 bays are provided; 

• 90 degree parking has been provided along the entire south side (verge) of Dodd Street 

between Points A and B; 

• Further parking could be provided on the north side (verge of Dodd Street between Points 

A and B 

• No parallel parking has been provided on the north side (verge) of Dodd Street. 

This option comes close to satisfying Council's decision with the number of parking bays being 

the only outstanding matter. It is considered that 3 additional car bays could be provided along 

the north side (verge) of Dodd Street in a parallel configuration. This would mean a reduction 

on the landscaped verge but could be accommodated. Alternatively, TSH could pay cash-inlieu 

for three bays at a rate of $3,750 (excluding GST) per bay. This payment could go towards 

additional parking that may be provided in the area. Subject to the number of bays being 

increased to 100, this proposal is considered to satisfy Council's decision. 

Pedestrian Pathway 

Both options include a 1.2 metre wide pedestrian path on the north side of Dodd. Prior to 

construction of the new development, there was a 1.2 metre pedestrian path along the verge 

for more than half of the property's frontage to Dodd Street. Attached are aerial photos 

showing this path prior to works and a current photograph. This has since been damaged and 

removed in some parts due to the construction of the development. To the west of the site, 

there is a 1.2 metre path and a 1.8 metre path to the north-east. It is recommended that should 

Council endorse option 2 above, then a 1.8 metre path be included in the design and provided 

for the full extent of the TSH site frontage on the north side (verge) of Dodd Street. The path 

would allow for visitors and public to gain access from the parking area to either the centre or 

the surrounding parks and to walk through the landscaped verge. 

Previously, the Administration recommended that the Town pay TSH the sum of $25,000 for 

the cost of the footpath construction. There was, however, a footpath along over half the site's 

frontage and therefore it may be more reasonable that the Town offers half this amount, 

$12,500, with the TSH being responsible for replacing the path that has been removed during 

the development of the site. 




Funds for Dodd Street upgrade have been included in the draft 2012/2013 budget. 


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

priority area 'Planning for our Community'. 







Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Email from Telethon Speech and Hearing dated 3 August 2012. 

2. Aerial of site pre new construction and under construction. 

3. Landscape Plans 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mr Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability, in 

accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest 

in this matter. 


Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King 

That:- 

(i) 

the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre (TSH) be advised that Council APPROVES 

the parking and landscape proposal Option 2 attached that allows for 97 car 

parking bays subject to the following modifications:- 

(a) 

(b) 

three additional car bays be provided on the north side of Dodd Street in 

parallel configuration; 

a 1.8 metre continuous footpath be provided along the full width of the TSH 

frontage on the north side of Dodd Street; 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the Town accepts the offer by TSH to undertake the designs and construction 

process for Dodd Street, subject to the Town's approval of the design and 

specifications; 

a 1.8 metre wide footpath is to be included in the works on the northern side of the 

verge. The Town will pay to the TSH a sum of $12,500 for the cost of the footpath 

construction; 

the indigenous themed landscaping proposal is accepted in principle. Detailed 

design, however, will need to ensure that necessary safety measures are 

addressed such as: sight lines for vehicles entering and leaving the site, CPTED 

principles of visibility and avoidance of trip hazards; 

on-going maintenance of the proposed landscaping areas that extend into the road 

reserve will be the responsibility of the TSH; 


satisfaction; 

(vii) the Town will pay to the TSH $120,000 to meet the Town’s commitment to funding 

the road carriageway component of the construction; 




(viii) the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that a separate approval is 

required from the Town under clause 2(i) of the lease between the Town of 

Cambridge and the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre for any works on the 

leased area and would be in accordance with the Town's recommended approval to 

the WAPC made at its meeting on 28 June 2011 and the requirements detailed 

above. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King 

That clause (vii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(vii) the Town will pay the TSH the cost of the road carriageway component of the 

construction. 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That clauses (i)(b) and (iii) of the motion be deleted. 

Division of Motions 

During discussion, the Mayor advised that in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing 

Orders, the motion be divided into two separate motions. 

That clause (i)(b) of the motion be deleted. 

Carried 7/2 

For: 

Against: 



That clause (iii) of the motion be deleted. 

Lost 4/5 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Grinceri, King, Langer and MacRae 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Carr, Pelczar and Walker 


That:- 

(i) 

the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre (TSH) be advised that Council APPROVES 

the parking and landscape proposal Option 2 attached that allows for 97 car 

parking bays subject to the following modification:- 

(a) 

three additional car bays be provided on the north side of Dodd Street in 

parallel configuration; 




(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the Town accepts the offer by TSH to undertake the designs and construction 

process for Dodd Street, subject to the Town's approval of the design and 

specifications; 

a 1.8 metre wide footpath is to be included in the works on the northern side of the 

verge. The Town will pay to the TSH a sum of $12,500 for the cost of the footpath 

construction; 

the indigenous themed landscaping proposal is accepted in principle. Detailed 

design, however, will need to ensure that necessary safety measures are 

addressed such as: sight lines for vehicles entering and leaving the site, CPTED 

principles of visibility and avoidance of trip hazards; 

on-going maintenance of the proposed landscaping areas that extend into the road 

reserve will be the responsibility of the TSH; 


satisfaction; 

(vii) the Town will pay the TSH the cost of the road carriageway component of the 

construction. 

(viii) the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that a separate approval is 

required from the Town under clause 2(i) of the lease between the Town of 

Cambridge and the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre for any works on the 

leased area and would be in accordance with the Town's recommended approval to 

the WAPC made at its meeting on 28 June 2011 and the requirements detailed 

above. 

Carried 8/1 

For: 

Against: 


Walker 

Cr Bradley 




11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

12.1 CASH FOR CONTAINERS SCHEME FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 

Submission by Cr Bradley 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Town of Cambridge supports the immediate introduction of a Cash for 

Containers Scheme for Western Australia; 

Council considers that a Cash for Containers Scheme will have the following 

benefits for our Town by: 

• Reducing litter 

• Increasing the recycling rate 

• Providing community benefits, such as a funding source for community 

groups, and, 

• Making the Polluter Pay: with a Cash for Containers Scheme, the costs are 

borne by the producer and direct consumer, rather than the whole community; 

(iii) 

Council lends it support to the campaign for the introduction of a Container Deposit 

Scheme. In order to indicate its position, the Chief Executive Officer is instructed to 

write to the following: 

• Hon. Dr Elizabeth Constable MLA, Member for Churchlands; 

• Hon. Giovanni (John) Mario Castrilli MLA, Minister for Local Government; 

• Hon. Colin James Barnett MLA BEc (Hons), MEc, Premier; 

• advising them of Councils's support for this proposal. 

BACKGROUND: 

No further information provided. 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: 

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, 

not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing 

relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such 

matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the 

matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. 






That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Town of Cambridge supports the immediate introduction of a Cash for 

Containers Scheme for Western Australia; 

Council considers that a Cash for Containers Scheme will have the following 

benefits for our Town by: 

• Reducing litter 

• Increasing the recycling rate 

• Providing community benefits, such as a funding source for community 

groups, and, 

• Making the Polluter Pay: with a Cash for Containers Scheme, the costs are 

borne by the producer and direct consumer, rather than the whole community; 

(iii) 

Council lends it support to the campaign for the introduction of a Container Deposit 

Scheme. In order to indicate its position, the Chief Executive Officer is instructed 

to write to the following: 

• Hon. Dr Elizabeth Constable MLA, Member for Churchlands; 

• Hon. Giovanni (John) Mario Castrilli MLA, Minister for Local Government; 

• Hon. Colin James Barnett MLA BEc (Hons), MEc, Premier; 

• advising them of Councils's support for this proposal. 

Lost 2/7 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley and Carr 

Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and Walker 




13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Nil 

14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, Mayor Withers thanked those present for their 

attendance and declared the meeting closed at 8.36 pm.

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?